the right religion

[Nakosis]

Maybe but that is a flase standard for truth.

Where did I said it should be used as a standard for truth?

This is irrelevant unless you can show that is what was meant by the actual Greek word that was used. The Greek used is the most descriptive language in human history and so it should be easy for you if you are correct.

Ok, not that I'm an expert according to Strong's Greek lexicon...

metaphorical use
ὁδός denotes a course of conduct, a way (i. e. manner) of thinking, feeling, deciding

This is wrong because that is in fact not what Jesus meant by him being the way. Lets look at this statement in context.
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus answered him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one goes to the Father except through me.
No man cometh to the Father but by me - To come to the Father is to obtain his favor, to have access to his throne by prayer, and finally to enter his kingdom. No man can obtain any of these things except by the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. By coming by him is meant coming in his name and depending on his merits. We are ignorant, and he alone can guide us. We are sinful, and it is only by his merits that we can be pardoned. God has appointed him as the Mediator, and has ordained that all blessings shall descend to this world through him. Acts 4:12; Acts 5:31.
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Since this is an English translation let's look at the original Greek.
Jhn 14:6λέγειαὐτῷὁἸησοῦςἘγώεἰμιἡὁδὸςκαὶἡἀλήθειακαὶἡζωήοὐδεὶςἔρχεταιπρὸςτὸνπατέραεἰμὴδι᾽ἐμοῦ
The word for through is dia atht is what is in red above. This is the definition for the Greek word dia.
1) through
1) with
2) in
c) of means
2) by the means of
a) the ground or reason by which something is or is not done
1) by reason of
2) on account of
3) because of for this reason
4) therefore
5) on this account

because of...

Certainly, if someone finds, discovers, gains knowledge of, God then no problem accepting that the Son of God had a hand in it.

All of these imply a concept that the only way to the father is through, by virtue of, or on account of what Christ did. It is not suggesting we can get there on account of what we do that is similar to what he did. Lets look at another place in the same book whether Christ gives more detail about how to get to heaven.
Jesus replied, "Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]" 4 "How can someone be born when they are old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!" 5 Jesus answered, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7 You should not be surprised at my saying, ‘You[c] must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."[d] 9 "How can this be?" Nicodemus asked.10 "You are Israel’s teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not understand these things? 11 Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony. John 3 NIV - Jesus Teaches Nicodemus - Now there was - Bible Gateway
Nicodemus was an expert in the law but he was wise enough to know he needed help to get to heaven. When he asked Jesus about it. Jesus said the only way was to be born again. That is the experience we have when we believe in Christ’s sacrifice. Christ did not say to do what he did to get there he said to be born again. That is how we get to heaven through (dia) him. That is also why Christianity claims it is not one way to heaven it is the only way.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."
John 3:7 You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'
Not Buddha, Allah, Zeus, or any other name.
You are of course free to invent your own religion a regardless of how little basis for it but I found it too important to just adopt whatever I found convenient. Jesus says be the basis of our being born again (reborn, converted, our name is written in the lambs book of life, are adopted as sons of God, etc....) by believing in his death and resurrection and receiving the holy spirit which comes to live in our hearts when we are saved we will be allowed into heaven. The subject requires and deserves diligent research not the adoption of the first groundless politically correct philosophy that tickles our ears.

I don't need a religion, don't need to invent one. In fact this is the mistake I think Christianity made. Creating a religion on the basis of a teacher they had very little knowledge of. They had no one knowledgeable to correct whatever they choose to assume as being the correct theology/understanding of the Bible. Trying to find God in the pages of a book as if that is the only place God can be found.

People would rather trust their own understanding of a book written in a language that no one can guarantee the understanding of rather than the reality of life.

People want to place their hope in something written 2000 years ago. Really? Do you think that's the best God has to offer.?

All I can say is good luck with that belief.

I don't need a book to tell me how to be a good person. I don't need God to tell me how to be a good person. I can determine that, it's not a problem. Maybe some people do. There's enough craziness going on in the world to see that some people could really use some help.

What I see with Christianity is man inventing a religion that they can hold God accountable to. If you believe that Jesus was sacrificed as a payment to God for sin, then God has to let you into heaven. Some weird theology that man invented so he doesn't have to worry about being a good person anymore. Killing an innocent man took care of that obligation. All you got to do is believe that is true.

Alright, you know maybe God will honor this obligation Christians think he has. If God does, I'm happy for you. I hope heaven is everything you want it to be and more.

Heaven is not important to me. I don't ask anything from God. I'm not going to hold God accountable to my beliefs. What I ask for I ask for from myself. I want to love, care and share. Help others when I can because that is what I want. Just being able to do that is enough of a reward. I don't need heaven. I don't need anything else.

Whatever happens to me, however I'm judged. I'll be satisfied. I hope you'll find the same satisfaction.

 

[9Westy9]

If you find yourself before God one day and he asks you why you didn't accept his sacrifice on your behalf and what have you to say in defense. Are you going to say that some definition may or may not have included the concept of God and so that may or may not mean his standards were objective? Good luck with that.

No I wouldn't, I'd respond much differently. My reasons for rejecting Christianity don't lie wholly in objective morality. This video pretty much sums up how I'd respond to meeting the God of Christianity

[youtube]iClejS8vWjo[/youtube]
...And What If I'm Wrong? - YouTube

This is completely false. Lets say I was watching you address a Golf ball. I could tell by your stance you would slice the ball into the woods. Would my knowing this have anything to do with the fact you exercised freewill in order to choose your stance. This isn't the part I meant when I said it was complex this is very simple.

You're not addressing my argument.

1) If everything is foreknown then all choices have been made before a person wills them
2) The person can't will any different and therefore has to make the choice that is already known
3) People can't make free choices as their choice is destined.

You can reject 1 but that does away with an omniscient god (unless his omniscience excludes future events). If you accept 1 then show how my logic doesn't add up.

The philisophical concept is that the idea of God and what is consistent with the bible is that God is the greatest concievable being. The most just, omnipotent, omniscient, etc..... If you are proposing some hypthetical fault then you are discussion a different God.

I'm not discussing hypothetical faults. I'm taking a definition of god, examining how it would (or should based on the definition) make the world, universe etc. and then see if it makes sense for that god to have made, or allowed, our world to be how it is now. An omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god (to me) would not make the universe in the way I can see it.

This was my statement
"First a moral system may be true even if malevolent. Regardless since biblical morality contains a vast number of requirements which when followed result in improved conditions for human beings (not just the ones that specifically make God happy) . They contain instructions that maximize what we believe to be good. This is completely inconsistent with malevolence so why are we discussing it?"

To which you replied with
"1) But would it be better than a relative morality that was benevolent."
So my claim that you ignored what I said and asked a very different type of question about a position which I have never claimed. So this is without a doubt a sidebar issue. To answer this out of the blue question. I would need far more information about this hypothetical fantasy system to make a decision.

Question 1 was aimed at the first sentence "First a moral system may be true even if malevolent." So I was asking you a question about whether a true morality (if malevolent) would be better than a false morality (that is benevolent). It's your choice to answer but if you don't then I'll just assume that you feel that an objective morality isn't necessarily better than a subjective morality.

That's a new description of it for me at least. You must be reffering to God's commandment against the practice that was given specifically to the Hebrews for a specific reason for a specific time frame. While I believe it has always been a sin and always will be I am in no way instructed to treat them differently and as a matter of fact I am strictly prohibited from actively carrying out any form of condemnation or unjust action towards them. We live under the covenant of grace and have been for 2000 plus years so this issue is not relevant. It also isn't relevant why God commanded what he did 3000yrs ago but if you require it I will explain how his reasons were justified completely.

1) If those commands were for a time and place then is God's morality subjective?
2) Not allowing 2 homosexual couples to have intercourse could very easily be detrimental to their well being mentally

Critics have a very inaccurate and completely false way of examineing scripture. Dr Ravi Zacharias says "intent determines content" You see what you want to. If you actually include context and cultural language use it is obvious the bible in no way justifies slavery. In response to some questions about a practice that was virtually universal at the time God instructed mainly more benevolent procedures for a system already in place and no going away anytime soon. However it was Christians who have generally carried much of the burden of the fight against slavery throughout history.

So is God for or against slavery? If he's against slavery then why didn't he forbid his chosen people from having salves? Why didn't Jesus or Paul tell Christians not to have slaves?

To not choose God is evil and usually results in evil action. Nothing could be simpler. God says do not murder. If we could not deny God and so commit murder then we wouldn't have freewill. God also says if we choose to defy him he will eventually remove the spiritual power (consience) that ghelps us resist evil temptations. You may not like this idea but it is a very simple and consistent one which explains so much in the world. An atheist can provide no atheistic explanation for even the concepts of good and evil.

I disagree with your claim that denying God is, in and of itself, evil. Commiting sinful acts might be evil, but denying God's existence isn't evil. Also the concepts for good and evil are harder to explain than "God said it"

By the way I was completely and utterly opposed to Christianity when I began seriously investigateing it. I actuall began the effort for the reason that I wanted to once and for all reject it. Try again.

and I was a Christian before I ended up having to reject it. So your claim was just as unfounded as mine.

I honestly don't have a dog in this race. It seems your definitions require an overlapping majesterium between agnosticism and atheism. I find that useless and contradictory but I will just go with your ideas on the subject as I am not really interested.

Seems that me providing you links to a dictionary wasn't enough to convince you that my definitions are legitimate.....

The majority of prophecy found in the bible is in no way questionable. They have a wealth of detail and descriptiveness that even the most critical person can't deny. I just finished a legnthy discussion with a guy over the prophecy concerning the destruction of tyre. He argued that even though the time frame was consistent, the character of the warfare, the utter destruction of the phonecian society, and many seperate details for example that it's foundations would be used for drying fishing nets after the battle were all perfectly predicted, that it was still inacurate because later a completely different society rebuilt the city. That is until I showed him that the bible only said that the society would be utterly destroyed not that buildings would never be built again. God was mad at the phonecian people after all not the stones in the buildings. Another would be the exact day Israel would become a nation again and the fact that they would be repeatedly attacked after that time by an overwhelming enemy but they would be victorious. Israel has fought several wars and countless battles since 1948 outnumbered many times 40 -1 but has always completely crushed the enemy even before we started helping them (when they were attacked the first time by 5 nations they had a total of three tanks and virtually no army at all). If someone can't see the hand of God in that they are trying very hard not to. Their recent battles are among the most lopsided in history. Plus about 2297 more like these.

1) The prophecies Christians quote as being so accurate are disputed. Name me your best 5 prophecies that predict Jesus and we'll see if I can find an explanation for them
2) And sources for these claims about Israels "miraculous" victories?

 

[Straw Dog]

Hmm... You guys still haven't figured out which is the one true religion, huh? Or at least convinced everyone else over to one point of view? I said it once, but it tickles my side, so I'll say it again.

I prefer to have the wrong religion personally. It's a lot less pressure trying to convince everyone else that I'm right. I highly recommend it.

 

[9Westy9]

Hmm... You guys still haven't figured out which is the one true religion, huh? Or at least convinced everyone else over to one point of view? I said it once, but it tickles my side, so I'll say it again.

I prefer to have the wrong religion personally. It's a lot less pressure trying to convince everyone else that I'm right. I highly recommend it.

good thing I'm not arguing for a "right religion"

 

[1robin]

No I wouldn't, I'd respond much differently. My reasons for rejecting Christianity don't lie wholly in objective morality. This video pretty much sums up how I'd respond to meeting the God of Christianity

[youtube]iClejS8vWjo[/youtube]
...And What If I'm Wrong? - YouTube

My computer is on a server that blocks videos. If you would not use it then why are you using it now? Since the objective or subjective has no bearing on it's implications for our lives it seems useless to discuss it.

You're not addressing my argument.
1) If everything is foreknown then all choices have been made before a person wills them
2) The person can't will any different and therefore has to make the choice that is already known

This is so simple I think you are trying to not understand. Time for God is irrelavent it is only meaningful to us. He can see what we will use our freewill to choose that has no effect on the fact that we did use freewill to make those choices.

3) People can't make free choices as their choice is destined.

Destined is not equivelant to known. If all the choices known, were made by freewill then the knowing was completely independant from the choosing. I will make one last attempt to illustrate this. If I know that every morning my dog will start barking around 6am apparently to wake me up. How does my knowing this force the dog's decision? Either explain this or drop it please.

You can reject 1 but that does away with an omniscient god (unless his omniscience excludes future events). If you accept 1 then show how my logic doesn't add up.

No your confused philosophy is what is not adding up. You would have to show that knowing a choice caused the choice.That makes no philisophical sense. The thing God knows is the record of choices you will make by using freewill.

I'm not discussing hypothetical faults. I'm taking a definition of god, examining how it would (or should based on the definition) make the world, universe etc. and then see if it makes sense for that god to have made, or allowed, our world to be how it is now. An omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god (to me) would not make the universe in the way I can see it.

Do you actually think you with an extremely finite amount of information and reasoning skills can evaluate an infinate mind that knows all of the millions of variables that you cannot? This seems extremely arrogant and illogical. If you can't grasp this freewill thing how would you evaluate the second law of thermodynamics, or abiogenesis.

Question 1 was aimed at the first sentence "First a moral system may be true even if malevolent." So I was asking you a question about whether a true morality (if malevolent) would be better than a false morality (that is benevolent). It's your choice to answer but if you don't then I'll just assume that you feel that an objective morality isn't necessarily better than a subjective morality.

The only way this issue is relevant to our discussion is if you prove God's morality is malevolent. Considering the limitations I listed good luck.

1) If those commands were for a time and place then is God's morality subjective?
2) Not allowing 2 homosexual couples to have intercourse could very easily be detrimental to their well being mentally

The duration of time or the selection of subjects has no bearing on it's objectiveity. Regardless like I said no matter the label you assign it it's effect is the same.

So is God for or against slavery? If he's against slavery then why didn't he forbid his chosen people from having salves? Why didn't Jesus or Paul tell Christians not to have slaves?

Slavery is inconsistent with God's purpose but that does not mean he stops everything he doesn't agree with. He didn't stop them from practicing it because the concept was a universally accepted practice. You can't claim God is for ray guns because he never said to not build them. That's an argument from silence. I cannot and do not feel qualified to judge God as like I said I have an insuffecient knowledge base and reasoning skills to make sweeping judgements like this. As long as God never sanctioned slavery I am satasfied. They said to treat others as you wish to be treated. If that isn't forbidding slavery it is the next best thing. It also requires and claims the only rational basis for the equality of man. The inequality of man is proven true by evolution if you belive it the slavery makes sence. Why do you feel it is meaningful to point out the bible which is primarily a book concerned with spiritual or supernatural issues should answer every question you could dream up? Especially considering that if you were a Christian the bible says that you have the holy spirit and could pray for guidence if you needed it. That covers every potential moral question possible. Of course that requires an obedient lifestyle which most of us don't have and so we get many conflicting viewpoints. To me the biblical narrative makes slavery seem obsurd.

I disagree with your claim that denying God is, in and of itself, evil. Commiting sinful acts might be evil, but denying God's existence isn't evil. Also the concepts for good and evil are harder to explain than "God said it"

Since if God is real your first claim would be a lie and lyeing is evil then it follows your claim would be evil.
King James Bible
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
If that doesn't explain my claims then I give up.

and I was a Christian before I ended up having to reject it. So your claim was just as unfounded as mine.

I find this claim to be virtually impossible as a reality. I have explained this in detail before in one of these threads.

Seems that me providing you links to a dictionary wasn't enough to convince you that my definitions are legitimate.....

I did not say they were illegitimate. I said they seem contradictory and arbitrary to me. I really don't care what label you arbitrarily assign your self.


The last two questions require too many words for one post so I will split it.

 

[1robin]

The prophecies Christians quote as being so accurate are disputed. Name me your best 5 prophecies that predict Jesus and we'll see if I can find an explanation for them

Since it is almost certain that you are not even aware of all 2300 prophecies and especially all their counterclaims I find this meaningless. I will provide 5 prophecys as soon as I can.
Unique among all books ever written, the Bible accurately foretells specific events-in detail-many years, sometimes centuries, before they occur. Approximately 2500 prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible, about 2000 of which already have been fulfilled to the letter—no errors.



Reasons To Believe : Fulfilled Prophecy: Evidence for the Reliability of the Bible

1. (Mica 5:2) Christ to be born in Bethlehem
   (Matt 2:4-6) And Herod asked where Christ had been born ... they answered Bethlehem
2. Christ to enter Jerusalem riding on a donkey
   (Zech 9:9)
   Christ enters Jerusalem riding on a donkey
   (Matt 21:4-11)
   
3. Christ to be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver
   (Zech 11:12)
   Judas sold out Jesus for 30 pieces of silver
   (Matt 26:15)
4. 30 pieces of silver casted down and used to buy a potter's field
   (Zech 11:13)
   30 pieces of silver used to buy a potter's field
   (Matt 27:3-10)
5. The crucifixion
   Mtt 27:33-46, Psa 22:1-18
   Crucified with thieves
   Mtt 27:38, Lke 22:37, Isa 53:9,12
   Given vinegar and gall
   Mtt 27:34, Psa 69:21, =Jhn 19:28-29
   Lots cast for his garments
   Mtt 27:35 , Psa 22:18
   =Mrk 15:24, =Lke 23:34, =Jhn 19:23-24
   Taunts of mockers
   Mtt 27:39-44, Psa 22:7-8, =Lke 23:35
   "Forsaken" by God
   Mtt 27:46, Psa 22:1, =Mrk 15:34
   No bones broken
   Jhn 19:31-36, Psa 34:20
   Pierced
   Jhn 19:37, Zec 12:10; 13:6, Psalm 22:16, Lke 24:39
   =Jhn 20:24-29
   The sacrifice for sin
   Heb 10:5-10, 1Jn 2:1-2, Psa 40:6-8
   Burial in rich man’s tomb
   Mtt 27:57-60, Isa 53:9
   Prophecies Fulfilled by Christ - A Comprehensive Table of Reference

explenation of no. 3 and 4 In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

2) And sources for these claims about Israels "miraculous" victories?

That would be reality for the past 50 yrs. Apparently you don't watch the news so I will provide it. Here is some data I keep on hand.

ISRAEL​

Statistics:

• Israel is 1/6 of 1% of the land mass of the Middle East.
• Israel is roughly half the size of Lake Michigan, or New Jersey.
• Israel’s population is ½ the size of metro New York. Only 2% of the Middle East population.
• Israel has none of the valuable resources of Oil, natural gas, or coal that the rest of the Middle East is covered up with.
• Hebrew is the only case in history where a completely dead language was revived.

WHO IS IT THAT OPPOSES THIS TINY INDUSTRIOUS NATION, ISRAEL​

• Morocco, Mauritania, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Djibouti, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen. These are just the ones that are overtly hostile to Israel and in close proximity.
• They control 13.5 million square km to Israel’s 20 thousand Km.
• They have 292 million people to Israel’s 5 million.
• Groups of these countries have started a total of 4 major wars and countless violent actions. To which they lost 100%. After each war Israel returned the vast majority of any land they had conquered. This is unparalleled in history except for the U.S.
• A famous Arab is quoted as saying “If the Moslems laid down there arms today there would be peace tomorrow”. “If the Israelis laid down their weapons today there would be no Israel tomorrow”
• Jews have inhabited Israel continuously for 3,000 plus years. They are the only nation on earth that still speaks the same language, occupies the same land, and worships the same God that it did 3000 years ago.
• There has never been a Palestinian nation, a distinct Palestinian language or culture.
• The Jews have welcomed and incorporated Arabian refugees, but the Jewish refugees in Arabian countries are the only group of refugees in history that have not been accepted in countries which they exist even after three generations.
• Under Jordanian rule Jewish holy sites were systematically destroyed and they were denied access. Under Jewish control all Jewish, Christian, and Muslim sites are preserved and open to anyone to visit.
• On a graph plotting Jewish concessions vs. Arabic violence. After every instance of Israel giving land or concessions there is a spike of Arabic violence. Now the world is telling them to give more of the 1/6 of 1% only to get attacked for the effort.

History of Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Middle East countries by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.cags.org.ae/cbc01ar.pdf
How Israel Won the Six Day War: Why Israel Was So Successful in the 1967 War | Suite101.com
Arab

I guess that one of the most lopsided victories has to be that of Israel over the Arab forces. Israel found itself in a battle against Egypt, Jordan and Syria with troops and arms also being contributed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. Nothing could have been more lopsided than this. Egypt is said to have amassed over 1,000 tanks and about 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border. The Arab countries denied planning an attack on Israel and when Israel bombed Egyptian airfields, they claimed that it was an unwarranted act of aggression. At that point Jordan attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya. Israel was the clear victor even though it was completely outnumbered.
About Facts Net
If you have some specific problem with my claims make a specific request. The one you made is so vague I didn't know exactly what to give links for. The fact that they have been victorious is their continued existance. Their enemies have sworn to anihilate them.

 

[9Westy9]

My computer is on a server that blocks videos. If you would not use it then why are you using it now? Since the objective or subjective has no bearing on it's implications for our lives it seems useless to discuss it.

Fine, it's getting boring discussing it anyway

This is so simple I think you are trying to not understand. Time for God is irrelavent it is only meaningful to us. He can see what we will use our freewill to choose that has no effect on the fact that we did use freewill to make those choices.

If God knows everything we do before we do it then your point is meaningless

Destined is not equivelant to known. If all the choices known, were made by freewill then the knowing was completely independant from the choosing. I will make one last attempt to illustrate this. If I know that every morning my dog will start barking around 6am apparently to wake me up. How does my knowing this force the dog's decision? Either explain this or drop it please.

It's pretty simple. If you know your dog will bark at 6am every morning then regardless of what the dog wants to do he will bark at 6am every morning. If you can't understand this then we might as well drop the whole free will discussion

No your confused philosophy is what is not adding up. You would have to show that knowing a choice caused the choice.That makes no philisophical sense. The thing God knows is the record of choices you will make by using freewill.

Knowing a choice doesn't cause it; it eliminates choice. If you have 4 different colour bags in front of you and you have to choose 1 then you have 4 choices. But if I know which one you will choose then your choice is eliminated and you only have 1 choice.

Do you actually think you with an extremely finite amount of information and reasoning skills can evaluate an infinate mind that knows all of the millions of variables that you cannot? This seems extremely arrogant and illogical. If you can't grasp this freewill thing how would you evaluate the second law of thermodynamics, or abiogenesis.

Do you actually think you with an extremely finite amount of information and reasoning skills can evaluate an infinate mind that knows all of the millions of variables that you cannot? This seems extremely arrogant and illogical.

See what I did there?

The only way this issue is relevant to our discussion is if you prove God's morality is malevolent. Considering the limitations I listed good luck.

No this is relevant because you made a claim that objective morality is "true" regardless of whether it's from a benevolent or malevolent source. I then asked you if you preferred a malevolent objective morality or a benevolent subjective morality. Based on your answer I'll know whether or not you think and objective morality is necessarily better than a subjective morality. Based on your obvious attempts to dodge this, however, I think I have my answer

The duration of time or the selection of subjects has no bearing on it's objectiveity. Regardless like I said no matter the label you assign it it's effect is the same.

So then why does God give us laws that are, at times, completely the opposite of his objective standards?

Slavery is inconsistent with God's purpose but that does not mean he stops everything he doesn't agree with. He didn't stop them from practicing it because the concept was a universally accepted practice. You can't claim God is for ray guns because he never said to not build them. That's an argument from silence. I cannot and do not feel qualified to judge God as like I said I have an insuffecient knowledge base and reasoning skills to make sweeping judgements like this. As long as God never sanctioned slavery I am satasfied. They said to treat others as you wish to be treated. If that isn't forbidding slavery it is the next best thing. It also requires and claims the only rational basis for the equality of man. The inequality of man is proven true by evolution if you belive it the slavery makes sence. Why do you feel it is meaningful to point out the bible which is primarily a book concerned with spiritual or supernatural issues should answer every question you could dream up? Especially considering that if you were a Christian the bible says that you have the holy spirit and could pray for guidence if you needed it. That covers every potential moral question possible. Of course that requires an obedient lifestyle which most of us don't have and so we get many conflicting viewpoints. To me the biblical narrative makes slavery seem obsurd.

So God has an objective standard yet doesn't tell us what it is or guide his chosen people to follow it, instead he just lets his people do what they want to do rather than what they should do (according to God's standard). What a loving God

Since if God is real your first claim would be a lie and lyeing is evil then it follows your claim would be evil.
King James Bible
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
If that doesn't explain my claims then I give up.

So atheists who do charity work, help the homeless etc have done no good? If that's your view then I might as well just give up, pack my bags and go home as I feel that view is absurd.

I find this claim to be virtually impossible as a reality. I have explained this in detail before in one of these threads.

Please stop using double standards.

I did not say they were illegitimate. I said they seem contradictory and arbitrary to me. I really don't care what label you arbitrarily assign your self.

I've already shown you why they aren't contradictory yet you seem far too arrogant to pay any attention. This is the last time I'll say this: (a)theism answers the question of belief and (a)gnosticism answers the question of knowledge. This leaves you with 4 types

agnostic atheist - Believes we can't know whether god(s) exist but doesn't believe
gnostic atheist - Believes we can know whether god(s) exist but doesn't believe
agnostic theist - Believes we can't know whether god(s) exist and does believe
gnostic theist - Believes we can know whether god(s) exist and does believe

For more info see: Atheist, Gnostic, Theist, Agnostic

 

[9Westy9]

I guess that one of the most lopsided victories has to be that of Israel over the Arab forces. Israel found itself in a battle against Egypt, Jordan and Syria with troops and arms also being contributed by Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. Nothing could have been more lopsided than this. Egypt is said to have amassed over 1,000 tanks and about 100,000 soldiers on the Israeli border. The Arab countries denied planning an attack on Israel and when Israel bombed Egyptian airfields, they claimed that it was an unwarranted act of aggression. At that point Jordan attacked western Jerusalem and Netanya. Israel was the clear victor even though it was completely outnumbered.
About Facts Net
If you have some specific problem with my claims make a specific request. The one you made is so vague I didn't know exactly what to give links for. The fact that they have been victorious is their continued existance. Their enemies have sworn to anihilate them.

Fine Israel has won a few lopsided victories. Show me how these wars were necessarily won by "the hand of god". Because the 1967 war was won through superior tactics and planning

[youtube]E63AKJpa1Tk[/youtube]
1967 Arab-Israeli War - part 1/6 - YouTube

 

[camanintx]

Prophecies Fulfilled by Christ - A Comprehensive Table of Reference
explenation of no. 3 and 4 In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

Literature is full of examples of fulfilled prophecy. It's easy when you're dealing in fiction.

If you have some specific problem with my claims make a specific request. The one you made is so vague I didn't know exactly what to give links for. The fact that they have been victorious is their continued existance. Their enemies have sworn to anihilate them.

This is no more evidence of God's existence than the defeat of the Persians by the Greeks means Zeus is real.

 

[1robin]

Fine, it's getting boring discussing it anyway

You are nothing if not prolific.

If God knows everything we do before we do it then your point is meaningless

This is definately the last time I beat my head on this wall. Whatever your next decision is (probably to reject freewill). If God knows what you will use your freewill to choose did that effect your use of freewill when you make that decision. You can't think above a temporal causal relationship. I work with a Phd in engineering, an airforce pilot with a masters in statistics, and a Christian avionics tech. I got so frustrated with you not being able to get my examples I sent them to those people and every one of them understood it perfectly. Are you suggesting either God doesn't know the future or we are governed by determinism?

It's pretty simple. If you know your dog will bark at 6am every morning then regardless of what the dog wants to do he will bark at 6am every morning. If you can't understand this then we might as well drop the whole free will discussion

I just can't understand how you can't see that predicting something doesn't effect the action. It wasn't determined just known. You seem to be confusing the terms.

Do you actually think you with an extremely finite amount of information and reasoning skills can evaluate an infinate mind that knows all of the millions of variables that you cannot? This seems extremely arrogant and illogical

See what I did there?.

Yes I see, you didn't answer the claim you copied mine which isn't applicable when reversed.

No this is relevant because you made a claim that objective morality is "true" regardless of whether it's from a benevolent or malevolent source. I then asked you if you preferred a malevolent objective morality or a benevolent subjective morality. Based on your answer I'll know whether or not you think and objective morality is necessarily better than a subjective morality. Based on your obvious attempts to dodge this, however, I think I have my answer

How does my preference have any effect on morality. IMO an objective standard could be malevolent. I do not know my opinion is correct. What is the dang point?

So then why does God give us laws that are, at times, completely the opposite of his objective standards?

Name them.

So God has an objective standard yet doesn't tell us what it is or guide his chosen people to follow it, instead he just lets his people do what they want to do rather than what they should do (according to God's standard). What a loving God

Good Lord. He did give us a standard. He did tell us what he wants. He does not force compliance. If he forced compliance you would yell slavery, if he doesn't you cry immorality. Tough crowd.

So atheists who do charity work, help the homeless etc have done no good? If that's your view then I might as well just give up, pack my bags and go home as I feel that view is absurd.

That would be obsurd if it was an accurate description (they are so rare from your side). I said the atheist would have no suffecient way to establish what he did was ultimately good. The concepts have no objective meaning in atheism. However yes he could do them. I will add that even the atheist IMO has a compromised Godly concience and so can fully believe he is doing right but he can't explain it objectively. Why don't we stick to what I actually claim (what a concept).

Please stop using double standards.

Please stop missaplying actions to others.

I've already shown you why they aren't contradictory yet you seem far too arrogant to pay any attention. This is the last time I'll say this: (a)theism answers the question of belief and (a)gnosticism answers the question of knowledge. This leaves you with 4 types

Could you atleast explain why this is important?

agnostic atheist - Believes we can't know whether god(s) exist but doesn't believe
gnostic atheist - Believes we can know whether god(s) exist but doesn't believe
agnostic theist - Believes we can't know whether god(s) exist and does believe
gnostic theist - Believes we can know whether god(s) exist and does believe

For more info see: Atheist, Gnostic, Theist, Agnostic

Sigh.

 

[1robin]

Literature is full of examples of fulfilled prophecy. It's easy when you're dealing in fiction.

Try thinking faster and typing slower. It isn'y fiction when every verifiable claim has been found perfectly consistent with the work. Over 25,000 historical ones alone. Regardless since it is known that the prophecys were written long before their fulfillment then you claim is obsurd.

This is no more evidence of God's existence than the defeat of the Persians by the Greeks means Zeus is real.

It must take an effort to be this wrong. The greeks weren't prohesied to be victorious especiallly with dates and conditions. Considering the Greeks were the most capable soldiers for their time than any in history their victories are not as impressive as Israel defeating 5 combined nations with no army and 3 tanks. God said the day he would establish Israel as a nation again and he said that even though they should have been countless times they would not be kicked out again. If Israel actually looses Israel then you may have a point.

 

[camanintx]

It isn'y fiction when every verifiable claim has been found perfectly consistent with the work.

So consistent that Matthew 2:1 says Jesus was born during the time of Herod while Luke 2:1 says he was born during a census ordered by Caesar Augustus when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, even though these events are 10 years apart.

The greeks weren't prohesied to be victorious especiallly with dates and conditions.

Exactly where in the Bible does it predict the Israeli's defeat of the Arabs in 1948?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

By independent investigation of truth. Putting any bias and traditional beliefs and imitations away.
Many people also believe whatever the heart says follow that. I don't believe this, as the heart becomes biased to traditions and imitations, which prevent us from seeing and finding the right path.


“Verily we found our fathers with a faith, and verily, in their footsteps we follow.” Qur’án 43:22.

 

[credance]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

I am sorry that I cannot answer your question but it spawned so many other questions that I had to respond. Following are just a few of the questions that came to mind.
WHY DON'T WE ALL SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE?
WHY DOES THE COLOR OF OUR SKIN HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN SOCEITY?
WHY DOES ORGANIZED RELIGION TRY TO IMPOSE IT'S WILL ON PEOPLE'S CULTURE?
HOW COULD ANY ALL KNOWING ENTITY CLAIM ANY ORGANIZATION THAT ENSLAVES PEOPLE , JUDGES THEM, AND HANDS OUT PUNISHMENTS AND SOME TIMES EVEN DEATH IN WHAT THEY PERCEIVE AS THE NECCESSARY THING TO DO FOR HARMONY IN LIFE AND MAYBE EVEN A FEW POINTS IN THE HEREAFTER?

 

[waitasec]

Try thinking faster and typing slower. It isn'y fiction when every verifiable claim has been found perfectly consistent with the work. Over 25,000 historical ones alone. Regardless since it is known that the prophecys were written long before their fulfillment then you claim is obsurd.

ahhhh no. not at all.

there are no non biblical claims of people waking from the dead when jesus died or a 3 hour eclipse...

It must take an effort to be this wrong.

funny i was going to say the same thing about you.


tone down a bit will ya...

unless you like being treated with disrespect...by all means continue.

 

[9Westy9]

This is definately the last time I beat my head on this wall. Whatever your next decision is (probably to reject freewill). If God knows what you will use your freewill to choose did that effect your use of freewill when you make that decision. You can't think above a temporal causal relationship. I work with a Phd in engineering, an airforce pilot with a masters in statistics, and a Christian avionics tech. I got so frustrated with you not being able to get my examples I sent them to those people and every one of them understood it perfectly. Are you suggesting either God doesn't know the future or we are governed by determinism?

I'm saying if an omniscient god exists then determinism is the only option, there is no free will. However, I don't see either one of us convincing the other so I don't see much point continuing this free will debate.

I just can't understand how you can't see that predicting something doesn't effect the action. It wasn't determined just known. You seem to be confusing the terms.

predicting? We're talking about knowing something not merely predicting. If something is known to happen then it has been determined. If I know I will wake up at 9am tomorrow then it has been determined.

Yes I see, you didn't answer the claim you copied mine which isn't applicable when reversed.

You wanted an answer to your claim? Yes we can't understand an infinite being but if we can't understand him then neither can you. It works both ways honey

How does my preference have any effect on morality. IMO an objective standard could be malevolent. I do not know my opinion is correct. What is the dang point?

I already told you the point.

Based on your answer I'll know whether or not you think and objective morality is necessarily better than a subjective morality.

Name them.

Leviticus 19 26 “‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. “‘Do not practice divination or seek omens. 27 “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. 28 “‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.

That would be obsurd if it was an accurate description (they are so rare from your side). I said the atheist would have no suffecient way to establish what he did was ultimately good. The concepts have no objective meaning in atheism. However yes he could do them. I will add that even the atheist IMO has a compromised Godly concience and so can fully believe he is doing right but he can't explain it objectively. Why don't we stick to what I actually claim (what a concept).

You quoted Psalm 14:1 which essentially says that all atheists are evil. Or are you now changing your mind?

Please stop missaplying actions to others.

LMAO!!!!! :biglaugh:

Sigh.

Arrogance remains supreme

 

[1robin]

ahhhh no. not at all.

there are no non biblical claims of people waking from the dead when jesus died or a 3 hour eclipse...

That is why I specifically qualified my statement to cover only verifiable claims (maybe I should have said read slower as well). I will throw this in the mix as well but I do not claim this is an example of a proven biblical claim.Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.
Non-biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

funny i was going to say the same thing about you.


tone down a bit will ya...

unless you like being treated with disrespect...by all means continue.

I apologize but critics inaccurate representations of my as well as other Christian's positions and biblical doctrine as well as silly criticisms that reflect a rabid bias that are substituted for meaningfull dialogue are frustrating (like the first example in this post). I specifically said claims that can be verified and you counter by listing ones that can't be verified.

 

[waitasec]

I apologize but critics inaccurate representations of my as well as other Christian's positions and biblical doctrine as well as silly criticisms that reflect a rabid bias that are substituted for meaningfull dialogue are frustrating (like the first example in this post). I specifically said claims that can be verified and you counter by listing ones that can't be verified.

have you ever taken into consideration why this "rabid bias", a term i find rather ironic, is something to be reckoned with?

these claims that you say are supported are not support by rationality.
consider,
you have a god that requires a group of people to murder another group of people because they are rebellious and wicked...well if they were rebellious and wicked god will get them in the end anyway...right?
they would go to hell and that will take care of that...but no, that isn't enough as there's something this other group of people had that was useful...virgin girls.
fast forward, and now this very same god sacrifices himself to himself...because he "loves everyone"
how is that consistent with the idea that god is a constant?

 

[1robin]

So consistent that Matthew 2:1 says Jesus was born during the time of Herod while Luke 2:1 says he was born during a census ordered by Caesar Augustus when Cyrenius was governor of Syria, even though these events are 10 years apart.

It is very telling that I looked over a dozen sights I found in a few minutes that explain your "contradiction" , I am always confused by the fact that a bible method seems to be to look only deep enough to find a reason to dismiss the bible. Without looking further into the subject have much confidence can you have that the wager you are making with your soul is on solid ground. Here are several sites that explain this non-contradiction. Even I have been amazed by the fact that every single contradiction I am given has a very solid and many times obvious reason why the claims of contradiction are completely false. The first link is extremely well documented with an acutaual greek text from a census order from the same time period.

Welcome To DOUKNOW.NET
New Testament Problems and Answers
Is Luke Wrong About the Time of Jesus' Birth? - Come Reason Ministries

Exactly where in the Bible does it predict the Israeli's defeat of the Arabs in 1948?

I never said it did predict that specifically. I said it predicted the date when they would become a nation and that they would not be conquored as a nation again.

 

[1robin]

I'm saying if an omniscient god exists then determinism is the only option, there is no free will. However, I don't see either one of us convincing the other so I don't see much point continuing this free will debate.

I find this unjustifiable but in an effort to end this I concur with the futility you mentioned.

predicting? We're talking about knowing something not merely predicting. If something is known to happen then it has been determined. If I know I will wake up at 9am tomorrow then it has been determined.

Knowing what you will use your freewill to chose has no effect on your decision. You just can't see this.

You wanted an answer to your claim? Yes we can't understand an infinite being but if we can't understand him then neither can you. It works both ways honey

This is not accurate. Is it some kind of compulsion that causes bible critics to habitually warp a Christian's statements into what they think is more manageable. Any thing out side of revelation or that can be derived from revelation is beyond our ability with the exception of a limited amount of philisophical law. You were operating outside this envelope and so I said what I did. However if we stick to things inside the envelope this issue isn't applicable.

I already told you the point.

I still don't see it.

Leviticus 19 26 “‘Do not eat any meat with the blood still in it. “‘Do not practice divination or seek omens. 27 “‘Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. 28 “‘Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the Lord.

I have grown weary of discussing the definitions of words when they have effect on reality. God's moral requirements are in effect absolute and consistent with his timeless purpose. The label applied to them has no effect on them so is meaningless. He is the only possible higher standard that gives our sense of morality any relevance or foundation. What exactly are you trying to show with the verses above. If it is to slap a label on God's morality that has no effect, why bother? If not what was the point?

You quoted Psalm 14:1 which essentially says that all atheists are evil. Or are you now changing your mind?

First, fool is used to denote an especially wicked person. IMO All fools reject God but not all people who reject God are relatively wicked. Second this is the way God judges from his perspective that has nothing to do with my opinions on the subject especially considering I am not to judge (to some extent). I would say the way I personally feel is stated by this verse.
New International Version (©1984)
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
No matter what an atheist does good or bad they connot gain approval by God (in any general sense). Before you went down this leading path the issue was that an atheist can do good things but can't suffeciently explain or justify them.

LMAO!!!!!

What does this stand for? I am pop culture challenged.