Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You aren't making sense. I don't think you understand the fallacy of composition.

Naw, I understand it quite well, which is why I can point it out when I see it.

OK, you definitely don't understand the fallacy of composition. Does the machine compose a man? Is a machine a part of a man or does it make up part of a man? Of course not therefore this has absolutely nothing to do with the fallacy of composition.

What the heck are you talking about?? Dude it was an example. You clearly committed a logical fallacy. A zygote is created by a process, a process in itself that has no mind. But the intelligent people that started the process has a mind. This is clearly fallacious and you can pretend as if you dont see it all you want to, but if the shoe fits, wear it (cliche)

If God was atemporal how did he do anything? Time is the measurement of change, without time there is no change.

First off, you are assuming that God was doing something. God could have been perfectly still for all eternity, and it wasn't until he decided to create the universe to which he became temporal. He was atemporal without the universe, and became temporal with the universe.

Look at it this way, at the singularity, all known forces of the universe, everything we know about science breaks down and is just no longer true. We don't understand anything about it and we can't make any conclusions or meaningfully speak about it. There is nothing to be said, we can't do anything but shrug our shoulders. To pretend that an answer can be found anytime soon is simply ignorance.

Yeah, that is because science cant function under conditions at which there was NO SPACE, NO TIME, NO MATTER, AND NO ENERGY. All of these things are what makes nature...nature, and at some point these things didnt exist. Without these things, there is no science, there are no laws, there is no empirical testing or observation. This is why whatever gave the universe its beginning could not be natural or material. Thus, supernatural.

Why do you keep going on about free will as if only beings with sinful nature's can have it. You said that God has free will and that God has a holy nature, why don't we have a holy nature and have free will? Why are we stuck with a sinful nature when you propose that there is an alternative nature that also possesses free will?

I dont have the answer to all of the questions. But this question is similiar to a fish asking "why is the world that i live in made up of water?", I mean, its good for curiosity purposes but it has no effect on doctrine issues or faith issues, so I am really not concerned with it.

You originally stated that if God exists it would be objectively wrong to enter into someone else's house and kill their family for religious reasons. Now your saying it's ok if they're the right religious reasons. So as I was saying, your argument is self defeating, you are doing my job for me.

When God orders a person to be killed, it is an act of judgement. When someone receives the death penalty and gets the electric chair, no one says "that guy was murdered", they say "he was put to death", or "he was killed by electric chair". No one will say it was murder. God gives people the death sentence too, and when he orders someone to be killed, it is an act of judgement. That is completely different from a serial killer just going around butchering people. God is the judge, juror, and executioner. You need recognize the difference between someone getting killed and someone getting murdered.

Why are you obsessed with my reasons and motives? They are of no consequence to our debate, commenting on them is pointless. You have demonstrated your ignorance in the matter and a complete non interest in hearing what I have to say about it.

I am questioning your reasons and motives for the same reasons you question biblical morality. What makes you think that your mindset and how you view things cant be questioned? Isn't that the same thing you are doing with God? You can dish it but you cant take it?? Cmon now.

I figured you ignored that too. As I've already stated, you don't seem too keen on debating anyone but yourself. Your lack of interest in even reading what I write kind of shows your willful ignorance on these subjects.

I have a lot of other stuff goin on here. If i miss one of your posts no need to cry about it.

It's probably because you aren't reading what I write, you just don't care about what anyone says except maybe yourself but it's becoming apparent that you don't even know what you are saying half the time, you even think you're ahead in this debate, it's laughable, you've already conceded multiple points to me anyone reading our debate knows who's ahead and if you continue to flat out ignore what is written, I don't see any point continuing the debate, you're not interested and I don't want to keep talking to someone who's not listening.

Well, lets see, you are judging a particular set of morals based on your own preconceived notions of what you think it means to be morally good, which is subjective on its own merits. Then you act as if you dont understand how someone could be deluded without being lied too, which expresses ignorance, then you commit logical fallacious in efforts to make a point, and then you dont seem to understand the fact that if our universe began to exist, that would mean that it has an external cause, which would be supernatural. But I dont know what im talking about?? Yeah, ok.

Arrogance? I thought Jesus preached being humble? Hypocrite or just bad?

Jesus preached truth too.

More willful ignorance, no wonder your responses don't make sense and you don't understand what I'm saying, you're not reading it. Your actions in this thread are rude and you have no credible grounds to stand on intellectually or personally. Anyone reading now knows how irresponsible, ignorant dishonest you are.

Which is why people send me private messages telling me i forgot to respond to their post and telling me that they would like me to respond to it. Ok.

 

[sojourner]

God is all powerful, why make a man just to die to save everyone when he could just do it by thinking it happening?

Yes, I know I will get a lot of comments saying "Jesus is no man! He is God!" Well, technically isn't he a demigod? Half man half God? And even if you don't consider him to be, it just made people suffer from sadness, especially Mary the mother of Jesus.

1) If Jesus was fully human, he would necessarily have to die, just like every other human being.

2) God didn't "make a man just to die." Jesus is God Incarnate.

3) Jesus is not a "demigod." Jesus is God Incarnate -- fully God, fully human.

4) Who said Jesus died for our sins? Substitutionary atonement has to be one of the biggest fallacies of Western Xy. the Incarnation is what reconciles us to God.

5) Salvation = reconciliation = relationship. "God thinking" is not relationship. It's "God thinking." Where's the relationship there?

 

[jamesmorrow]

this is a classic example of why christian doctrine is illogical and contradictory. selective reasoning. first you argue one thing, then turn right around and argue the exact opposite.

1) If Jesus was fully human, he would necessarily have to die, just like every other human being.
?

would he?? when it comes to aging and mortality you reason that jesus is fully human and is therefore fully bound by the laws of physics like any other human....

yet when it comes to superhuman powers(such as walking on water) that defy the very physics you claim jesus, as a full human being, is FULLY bound by, you completely abandon your reasoning and argue the opposite

3) Jesus is not a "demigod." Jesus is God Incarnate -- fully God, fully human.
?

nonsense. if jesus is fully human, he cant have superhuman powers. anything that is supernatural (not fully bound by the laws of nature) is not natural. jesus is the perfect definition of a demigod.

to describe jesus as fully human is to describe jesus as fully LIMITED. to describe jesus as fully god is to describe jesus as fully UNLIMITED.... you cant define a being with two opposing absolutes.

it sounds mighty cool and hip on paper, and in a sermon, but its complete nonsense. your belief that jesus was simultaneously FULLY limited and unlimited can only be described as illogical. which is fine by me. just dont label it with anything resembling logic and reason.

 

[jamesmorrow]

When God orders a person to be killed, it is an act of judgement. .

any action requires an act of judgement.

When someone receives the death penalty and gets the electric chair, no one says "that guy was murdered", they say "he was put to death", or "he was killed by electric chair". No one will say it was murder. .

true. the execution of a guilty criminal is not considered murder.........the killing of an innocent baby however is considered murder....AGREED?

You need recognize the difference between someone getting killed and someone getting murdered. .

KILLING OF AN INNOCENT BABY.......V.S. .......EXECUTION OF A GUILTY CRIMINAL

THE FIRST IS MURDER, THE SECOND IS NOT....

DO YOU RECOGNIZE THIS DIFFERENCE??

 

[sojourner]

would he??

All human beings die, yes?

when it comes to aging and mortality you reason that jesus is fully human and is therefore fully bound by the laws of physics like any other human....

And the mistake of that reasoning would be ......

yet when it comes to superhuman powers(such as walking on water) that defy the very physics you claim jesus, as a full human being, is FULLY bound by, you completely abandon your reasoning and argue the opposite

Human beings, by definition are mortal. Human beings have also been observed performing miracles. I have been the recipient of of one. So has my father. Very mortal human beings have performed miracles. That being said, I'm under no illusion whatsoever that Jesus actually walked on the water. Neither am I under the illusion that he couldn't have done so.

nonsense. if jesus is fully human, he cant have superhuman powers.

Who said anything about superhuman powers? I never said anything about superhuman powers. But it's interesting that you did...

anything that is supernatural (not fully bound by the laws of nature) is not natural.

I fail to see how Jesus' Divinity precludes him from being fully human.

jesus is the perfect definition of a demigod.

Except Jesus isn't a demigod. Jesus is God.

to describe jesus as fully human is to describe jesus as fully LIMITED.

Yep.

to describe jesus as fully god is to describe jesus as fully UNLIMITED

Unless he's fully human...

you cant define a being with two opposing absolutes.

I'm not attempting to define Jesus. I'm just stating the Mystery.

it sounds mighty cool and hip on paper, and in a sermon, but its complete nonsense.

It may be to you. To millions and millions of Christians it makes perfect sense.

your belief that jesus was simultaneously FULLY limited and unlimited can only be described as illogical.

I'm only describing it as Mystery.

which is fine by me. just dont label it with anything resembling logic and reason.

It's perfectly reasonable. God gave up God's Divinity to become fully human.

I'm sorry it bothers you.

 

[jamesmorrow]

All human beings die, yes?.

do they??? i would say yes, but you tell me...since you believe humans can defy the laws of physics, i wouldnt be surprised if you claim humans can also defy death.....

Human beings have also been observed performing miracles...

confirmation.... you believe that humans can defy the laws/forces of nature

Human beings, by definition are mortal..

really? so you are telling me that god initially created the human beings adam and eve mortal? and that they did not choose their own mortality through the sin of disobedience? ..... i know a few christians who would get into a neverending argument with you on this.

I have been the recipient of of one. So has my father. Very mortal human beings have performed miracles. ..

by any chance, was it one of those miracles that takes faith to actually believe it was a miracle?.... or was it something like restoring a missing limb?.

I'm only describing it as Mystery.
.

mystery implies lack of understanding.

the assertion that something(in this case JESUS) simultaneously exists as two opposing absolutes, is UNDERSTOOD to be false.

you can hide your head in the sand and call it "mystery" all you want. ignoring the truth does not change it.

 

[sojourner]

do they??? i would say yes, but you tell me...since you believe humans can defy the laws of physics, i wouldnt be surprised if you claim humans can also defy death.....

If human beings don't die, they're not mortal and, hence, not human beings.

confirmation.... you believe that humans can defy the laws/forces of nature

I didn't say that. I merely said human beings have been observed performing miracles.

really? so you are telling me that god initially created the human beings adam and eve mortal? and that they did not choose their own mortality through the sin of disobedience? ..... i know a few christians who would get into a neverending argument with you on this.

That's their problem.

by any chance, was it one of those miracles that takes faith to actually believe it was a miracle?.... or was it something like restoring a missing limb?.

Healing 2nd degree burns on the hands.

mystery implies lack of understanding.

Mystery implies lack of explanation.

the assertion that something(in this case JESUS) simultaneously exists as two opposing absolutes, is UNDERSTOOD to be false.

Perhaps the Incarnation involves something that does not represent "two opposing absolutes."

you can hide your head in the sand and call it "mystery" all you want. ignoring the truth does not change it.

You can hide your head in the sand and call it "false" all you want. Ignoring the truth does not change it.

 

[jamesmorrow]

If human beings don't die, they're not mortal and, hence, not human beings..

if human beings walk on water or raise the dead they are not human beings either.

I didn't say that. I merely said human beings have been observed performing miracles...

we are talking biblical miracles such as raising the dead and walking on water which defy the laws of nature. no?

Healing 2nd degree burns on the hands....

please elaborate. are we to assume 2nd degree burns on the hands dont "heal" naturally/through medical treatment? what was the duration of the healing process? INSTANTLY? i would honestly be amazed and call that a miracle
..

Mystery implies lack of explanation.....

we have an explanation.... the explanation that two opposing absolutes can not simultaneously coexist due to their absolute qualities not allowing for coesixtence.... this explanation leads us to the UNDERSTANDING that such a claim is false....the way 2+2=5 is false and NOT a mystery.

Perhaps the Incarnation involves something that does not represent "two opposing absolutes."

yes, and that something is a DEMIGOD. you can choose between that and continuing to ignore a logical impossibility..... good luck

 

[filthy tugboat]

What the heck are you talking about?? Dude it was an example.

An example that was not apt, you gave an analogy that did not apply to the situation demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the fallacy in question. Why would you supply an incorrect example if you understood what the fallacy was? You wouldn't which means you didn't understand what we are talking about and you thought the example you gave was accurate.

You clearly committed a logical fallacy. A zygote is created by a process, a process in itself that has no mind.

A zygote is not just "a part of a process", a zygote is a living cell. You want to apply the logical fallacy of composition to a process which is simply not correct. The fallacy of composition is only relative to existent things, not the processes that over time cause these things. Here, let me demonstrate:

If I am to say that a zygote which exists as a part of the process of growth for all animals is non-intelligent yet the zygote grows into something that is intelligent, the zygote's intelligence or lack there-of is not a part of the process of growth, it is only the result of the process of growth. Therefore the fallacy of composition does not apply to the process when discussing the intelligence of the zygote and what it grows into. The fallacy of composition would have to apply to the organism itself, the zygote is non-intelligent and it encompasses the entirety of the organism, the human is intelligent and that encompasses the entirety of the organism.

Now do you understand the fallacy of composition? The way you want to apply it, it would be something like this, "Humans arms are not intelligent therefore humans are not intelligent." That is a fallacy of composition. As a zygote is not a part of a human, it is not fallacious to call it non-intelligent. Something I think you already know or do you think that zygote's are intelligent? For the fallacy to apply here, my argument would have to be that zygote's are non-intelligent because the gametes that make them are non-intelligent which is not my argument.

First off, you are assuming that God was doing something. God could have been perfectly still for all eternity, and it wasn't until he decided to create the universe to which he became temporal.

How could he decide to do something if he were atemporal? Making decisions and the thought processes behind them take time, without time decisions cannot be made and thoughts cannot be had. How could creation occur without time?

He was atemporal without the universe, and became temporal with the universe.

Without time, how could something change states? Atemporal to temporal for example.

Yeah, that is because science cant function under conditions at which there was NO SPACE, NO TIME, NO MATTER, AND NO ENERGY.

I already demonstrated that the singularity is proposed to consist of all matter, energy and space in this universe otherwise it couldn't be dense, it's only considered infinitely dense because it consists of matter, energy and space, without those things it couldn't be dense, it would be empty.

All of these things are what makes nature...nature, and at some point these things didnt exist.

Could you support this claim with some evidence?

Without these things, there is no science, there are no laws, there is no empirical testing or observation. This is why whatever gave the universe its beginning could not be natural or material. Thus, supernatural.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

I dont have the answer to all of the questions. But this question is similiar to a fish asking "why is the world that i live in made up of water?", I mean, its good for curiosity purposes but it has no effect on doctrine issues or faith issues, so I am really not concerned with it.

I think it matters a lot because God's actions caused sin and death directly, he made it so that we could never succeed. This is the mark of tyranny and evil. It goes against everything in the Bible that God supposedly stands for. If God created humans with sinful natures(something you think he did) then God is responsible for all evil, he directly caused it and we have no choice but to sin due to the nature he gave us. Why didn't give us a holy nature? You've told me there was another option and this option does not consist of sin and death.

When God orders a person to be killed, it is an act of judgement. God is the judge, juror, and executioner. You need recognize the difference between someone getting killed and someone getting murdered.

You still haven't really explained yourself, the person you proposed was killing my family for his own personal religious reasons could well have been Moses himself. You went on to say that that person would only be objectively wrong if God exists. Was Moses objectively wrong in his actions as proposed by Exodus and Deuteronomy? When he killed men women and children was he wrong? According to your proposition anybody that did that would be objectively wrong assuming God exists. Btw, you made no mention of murder, you called the very act of walking into someones house and killing there family objectively wrong.

I am questioning your reasons and motives for the same reasons you question biblical morality. What makes you think that your mindset and how you view things cant be questioned? Isn't that the same thing you are doing with God?

I never said that, I'm saying that your ridiculous and ignorant portrayal of my motives and reasons has no consequence on the debate, what is the purpose of discussing it if it does not matter? On top of that, if you so desperately focus on my motives and reasons and just assume you know them better than I do, what is the point? Even if an honest discussion held merit for this debate, you are not interested in an honest discussion on this matter, you are happy to believe you know it all and it doesn't matter what I say.

I have a lot of other stuff goin on here. If i miss one of your posts no need to cry about it.

You accuse me of acting a certain way when responding to my post or at least reading it would demonstrate the falsehood of your accusations. I don't care whether you "have a lot of stuff going on" feel free to take your time in the debate, you are under no obligation to post everyday. I would prefer you to not be ignorant and make false accusations then to do so because you feel strapped for time. When you ignore what I write you are bound to be wrong in your responses, that's what not reading the material you are responding to does, it creates confusion and... well... ignorance.

Well, lets see, you are judging a particular set of morals based on your own preconceived notions of what you think it means to be morally good, which is subjective on its own merits.

Still ignoring what I've written then?

Then you act as if you dont understand how someone could be deluded without being lied too, which expresses ignorance,

Ignorant again, I never said that, you are the only one who made such a suggestion. Feel free to quote where I said or even implied that.

then you commit logical fallacious in efforts to make a point,

Wow, more ignorance and this one falls on your lack of understanding of the terms you use. False accusations and ignorance on your part apparently means you are winning the debate. Jog on.

and then you dont seem to understand the fact that if our universe began to exist, that would mean that it has an external cause, which would be supernatural.

You seem to misunderstand what it means for the universe to 'begin to exist'. You seem to think that matter, energy and space did not exist at some point. More ignorance.

But I dont know what im talking about?? Yeah, ok.

It's very clear that you don't, you just outlined a few small reasons as to why you don't know what you're talking about.

Jesus preached truth too.

Something you don't care about either. You don't care whether your contentions about my reasons and motives are wrong, it doesn't matter to you, you're happy to portray the situation as though you know what you're talking about and that you know what is right. It is quite clear that you care not for truth.

Which is why people send me private messages telling me i forgot to respond to their post and telling me that they would like me to respond to it. Ok.

What's the problem with that? You were responding to other posts, I let it go for 5 pages until it was clear you didn't plan on responding to my post. So I made mention that it was there and then low and behold, you responded. I never forced you, I thought maybe you just missed it, I still think that's all you did, honestly, it's okay that you missed it, I've done it plenty of times. Feel free to message me if I miss one of yours.

 

[Katzpur]

Thought Jesus had a physical body when he was ressurrected, no one else will.

Why don't you believe the rest of us will?

 

[Thief]

Jesus gave up his physical body on the cross when he had committed no wrong doing or sin, that is the sacrifice.

There's a line drawn that you may not be aware of.

His death was prompted by man made law.

The problem began with His parables....the pharisees took them as insult.
Some of His sayings were indeed aimed at them.
The pharisees wanted Him dead.

Under Roman occupation capital punishment belongs to the government.
Hence the continual accusation before Herod and Pilate.
But Rome is not in the business of regulating doctrine.
Under Roman law....teaching of God is not a crime.

However, professing to be a king is a crime. It's called insurrection.

Go back a find the occasions where a crown of authority might be handed to Him.
You will see He had no such interest.
He never wanted a crown on His head.
Of Himself He did say...'brother and fellow servant'.

Under prosecution the persistent accusation held.
Pilate then scribed the crime and had it nailed to His cross.
"Jesus...king of the Jews."

The pharisees objected.
If Rome is willing to kill any leader of Judea...how then would the prophecy ever be fulfilled?
How would Judea ever become God's kingdom on earth?

Pilate replied...'I have wrote, what I have wrote."

Jesus was innocent....the accusation was false.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

An example that was not apt, you gave an analogy that did not apply to the situation demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the fallacy in question. Why would you supply an incorrect example if you understood what the fallacy was? You wouldn't which means you didn't understand what we are talking about and you thought the example you gave was accurate.

Whatever dude. I dont expect you to say "oh, my bad, i did commit a logical fallacy, thanks for pointing it out for me." You will deny it, and try to blossom your way out of it as you are attempting to do below.

A zygote is not just "a part of a process", a zygote is a living cell.

A zygote is part of the REPRODUCTION PROCESS. it is a living cell, but it is part of the process nontheless. A zygote is what is created when sperm fertilizes an ovum. That is one part of a long process. You were implying that a zygote is an example of intelligence coming from nonintelligence, which is foolish. Before a zygote was created, intelligent beings had to get together and make something happen. There would be no zygote without this happening. So if intelligent beings are the source of the zygote, how can the zygote be the ultimate source of the intelligence that results as a baby grows older and gain intellect? Makes no sense.

Here, let me demonstrate:
If I am to say that a zygote which exists as a part of the process of growth for all animals is non-intelligent yet the zygote grows into something that is intelligent, the zygote's intelligence or lack there-of is not a part of the process of growth, it is only the result of the process of growth.

This is silly. The zygote is part of a process. It is something that is created. You are making it seem as if the zygote is the first part of the process. If a zygote existed independently of intelligent beings, and it was able to produce intelligent beings, then you would have a point. But due to the fact that is is completely DEPENDENT upon living, breathing, intellectual beings making a decision, I cant begin to understand how you would just pick the one part in the whole process at which the zygote gets created, and try to use this as an example of how intelligence can come from nonintelligence. What are you doing here? I said that intelligence cant come from non-intelligence. Zygotes are not where we came from, our parents are where we came from, and our parents were at least intelligent enough to make us. So this zygote business was just a bad attempt on your part to not concede the point, that intelligence cant come from nonintelligence.

Therefore the fallacy of composition does not apply to the process when discussing the intelligence of the zygote and what it grows into. The fallacy of composition would have to apply to the organism itself, the zygote is non-intelligent and it encompasses the entirety of the organism, the human is intelligent and that encompasses the entirety of the organism.

Dude, we come from intelligent parents. Both the zygote and the living and breathing organsm that it turns in to come from intelligent parents. I cant believe we are even having this discussion.

Now do you understand the fallacy of composition? The way you want to apply it, it would be something like this, "Humans arms are not intelligent therefore humans are not intelligent."

That is a fallacy of composition. As a zygote is not a part of a human, it is not fallacious to call it non-intelligent. Something I think you already know or do you think that zygote's are intelligent? For the fallacy to apply here, my argument would have to be that zygote's are non-intelligent because the gametes that make them are non-intelligent which is not my argument.

Intelligent beings create both the zygote and the intelligent being that they came from, so it is foolish to pick one part of the process and use this as a way to conclude that intelligence can come from nonintelligent.

How could he decide to do something if he were atemporal? Making decisions and the thought processes behind them take time, without time decisions cannot be made and thoughts cannot be had. How could creation occur without time?

See, you are assuming that God "began" to decide. His decision to create the universe was his eternal will. It was not something that began, it was something that always was. Time began to exist at the moment of the Big Bang. There was no time before this, it was a created along with matter and space. This makes good sense, because if you have matter with no space, where would you put it? And you have time with no matter or space, there aren't any points at which any intervals could be distinguished. And if there is space with no matter, then science would not exist. So space, time, matter, and energy all had to begin to exist at the same exact "time".

Without time, how could something change states? Atemporal to temporal for example.

God didnt "change" until time/the universe began. He was timeless/atemporal without the universe, when he created the universe, he came temporal. So this change occurred at the first moment of time, which was T0 according to BBC.

I already demonstrated that the singularity is proposed to consist of all matter, energy and space in this universe otherwise it couldn't be dense, it's only considered infinitely dense because it consists of matter, energy and space, without those things it couldn't be dense, it would be empty.

The singularity is where the universe started from, not what the universe is. The theory suggest that the singularity was hot and dense, but no one is saying that the singularity was just sitting there for all eternity and waiting to expand. This cant be the case, because if it was the case then we can ask why, if the singularity existed for eternity, did it "begin" to expand only 13.7 years ago. There were no laws of physics at that point, so there was nothing to determine what it would or wouldnt due, so it couldn't have just "all of a sudden" began to expand. Second, the second law of thermodynamics shows us that the low entropy conditions must have been placed in the singularity as an initial condition, rather than slowly applying itself billions of years afterwards.

Could you support this claim with some evidence?

As I said, space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) had to have originated at the same time. You can't have matter and energy without space, and there was no space in the singularity. STEM was created all at one time, not over periods of time where you could have one without the other.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

STEM began to exist. Whatever gave these things their existence had to transcend them. The origin of STEM had to have come from a immaterial and atemporal source, nature cannot be the origin of its own domain.

I think it matters a lot because God's actions caused sin and death directly, he made it so that we could never succeed.

Um, how can you say "we" could never succeed? Who is "we"? As far as Christianity is concerned, the children of God will succeed. It is those that are not part of the Kingdom that wont succeed. So this "we" business doesn't apply to me or anyone else that is in Christiandom. So if "we" applies to everyone that isn't a child of God, then yes, in the long run, you wont succeed..

This is the mark of tyranny and evil. It goes against everything in the Bible that God supposedly stands for.

Once again, your are using your personal and subjective moral code to call God's actions a mark of tyranny and evil. Since Christianity is still the #1 religion in the world, there are over a billion people that disagree with you.

If God created humans with sinful natures(something you think he did) then God is responsible for all evil, he directly caused it and we have no choice but to sin due to the nature he gave us. Why didn't give us a holy nature? You've told me there was another option and this option does not consist of sin and death.

As I said, I dont have the answer to all questions, but I will take a stab at it. God wants us to love him, as any parent would want their children to love them. God doesn't want to force us to love him, so he gave us a free will to freely choose to love him. To love him is to follow his commandments, and his commandments will always be for the best. Now of course, we will not always do the right thing, but we are supposed to strive to do better. With this free will, it opens the door for us to do wrong, thus, sinful nature. All of the death, all of the pain and agony that we suffer, God can reward us for that. Those things can be dealt with. That is why God is why things like murder and such are really no big deal for God, because he has the power to restore life as he please. So death isn't the problem, the problem is when you say you dont want or need him. As any parent would feel hurt if their children say "I hate you"...."I dont love you"...."I dont need you"..."I dont want you"....as a parent to hear these things, ouch. So when you say these things, you would normally go down the wrong path. So now you are separated from God, which is ultimately, death. Now in heaven, since we have proven our love to God by admitting that we are sinners, and obeying his commandments to live a righteous life (which is hard enough to do), we will be rewarded in heaven with holiness and eternal life.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You still haven't really explained yourself, the person you proposed was killing my family for his own personal religious reasons could well have been Moses himself.

That isnt the point. The point is, if the man felt it was the right thing for him to do, and he believes it wholeheartedly, then how will you begin to explain to him how wrong he is?? Without God, there is no objective moral values, values that transcend human thinking. So at best, you are left with subjectivity. Lets say some aliens came down, abducted you, took you to their universe, and molested you. After you were violated , you tried to talk sense in to them about how wrong it is to do this, and they reply "Well, that is your moral code. On our moral code, the code that we live by in OUR universe, it is perfectly moral to violate subjects from other universes." What could you say then?? This is the point, without God, there is no moral accountability. Mother Teresa is no better than Adolf Hitler without God. If I kill 200 women and die, my actions would not get me anywhere different than if I gave 200 people food, water, and shelter. There is no difference.

You went on to say that that person would only be objectively wrong if God exists. Was Moses objectively wrong in his actions as proposed by Exodus and Deuteronomy? When he killed men women and children was he wrong? According to your proposition anybody that did that would be objectively wrong assuming God exists.

Show me the scripture where Moses killed men, women, and children? But it doesn't matter, because as I said, when God orders the killing of someone, it is an act of judgement. This is different than a peeping tom climbing through a window to rape and murder a woman. One is a holy act of judgement and the other is a deliberate killing of a person without the act of self defense or any other circumstances allowed by the law.

Btw, you made no mention of murder, you called the very act of walking into someones house and killing there family objectively wrong.
I never said that, I'm saying that your ridiculous and ignorant portrayal of my motives and reasons has no consequence on the debate, what is the purpose of discussing it if it does not matter?

I asked you a very simple question, if a person killed your whole family, would that person be objectively wrong, or subjectively wrong on your view?? If you answer objectively, then you believe in God, because there is no way that you can have this view and it not transcend human thinking. If you answer subjectively, then you admit at the very least that the actions of the man was right at least to a small extent, if he felt it was right.

On top of that, if you so desperately focus on my motives and reasons and just assume you know them better than I do, what is the point? Even if an honest discussion held merit for this debate, you are not interested in an honest discussion on this matter, you are happy to believe you know it all and it doesn't matter what I say.

If you dont want your motives or reasons to be questioned, then dont question Gods. You've spent weeks on here arguing with me about biblical morality. But once I question you on the very same thing, all of a sudden there is this defensive stance you take? When you stop questioning God, I will stop questioning you.

You accuse me of acting a certain way when responding to my post or at least reading it would demonstrate the falsehood of your accusations. I don't care whether you "have a lot of stuff going on" feel free to take your time in the debate, you are under no obligation to post everyday. I would prefer you to not be ignorant and make false accusations then to do so because you feel strapped for time. When you ignore what I write you are bound to be wrong in your responses, that's what not reading the material you are responding to does, it creates confusion and... well... ignorance.

More crying?

Still ignoring what I've written then?

What the heck are you talking about?? You have spent WEEKS going on MONTHS of debating me on biblical morality. You cannot past acts of judgement without having a preconceived notion of what you THINK it means to be morally good. This is how is how the whole conversation started. So why are you acting brand new all of a sudden??

Ignorant again, I never said that, you are the only one who made such a suggestion. Feel free to quote where I said or even implied that.

What??? You used a biblical scripture at which it stated that God sent a delusion to people, and you took that to mean that God is a LIAR. That is how that particular conversation came about. And I argued that sending someone a delusion doesn't necessarily have to mean that you have to LIE TO THEM, and we spent weeks arguing about what it means to be deluded, a conversation that we are still having TODAY. Do you have amnesia?

You seem to misunderstand what it means for the universe to 'begin to exist'. You seem to think that matter, energy and space did not exist at some point. More ignorance.

Um, the standard model of the big bang does state that all STEM began to exist. This is ignorance of YOUR part, because this model has been the forefront of cosmological models for almost 100 years. The universe BEGAN to exist. If the singularity existed for any time before of this expansion, it would have had to exist in space. But this cant be true, because space is EXACTLY WHAT EXPANDED. So you are dead WRONG when you imply that STEM has always existed.

It's very clear that you don't, you just outlined a few small reasons as to why you don't know what you're talking about.

Just stop, because I can easily give you quotes from all kinds of prominent physicists and cosmologists that state that the universe/STEM began to exist at some point in the finite past. Just stop the madness

What's the problem with that? You were responding to other posts, I let it go for 5 pages until it was clear you didn't plan on responding to my post. So I made mention that it was there and then low and behold, you responded. I never forced you, I thought maybe you just missed it, I still think that's all you did, honestly, it's okay that you missed it, I've done it plenty of times. Feel free to message me if I miss one of yours.

I was making the point that people message me so I can respond to their post. They want to see what I have to say in response to what they said. I didn't miss your post by accident (no offense). I missed it because a lot of these issues that we have been discussing should be on separate threads, and it is becoming mentally draining to have to do all of this back and forth on one thread. We have discussed at least four or five different issues that should be their own threads.
　

 

[filthy tugboat]

A zygote is part of the REPRODUCTION PROCESS. it is a living cell, but it is part of the process nontheless. A zygote is what is created when sperm fertilizes an ovum. That is one part of a long process. You were implying that a zygote is an example of intelligence coming from nonintelligence, which is foolish. Before a zygote was created, intelligent beings had to get together and make something happen. There would be no zygote without this happening. So if intelligent beings are the source of the zygote, how can the zygote be the ultimate source of the intelligence that results as a baby grows older and gain intellect? Makes no sense.

Please explain the relevance of humans in this process. I don't understand why you think humans change anything. At some point, the process is reduced to non-intelligence and then, intelligence comes from that non-intelligence. This is what I am trying to get at but you keep going back to intelligence producing the non-intelligence that produces the intelligence for some reason? Please explain how that effects the fact that intelligence comes from non-intelligence.

God didnt "change" until time/the universe began. He was timeless/atemporal without the universe, when he created the universe, he came temporal. So this change occurred at the first moment of time, which was T0 according to BBC.

"When" a nonsensical word to use without the existence of time. There was no "when God created the universe" you have admitted as much by agreeing that without the universe there was no time therefore the act of creation cannot have been temporal which means there was no such thing as "when God created the universe". The act never occurred, it wasn't something that can be referred to temporally. Since the action of creating the universe cannot have occurred temporally as time didn't exist then the act could never have happened. Creation is impossible without time existing prior to what was created. God had to exist in some kind of temporal capacity or else he could never do anything.

The singularity is where the universe started from, not what the universe is. The theory suggest that the singularity was hot and dense, but no one is saying that the singularity was just sitting there for all eternity and waiting to expand.

They don't have to, nobody knows anything about the singularity other than that it contained the entirety of the universe, space, matter and all, and that it expanded. That's it. You trying to say it magically appeared out of nothing is no closer to the truth then me saying it always was.

This cant be the case, because if it was the case then we can ask why, if the singularity existed for eternity, did it "begin" to expand only 13.7 years ago. There were no laws of physics at that point, so there was nothing to determine what it would or wouldnt due, so it couldn't have just "all of a sudden" began to expand.

Another question with no answer, "Why did the singularity expand?" Nobody knows, we have no information, no evidence to support anything. Could be God, could be a part of a process we don't understand, could be that the universe as we understand it in that singularity is not the entirety of existence and that something else, maybe even something material, caused it to expand.

Second, the second law of thermodynamics shows us that the low entropy conditions must have been placed in the singularity as an initial condition, rather than slowly applying itself billions of years afterwards.

The singularity is possibly an example of entropy at it's highest, entropy essentially causes equilibrium, in low entropy conditions the environment is furthest from equilibrium, in high entropy conditions it is the closest to equilibrium. Perhaps the singularity was equilibrium? But again, something that doesn't have a scientific answer yet and may never have one.

As I said, space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) had to have originated at the same time. You can't have matter and energy without space, and there was no space in the singularity. STEM was created all at one time, not over periods of time where you could have one without the other.

What if they never originated? Perhaps they have always been. As i've been trying to say, these are questions with no answer, your guess is as good as mine as long as you acknowledge that all we can do at the moment is guess.

Um, how can you say "we" could never succeed? Who is "we"? As far as Christianity is concerned, the children of God will succeed. It is those that are not part of the Kingdom that wont succeed. So this "we" business doesn't apply to me or anyone else that is in Christiandom. So if "we" applies to everyone that isn't a child of God, then yes, in the long run, you wont succeed..

Sorry, succeed at being sinless. I should have spelled that out a bit more clearly.

Once again, your are using your personal and subjective moral code to call God's actions a mark of tyranny and evil. Since Christianity is still the #1 religion in the world, there are over a billion people that disagree with you.

I could care less how many people disagree with me and I am surprised that you, the one rattling about a logical fallacy I supposedly committed would use your own appeal to popularity now. Hypocritical?

As I said, I dont have the answer to all questions, but I will take a stab at it. God wants us to love him, as any parent would want their children to love them. God doesn't want to force us to love him, so he gave us a free will to freely choose to love him. To love him is to follow his commandments, and his commandments will always be for the best. Now of course, we will not always do the right thing, but we are supposed to strive to do better. With this free will, it opens the door for us to do wrong, thus, sinful nature. All of the death, all of the pain and agony that we suffer, God can reward us for that. Those things can be dealt with. That is why God is why things like murder and such are really no big deal for God, because he has the power to restore life as he please. So death isn't the problem, the problem is when you say you dont want or need him. As any parent would feel hurt if their children say "I hate you"...."I dont love you"...."I dont need you"..."I dont want you"....as a parent to hear these things, ouch. So when you say these things, you would normally go down the wrong path. So now you are separated from God, which is ultimately, death. Now in heaven, since we have proven our love to God by admitting that we are sinners, and obeying his commandments to live a righteous life (which is hard enough to do), we will be rewarded in heaven with holiness and eternal life.

That's all well and good but why don't we have a holy nature when all these things, "free will" "free will to love" and anything else good you suggest in this quote are possible? It seems silly for God to create us with a sinful nature when a holy nature accomplishes the same good goals while carrying none of the negative baggage?

That isnt the point. The point is, if the man felt it was the right thing for him to do, and he believes it wholeheartedly, then how will you begin to explain to him how wrong he is??

Killing him myself? Why would explain what he did was wrong? I wouldn't bother, the man's a psychopath, I'll let some psychiatrist deal with him if he gets that far. Or would you prefer me to tell you why such an action would be wrong?

Without God, there is no objective moral values, values that transcend human thinking. So at best, you are left with subjectivity. Lets say some aliens came down, abducted you, took you to their universe, and molested you. After you were violated , you tried to talk sense in to them about how wrong it is to do this, and they reply "Well, that is your moral code. On our moral code, the code that we live by in OUR universe, it is perfectly moral to violate subjects from other universes." What could you say then??

I would get mad at them and tell them that i didn't want this to happen, they would tell me to shut it and they would do what they want. This happens in reality. I don't know what universe you think we're in but this is the way reality works, people believe different things and hold different moral values and act accordingly. There are many people who are killed in a way I consider unrighteous but the murderers don't care, they don't have a problem with it, they don't care about the protests of the man who's arm they are about to chop off. I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

What would you say to the aliens? "This is immoral, doing this is objectively wrong, God will punish you for your actions." And when they reply, "What God, your fanciful, nonsensical beliefs have no bearing on our actions." Then what would you say? Could you stop them at all? Probably not. Then what relevance does your question have?

 

[filthy tugboat]

This is the point, without God, there is no moral accountability. Mother Teresa is no better than Adolf Hitler without God. If I kill 200 women and die, my actions would not get me anywhere different than if I gave 200 people food, water, and shelter. There is no difference.

Your point? If God existed and his morals as you believe in are true and objective but there was no afterlife, what would be gained by following God's morals? You've moved from the realm of objective morality into the notion that my belief proposes that living this way will give you a good afterlife and that way will give you a bad afterlife. This method of thinking just makes it all selfish which is, as you know, selfish.

Show me the scripture where Moses killed men, women, and children?

Deuteronomy 2 : 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them—men, women and children. We left no survivors.

But it doesn't matter, because as I said, when God orders the killing of someone, it is an act of judgement.

So basically the difference is not when someone claims God ordered them to kills someone but when God actually does it. So an act can be wrong made by one person but the same act be right made by another? Nothing other than, "God commanded it" changes. Objective morality my ****.

This is different than a peeping tom climbing through a window to rape and murder a woman. One is a holy act of judgement and the other is a deliberate killing of a person without the act of self defense or any other circumstances allowed by the law.

Moses and the Israelites going into peoples houses and killing everyone alive, men, women and children, despite their non-aggression is not an act of self defense and I don't see how it's an act of law, certainly not a law me, or you for that matter, support. No this can only be classified as murder, the army that the government of that nation sent to prevent Moses and the Israelites from entering their land was destroyed, why did the Israelites proceed to kill everyone in the nation?

I asked you a very simple question, if a person killed your whole family, would that person be objectively wrong, or subjectively wrong on your view?? If you answer objectively, then you believe in God, because there is no way that you can have this view and it not transcend human thinking. If you answer subjectively, then you admit at the very least that the actions of the man was right at least to a small extent, if he felt it was right.

Objectively wrong according to Australian law, subjectively wrong according to me and many others I know that agree with me, I would even go so far as to you would personally find this act to be wrong. No?

If you dont want your motives or reasons to be questioned, then dont question Gods. You've spent weeks on here arguing with me about biblical morality. But once I question you on the very same thing, all of a sudden there is this defensive stance you take? When you stop questioning God, I will stop questioning you.

Do I have to make it any clearer, it's not the act of questioning it that i find to be off topic or pointless, it's your unwillingness to actually listen to what i have to say. You are arguing this point, you are questioning. You are telling me what I am thinking and why I am doing things and you are demanding that I agree with you. There is no questioning on this topic for you, you know you're right and nobody is going to persuade you. That's why you should drop it because your not interested in hearing anything but your own voice on the matter.

What the heck are you talking about?? You have spent WEEKS going on MONTHS of debating me on biblical morality. You cannot past acts of judgement without having a preconceived notion of what you THINK it means to be morally good. This is how is how the whole conversation started. So why are you acting brand new all of a sudden??

As I've tried to explain for the past couple of pages, I am basing my argument on the Biblical definition of justice and righteousness. But as you are still ignoring the 15 times I've told you and even the Biblical references I posted, I can see why you wouldn't understand.

What??? You used a biblical scripture at which it stated that God sent a delusion to people, and you took that to mean that God is a LIAR. That is how that particular conversation came about. And I argued that sending someone a delusion doesn't necessarily have to mean that you have to LIE TO THEM, and we spent weeks arguing about what it means to be deluded, a conversation that we are still having TODAY. Do you have amnesia?

You are ignoring the crucial part of my argument, it's not just that God sent them a delusion, it's that God sent them a delusion in order to keep them believing something God knew to be untrue. It's the act of deception that makes God a liar, not the act of deluding people. I never suggest that the very presence of delusion means that someone is being lied to, you are the only one that tried to say I was saying that.

Um, the standard model of the big bang does state that all STEM began to exist.

Feel free to provide evidence, quotes, something, I already have, you responded to it so i have to believe that you actually remember that quote? Do you? I'm honestly unsure, you've missed so much that I've written I can't be sure that you read anything you respond to anymore.

This is ignorance of YOUR part, because this model has been the forefront of cosmological models for almost 100 years. The universe BEGAN to exist. If the singularity existed for any time before of this expansion, it would have had to exist in space. But this cant be true, because space is EXACTLY WHAT EXPANDED. So you are dead WRONG when you imply that STEM has always existed.

You're yet to provide anything.. The very act of "space expanding" actually means that space existed prior to it's expansion. How can space expand if it didn't exist? I'm confused as to what you point you think you've made.

Just stop, because I can easily give you quotes from all kinds of prominent physicists and cosmologists that state that the universe/STEM began to exist at some point in the finite past. Just stop the madness

Please do. The very definition of the singularity, "a point in space of infinity density" necessitates both space and matter. Something cannot be dense if it is not composed of anything. The singularity cannot be dense if it doesn't exist in space, it can't exist without space. I want you to present some evidence, I really do because what you're saying doesn't make sense.

I was making the point that people message me so I can respond to their post. They want to see what I have to say in response to what they said. I didn't miss your post by accident (no offense). I missed it because a lot of these issues that we have been discussing should be on separate threads, and it is becoming mentally draining to have to do all of this back and forth on one thread. We have discussed at least four or five different issues that should be their own threads.

Indeed, you have proposed to make at least two of those threads and I am still looking forward to participating in them when they are created. It would perhaps be preferable to respond to the points in that post that would not be apart of a new thread though...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

There's a line drawn that you may not be aware of.
His death was prompted by man made law.
The problem began with His parables....the pharisees took them as insult.
Some of His sayings were indeed aimed at them.
The pharisees wanted Him dead.
Under Roman occupation capital punishment belongs to the government.
Hence the continual accusation before Herod and Pilate.
But Rome is not in the business of regulating doctrine.
Under Roman law....teaching of God is not a crime.

However, professing to be a king is a crime. It's called insurrection.

Go back a find the occasions where a crown of authority might be handed to Him.
You will see He had no such interest.
He never wanted a crown on His head.
Of Himself He did say...'brother and fellow servant'.
Under prosecution the persistent accusation held.
Pilate then scribed the crime and had it nailed to His cross.
"Jesus...king of the Jews."
The pharisees objected.
If Rome is willing to kill any leader of Judea...how then would the prophecy ever be fulfilled?
How would Judea ever become God's kingdom on earth?
Pilate replied...'I have wrote, what I have wrote."
Jesus was innocent....the accusation was false.

Yes, the Pharisees did take Jesus parables [illustrations] as insulting including the parable directed at those covetous [rich man] Pharisees for deriding Jesus at Luke 16 v 14.

And yes [John 6 v 15] the crowds wanted to make Jesus king on earth.
But did Jesus try to cause a revolt against the established authorities,
or was Jesus always politically neutral with his lack of involvement with them.
Claiming to be a 'king' in their eyes would have been breaking the law of Injured Majesty.

 

[Thief]

Yes, the Pharisees did take Jesus parables [illustrations] as insulting including the parable directed at those covetous [rich man] Pharisees for deriding Jesus at Luke 16 v 14.

And yes [John 6 v 15] the crowds wanted to make Jesus king on earth.
But did Jesus try to cause a revolt against the established authorities,
or was Jesus always politically neutral with his lack of involvement with them.
Claiming to be a 'king' in their eyes would have been breaking the law of Injured Majesty.

And with each occasion such things were offered....a crown on His head...
He denied the opportunity....and walked away.

Of Himself He did say...'brother and fellow servant'...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Please explain the relevance of humans in this process. I don't understand why you think humans change anything. At some point, the process is reduced to non-intelligence and then, intelligence comes from that non-intelligence. This is what I am trying to get at but you keep going back to intelligence producing the non-intelligence that produces the intelligence for some reason? Please explain how that effects the fact that intelligence comes from non-intelligence.

Without humans, the very thing that you claim came from non-intelligence (the zygote) would not exist. You said that the "process is reduced to non-intelligence", but this completely ignores the fact that the process STARTED from intelligence.

"When" a nonsensical word to use without the existence of time. There was no "when God created the universe"

If there was no "when" God created the universe then how could there have been a "when" there was a singularity state from which the universe expanded from? There was no time before the expansion, so based on your logic the singularity couldn't have existed. But to get to the point, I can use "when God created the universe", because it was an act in time. That is why I acknowledged the fact that God went from atemporal to temporal at the moment of creation, "when" he began to create was when time began.

you have admitted as much by agreeing that without the universe there was no time therefore the act of creation cannot have been temporal which means there was no such thing as "when God created the universe".

The act of creation began the first temporal effect. So it is perfectly reasonable to say "when" God created the universe. I dont necessarily think that the word "when" can only be used in a temporal sense. I think the word can be used to describe a state of existence, not necessarily temporal existence.

The act never occurred, it wasn't something that can be referred to temporally. Since the action of creating the universe cannot have occurred temporally as time didn't exist then the act could never have happened. Creation is impossible without time existing prior to what was created. God had to exist in some kind of temporal capacity or else he could never do anything.

Lets say a man was sitting in a chair PERFECTLY still for eternity (eternally meaning atemporal). The man never moved. But then he made the action of standing up. It wasn't until he began to move that time began. Before he began to move, there was no time, there was just eternity. There were no moments leading up to his standing up, but there were moments after he began to stand up. He was atemporal before he stood up, and became temporal after he began to stand up. The same thing with God.

They don't have to, nobody knows anything about the singularity other than that it contained the entirety of the universe, space, matter and all, and that it expanded. That's it. You trying to say it magically appeared out of nothing is no closer to the truth then me saying it always was.

Not at all, I am saying we have evidence based on almost a hundred years of science that the universe began to exist. If the Standard Model of the big bang is correct, then the universe began from a singularity point. Nothing natural existed before this, because nature is exactly the thing that began to exist. So, if we rule out naturalistic means, the only logical explanation is that our universe came from a supernatural reality. It is the process of elimination based on only two possible alternatives. If we rule out one option, the other one wins by default. Nature cannot be used as a way to explain the origins of its own domain. Nothing can. I am not saying that the universe itself came from nothing, but what I am saying is that a Creator created the universe out of nothing. Either the universe was created by a transcendent First Cause, or it popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. It is clear with option is more plausible and possible.

Another question with no answer, "Why did the singularity expand?" Nobody knows, we have no information, no evidence to support anything. Could be God, could be a part of a process we don't understand, could be that the universe as we understand it in that singularity is not the entirety of existence and that something else, maybe even something material, caused it to expand.

First of all, on the Standard model, there was nothing material before the big bang. Second, so far, every other model fails when it comes to negating a finite universe. Third, we not only have evidence in science that the universe began to exist, but we have evidence from sound philosophical arguments as well. The evidence is clear, the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago, and this cries out for a transcendent supernatural cause.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The singularity is possibly an example of entropy at it's highest, entropy essentially causes equilibrium, in low entropy conditions the environment is furthest from equilibrium, in high entropy conditions it is the closest to equilibrium. Perhaps the singularity was equilibrium? But again, something that doesn't have a scientific answer yet and may never have one.

If the singularity was an example of entropy at its highest, then that makes it even more improbable that the entropy level could ever had such low entropy conditions. If you had a million small pieces of paper in a giant hat, each piece was number from 1 to a 1,000000, and you scrambled all the numbers up and tossed the hat in the air, what is the probability of each number landing in numerical order from 1 to 1,000000? Each number has the same probability of landing, but it is even more improbable that you will get the numbers in numerical order. The chances of us reaching a state of low entropy from high entropy is more improbable than this, because you not only have to deal with the improbability of the universe permitting human life, but you have to deal with the improbability of human life originating even if these improbable conditions were met. That is why on the theistic view, the low entropy conditions had to be "placed" in the singularity by an Intelligent Designer.

What if they never originated? Perhaps they have always been. As i've been trying to say, these are questions with no answer, your guess is as good as mine as long as you acknowledge that all we can do at the moment is guess.

I think the evidence for intelligent design is very "evident" (pun intended )

I could care less how many people disagree with me and I am surprised that you, the one rattling about a logical fallacy I supposedly committed would use your own appeal to popularity now. Hypocritical?

No its not appeal to popularity because I wasn't implying that just because they disgreed with you it made what they believe in right. I was trying to emphasize that your moral code is different than at least a billion people, basically saying "well, at least a billion people feel as if the bible is a morally perfect book, so who is right, you or them". Nice try though.

That's all well and good but why don't we have a holy nature when all these things, "free will" "free will to love" and anything else good you suggest in this quote are possible? It seems silly for God to create us with a sinful nature when a holy nature accomplishes the same good goals while carrying none of the negative baggage?

But there is a difference, and the difference is if he created us with a holy nature, then we would have no choice but to love and obey him, but thats not genuine love. That is forced love, programmed love. True and geniune love is when you love someone without being forced to, and choosing to love someone not because you have to, but because you want to. Now of course, this comes at a cost, because we dont always live up to that standard, but we have faith that all of this "negative baggage" well be atoned for in the long run.

Killing him myself? Why would explain what he did was wrong? I wouldn't bother, the man's a psychopath, I'll let some psychiatrist deal with him if he gets that far. Or would you prefer me to tell you why such an action would be wrong?

Psychopath? Why are you name calling? Just because that man subjectively did what was right to him according to his free will? On your view we are just advanced animals, so is it a male lion a psychopath for killing a clan of hyenas?? If you call one animal a psychopath why not another?

I would get mad at them and tell them that i didn't want this to happen, they would tell me to shut it and they would do what they want. This happens in reality. I don't know what universe you think we're in but this is the way reality works, people believe different things and hold different moral values and act accordingly. There are many people who are killed in a way I consider unrighteous but the murderers don't care, they don't have a problem with it, they don't care about the protests of the man who's arm they are about to chop off. I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

The point is, there are no objective moral values without God. Morals and ethics change from time to time, place to place, people to people. That is my point.

What would you say to the aliens? "This is immoral, doing this is objectively wrong, God will punish you for your actions." And when they reply, "What God, your fanciful, nonsensical beliefs have no bearing on our actions." Then what would you say? Could you stop them at all? Probably not. Then what relevance does your question have?

Well, assuming that the Christian God exist, and they are sinners, they would need atonement for their sins as well. So, yes, it would be objectively wrong for them to commit this kind of act because this kind of act is not consistent with the Christian God.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Your point? If God existed and his morals as you believe in are true and objective but there was no afterlife, what would be gained by following God's morals? You've moved from the realm of objective morality into the notion that my belief proposes that living this way will give you a good afterlife and that way will give you a bad afterlife. This method of thinking just makes it all selfish which is, as you know, selfish.

Now this is a good question lol. If God existed and there was no afterlife.....hmmm...well, I obeyed my parents even though more often then not there was no reward as a result. So yes, I would think that I would still obey. As far as good afterlife and bad afterlife, hey, those are the results of our actions. If you do well in school, you get good grades, honor, recognition, and all of that good stuff. You do poor, you get bad grades, you wont go beyond your current grade, etc. Thats the way the dice is rolled.

Deuteronomy 2 : 34 At that time we took all his towns and completely destroyed them—men, women and children. We left no survivors.

Well, like I said, God commanded this as an act of judgement. The Amorites were evil people, engaging in all kinds of jacked up activity that most of the other nations were engaging in, like human sacrifices and homosexuality. Plus, they were enemies of Israel so they had to be dealt with.

So basically the difference is not when someone claims God ordered them to kills someone but when God actually does it. So an act can be wrong made by one person but the same act be right made by another? Nothing other than, "God commanded it" changes. Objective morality my ****.

Once again, you have to distinguish between murder and killing. If God orders you to kill someone, it is an act of JUDGEMENT. You dont seem to be understanding the difference.

Moses and the Israelites going into peoples houses and killing everyone alive, men, women and children, despite their non-aggression is not an act of self defense and I don't see how it's an act of law, certainly not a law me, or you for that matter, support.

As I said, it was an act of JUDGEMENT for the nations sins. There are no scriptures in the bible where God just ordered people to be killed for no reason. So for you to shed this in the worse light possible is disingenuous. Second, its not as if God discriminated, he even carried out massive acts of judgement upon his own people, the Israelites, all as an act of judgement.

No this can only be classified as murder, the army that the government of that nation sent to prevent Moses and the Israelites from entering their land was destroyed, why did the Israelites proceed to kill everyone in the nation?

How are acts of war considered murder? Like I keep stressing, you need to know the difference between murder and non-malice killing.

Objectively wrong according to Australian law, subjectively wrong according to me and many others I know that agree with me, I would even go so far as to you would personally find this act to be wrong. No?

Objectively wrong according to Australian law but subjectively elsewhere? This makes it subjective by definition. Objection means that an act is wrong regardless of who thinks it was right. For example, if Austrialian law allowed young girls to work in brothels ages 6-12, would this be objectively right?? Second, you said "subjectively worng according to me and many others I know agree with me"......now who is appealing to population? hahaha.

Do I have to make it any clearer, it's not the act of questioning it that i find to be off topic or pointless, it's your unwillingness to actually listen to what i have to say. You are arguing this point, you are questioning. You are telling me what I am thinking and why I am doing things and you are demanding that I agree with you. There is no questioning on this topic for you, you know you're right and nobody is going to persuade you. That's why you should drop it because your not interested in hearing anything but your own voice on the matter.

Ok, whatever you say dude.

As I've tried to explain for the past couple of pages, I am basing my argument on the Biblical definition of justice and righteousness. But as you are still ignoring the 15 times I've told you and even the Biblical references I posted, I can see why you wouldn't understand.

Well, unless those biblical references were in the post that I didnt respond to, I havent seen them.

You are ignoring the crucial part of my argument, it's not just that God sent them a delusion, it's that God sent them a delusion in order to keep them believing something God knew to be untrue. It's the act of deception that makes God a liar, not the act of deluding people. I never suggest that the very presence of delusion means that someone is being lied to, you are the only one that tried to say I was saying that.

So, during the sting operation, the officers know the woman isn't a prostitute, but they also know that her standing there would bring men that think that she is a prostitute to her. It is a delusion based on preconceived notion. And yes you did, you claimed God was a liar, and I asked you were did you get that idea, and you gave me the scripture. Thats exactly what happened.

Feel free to provide evidence, quotes, something, I already have, you responded to it so i have to believe that you actually remember that quote? Do you? I'm honestly unsure, you've missed so much that I've written I can't be sure that you read anything you respond to anymore.

What?? I am quoting every thing that I respond to, what why do you keep saying I dont read it. If I am responding to it, i am reading it. But anwayz, you want quotes, I thought you would never ask...

"Most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe" (Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology, 1978, P.C.W Davies)

"At this singularity, space and time came into existence, literally nothing existed before the singularity" (John Barrow and Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principal 1986)

"The universe began from a state of infinite density about one Hubble time ago. Space was created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe."
(Will the Universe Expand Forever? Scientific American, March 1976. Pg 65 James Gunn, Beatrice Tinsley)

"The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural" (Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, New York, Macmillian, 1933, pg 24)

"Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang" (Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time, 1996, pg 20)

So as I said, you are very late. STEM began to exist, this is actual and factual.

You're yet to provide anything.. The very act of "space expanding" actually means that space existed prior to it's expansion. How can space expand if it didn't exist? I'm confused as to what you point you think you've made.

God created the space that space expanded in to, obviously. The point is, out of nothing, nothing comes.

Please do. The very definition of the singularity, "a point in space of infinity density" necessitates both space and matter. Something cannot be dense if it is not composed of anything. The singularity cannot be dense if it doesn't exist in space, it can't exist without space. I want you to present some evidence, I really do because what you're saying doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense, the singularity wasn't just sitting there hot and dense and waiting to expand. No one is saying this. It happened "all of a sudden". You are assuming that it was just sitting there. The singularity only describes the very very brief state of where the universe expanded from. It isnt something that was just sitting there for zillions of years and all of a sudden expanded 13.7 billion years ago. You cant go back further than the singularity from a temporal or spatial standpoint because neither space nor time existed. The first cause had to transcend these things.

Indeed, you have proposed to make at least two of those threads and I am still looking forward to participating in them when they are created. It would perhaps be preferable to respond to the points in that post that would not be apart of a new thread though...

Lets get it poppin then.