dalaman:


Why do you keep lying? I asked you to show me any bible verse that says that all the slavery conducted was because the people were poor.

You brought a verse that has nothing at all to do with it. Lets look at the verse from a clearer translation.

Leviticus 25:35New International Version (NIV)

35 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and are unable to support themselves among you, help them as you would a foreigner and stranger, so they can continue to live among you.

Again , where does it state that slavery was because of poverty. It says you can buy and sell slaves, nothing about poverty was mention. It remains your own prevarication.

malvisguy212:
so you know the verses was not actually talking about slaves? You guys are the one who bring leviticus 25 first, the context of leviticus 25 was actually talking about the YEAR OF JUBILEE, now my response was from the same book of leviticus and you defence was "the verse was not talking about slavery ? You are NOT qualify to interpret the bible.

davien:
Why?...Because he doesn't use 20 verses to justify a despicable one?

malvisguy212:
so you know the verses was not actually talking about slaves? You guys are the one who bring leviticus 25 first, the context of leviticus 25 was actually talking about the YEAR OF JUBILEE, now my response was from the same book of leviticus and you defence was "the verse was not talking about slavery ? You are NOT qualify to interpret the bible.

malvisguy212:
oh!! You think you can understand the WHOLE context with a single verse ?

dalaman:


When Muslims try to explain the Koran for you by trying also to explain things in context you say the are lying. But when clear absurdities are found in the bible you throw 20 verses and claim context.

malvisguy212:
when I argued with muslims is because I was brought up that way,I understand the book.

malvisguy212:
Why do people generally think that some actions are “right” and some actions are “wrong,” regardless of their subjective opinions? Why do most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? or (3) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives?

Although objective morality may be
outside the realm of the scientific
method, every rational person can know
that some actions are innately good,
while others are innately evil. the man
who says that it is morally acceptable To
Molest little children, is just as mistaken
as the man who says that 2 + 2 = 5”
Most rational people do not merely feel
like rape and child abuse may be wrong; they are wrong innately wrong. Just as two plus two can really be known to be four, every rational human can know that some things are objectively good, while other things are objectively evil.

However, reason demands that
OBJECTIVE GOOD AND EVIL can only exist if there is some REAL, objective point of REFERENCE. If something (e.g., rape) can be legitimately criticized as morally wrong, then there must be an objective standard “some ‘higher law which transcends the provincial and transient’ which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized”

How can an atheists call something atrocious,wicked or evil? According to atheism, man is nothing but matter in motion . Humankind allegedly evolved from ape or should we say rocks and slime over billions of years. How could moral value come from rocks and slime? Who ever speaks of “wrong rocks,” “moral minerals,”or “corrupt chemicals ? People do not talk about morally depraved donkeys, evil elephants, or immoral monkeys.Pigs are not punished for being immoral when they eat their young. Komodo dragons are not corrupt because 10% of their diet consists of younger Komodo dragons. Killer whales are not guilty of murder. Male animals are not tried for rape if they appear to forcibly copulate with females. Dogs are not depraved for stealing the bone of
another dog. Moral value could not arise from rocks and slime.

The fact that humans even contemplate
morality testifies to the huge chasm
between man and animals and the fact
that moral value could not have arisen
from animals. Atheistic evolutionists
have admitted that morals arise only in
humans.

The moral argument for God’s existence
exposes atheism as the self contradictory, atrocious philosophy that
it is. Atheists must either reject the
truthfulness of the moral argument’s first premise (“If objective moral value exists, then God exists”) and illogically accept the indefensible idea that objective morality somehow arose from rocks and reptiles, or (2) they must reject the argument’s second premise (“Objective moral values exist”), and accept the insane, utterly repulsive idea that genocide, rape, murder, theft, child
abuse, etc. can never once be condemned as objectively “wrong.”
What’s more,if atheism is true, individuals could never logically be
punished for such immoral actions, since“no inherent moral or ethical laws” would exist.

malvisguy212:
Why do people generally think that some actions are “right” and some actions are “wrong,” regardless of their subjective opinions? Why do most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? or (3) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives?

Although objective morality may be
outside the realm of the scientific
method, every rational person can know
that some actions are innately good,
while others are innately evil. the man
who says that it is morally acceptable To
Molest little children, is just as mistaken
as the man who says that 2 + 2 = 5”
Most rational people do not merely feel
like rape and child abuse may be wrong; they are wrong innately wrong. Just as two plus two can really be known to be four, every rational human can know that some things are objectively good, while other things are objectively evil.

However, reason demands that
OBJECTIVE GOOD AND EVIL can only exist if there is some REAL, objective point of REFERENCE. If something (e.g., rape) can be legitimately criticized as morally wrong, then there must be an objective standard “some ‘higher law which transcends the provincial and transient’ which is other than the particular moral code and which has an obligatory character which can be recognized”

How can an atheists call something atrocious,wicked or evil? According to atheism, man is nothing but matter in motion . Humankind allegedly evolved from ape or should we say rocks and slime over billions of years. How could moral value come from rocks and slime? Who ever speaks of “wrong rocks,” “moral minerals,”or “corrupt chemicals ? People do not talk about morally depraved donkeys, evil elephants, or immoral monkeys.Pigs are not punished for being immoral when they eat their young. Komodo dragons are not corrupt because 10% of their diet consists of younger Komodo dragons. Killer whales are not guilty of murder. Male animals are not tried for rape if they appear to forcibly copulate with females. Dogs are not depraved for stealing the bone of
another dog. Moral value could not arise from rocks and slime.

The fact that humans even contemplate
morality testifies to the huge chasm
between man and animals and the fact
that moral value could not have arisen
from animals. Atheistic evolutionists
have admitted that morals arise only in
humans.

The moral argument for God’s existence
exposes atheism as the self contradictory, atrocious philosophy that
it is. Atheists must either reject the
truthfulness of the moral argument’s first premise (“If objective moral value exists, then God exists”) and illogically accept the indefensible idea that objective morality somehow arose from rocks and reptiles, or (2) they must reject the argument’s second premise (“Objective moral values exist”), and accept the insane, utterly repulsive idea that genocide, rape, murder, theft, child
abuse, etc. can never once be condemned as objectively “wrong.”
What’s more,if atheism is true, individuals could never logically be
punished for such immoral actions, since“no inherent moral or ethical laws” would exist.

malvisguy212:
Why do people generally think that some actions are “right” and some actions are “wrong,” regardless of their subjective opinions?

PastorAIO:


Because humans have a moral instinct. Instincts are not Rational things and can be quite divorced from our thoughts and beliefs. For example, We all have a survival instinct. Why? Is survival better than death? Even people living in the most abject state of deprivation will still struggle to survive. Even people who believe in a better life after death will still do everything in their power to avoid death.

It can be argued that due to the fact that humans are instinctively moral we then project an image of a Law giver. In other words our instinctive morality is an explanation for why we've invented God rather than the other way of God being an explanation for our morality.

The big difficulty lies in the fact that no two cultures, nay, no two people share exactly the same moral code. This might point to a multiplicity of Gods. Otherwise we'd have to explain how a single Law giver would give such a diversity of laws to humankind.

malvisguy212:
what about animals ?

Are you an atheist?

Most atheists believe animals have soul , why can't they make moral decision ?

The nazi legalised the killing of the Jews in their camp, will you called this law good ( subjectively) ?

PastorAIO:


What about Animals?? Animals make choices too, yes. Dogs, for instance, They love to poo everywhere but after some training they only poo in the right place. Of course the dog still feels like pooing but if it is in the house it must make the decision due to it's training to wait until it is taken for a walk before it poos. Is that what you're getting at?



No!



How are you sure that they don't make moral decisions?

Do you have any examples of any decisions that are not moral decisions?



Let me answer you with a similar question.

The Hebrews committed mass genocide against the Canaanites as recorded in the bible, due to directive from Yahweh. Will you call this directive good?

malvisguy212:
your excuse is lame and untruthful.

The op was talking about morality concerning evil , you and I know dogs steal the bone of others dogs and NO one charge him for evil , animal have intercourse with any of their female animals and no one charge him for rape, why will you charge your fellow human of rape ?I maintain , objective morality proved the existence of God.

You say God commit genocide in murdering the cannanite but to you the evil this same cannanite commit is not Genocide, NEVER for once God oder the killing of innocent people.

The reason I gave example of the nazi and Jews is because ,if evil is subjective morality, then we cannot blame the nazi for killing the Jews , this proved the existence of God.

malvisguy212:
^^^ the only thing an atheist need to do now is to proved"Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God?

PastorAIO:


I don't recall making any excuses for anything. I was simply answering your questions.




Genesis 3
The Fall
3 Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

In this tale, was the serpent, an animal, evil? (Not that I believed the serpents talk, but I'm sure you do.)

another consideration: when A dog steals bone or meat will it stand there innocently eating the bone or will it immediately run away and eat it in a hiding place. If the dog has no sense of doing wrong then why is it hiding?



You've confused Legality with Morality. Slavery was once legal but it didn't sit right with some people's sense of morality and so they advocated to get it changed.

I have no record of Canaanites committing any evil. Perhaps you can tell me what it is they did. anyway, the bottom line is that according to you it can be okay to commit genocide and not be morally evil.

If you cannot blame the Hebrews as evil for killing Canaanites, then how do you want to blame Nazis as evil for killing Jews.

PastorAIO:


I've explained that Morality can be put down to Instinct. Like all instincts if it can be proved to facilitate survival then we can understand how it would evolve. Then Morality can serve also as an explanation for why people would invent a god as you are aptly demonstrating that you have difficulty imagining one without the other.

malvisguy212:
the context of Genesis 3 doesent seems to say the snake started speaking on his own, infacte, if you continue reading the bible, you will come to the understanding that its was satan who possessed the snake.

I did not in anyway supported genocide, the people you claimed God kill,are they Morally Equivalent? The dog steal the bone and run because of greed.

Let me give you one example :
When I trip up, falling is something I am
CAUSED to do, not something I am OBLIGED to do! The subjective morality, on the other hand,prescribes (but does NOT cause) actions that I am obligated to do or to refrain from doing. While I never fail to ‘obey’ the ‘law’ of gravity, I often fail to ‘do the right thing’.

malvisguy212:
do you believe people just invent a "God"?"A command only makes sense when there are two minds involved, one giving the command and one receiving it." If an objective moral law has the property of being a command that we receive, then there must be an objective, PERSONAL, moral commander beyond individual or collective humanity.

malvisguy212:
PastorAio. Let me repeat my question. Are you a christian? Do you believe God exist ?" The prescence of evil indicate God exist" do you agree ?

PastorAIO:


Yes, I'm a theist. The word christian means nothing to me, but I'm a theist.

I do not agree that the presence of evil indicates that a god exists. If anything it actually casts doubt on the existence of God if indeed such a god is omnipotent.

PastorAIO:


Yes, I believe that many people have invented their 'God'.

Command: What about the command that you give to a Computer?
What about all the commands that you give to yourself? When you want to lose weight and you put yourself on a diet, have you not commanded yourself to only eat so much and at set times?

Again, having a moral Law (objective or not) doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any Law giver.

malvisguy212:
https://www.nairaland.com/2294808/why-evil-disproves-atheism

The existence of evil actually
establishes the existence of God.
To explain why, we need to go back to
Augustine who puzzled over the following
argument:
1. God created all things.
2. Evil is a thing.
3. Therefore, God created evil.
How could a good God create evil? If
those first two premises are true, He did,
and this is a God problem. So God must
not be good after all. But then Augustine
realized that the second premise is not
true. While evil is real, it's not a "thing."
Evil doesn't exist on its own. It only exists
as a lack or a deficiency in a good thing.
Evil is like rust in a car: If you take all of
the rust out of a car, you have a better
car; if you take the car out of the rust,
you have nothing. g. In other words, evil
only makes sense against the backdrop
of good. That's why we often describe evil
as negations of good things. We say
someone is immoral, unjust,
unfair, dishonest, etc.
We could put it this way: The shadows
prove the sunshine. There can be
sunshine without shadows, but there
can't be shadows without sunshine. In
other words, there can be good without
evil, but there can't be evil without good.
So evil can't exist unless good exists. But
good can't exist unless God exists. In
other words, there can be no objective
evil unless there is objective good, and
there can be no objective good unless
God exists. If evil is real as the recent
headlines from France plainly reveal
then God exists. The best evil can do is
show there's a devil out there, but it can't
disprove God. The very existence of evil
boomerangs back to show that God
exists.

malvisguy212:
If there is no single moral authority [i.e. no God] we have to in some sense 'create' values for ourselves ... and that means that moral claims are not true or false… you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made an error.

PastorAIO:


This one is more than circular, it loops and dives and 'boomerangs' upon itself in a variety of ways.

1) From the very start, you have God right there in the premises. 'God created everything'.

2) Why bother with the evil part. why not just say, God created Good and there are good things in the world so therefore God exists. The evil part is an extra appendage.

3) Evil is not a thing, and neither is Good. It is a functional state of things. Both are. A knife chopping vegetables for dinner is good for the diners. a knife stuck in someone's gut is evil. Good and evil functions can be found for just about any object. None of these suggest the existence of God in the slightest.

4)The idea of evil as a lack of deficiency of good is Rubbish. when a knife is slicing your guts nothing in the knife is deficient. The knife remains intact. Rather Good and Evil are interwoven like Yin and Yang. They are two sides of a single coin. You cannot say one side is based on the other side. The nonexistence of one is also the nonexistence of the other. There is no such thing as UP if there is no such thing as DOWN.

PastorAIO:


You have made an error.

Nobody 'creates' moral values for themselves. Morality is instinctive. You don't create sexual desire, it is an instinct. when you see a fine woman there is no contrivance involved in the raising of your phallus. It happens automatically.

Now that is probably a great example because just as there are a multiplicity of moral codes there also a variety of sexual types. Some phallus' raise for fat girls, some raise for short girls, others raise for chanel perfume, while others raise only for oyinbo. There is no single standard of a sexually alluring person. Sexuality develops along various lines in different people. So it is with Morality.

malvisguy212:
yes you are right, no other way to put it than to insert the word 'create" that why I say in some way.

For when Gentiles that have not the
law do by nature the things of the
law, these, not having the law, are the
law unto themselves; in that they
show the work of the law WRITTEN IN
THEIR HEART , THEIR CONSCIENCE BEARING WITNESS therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them… Romans 2:14-15,.

The Gentiles did the things required by
God’s law, not because they had received any specific written code, as the Jews had, but because there exists an ABSOLUTE system of morals and ethics.
God established this system, which has
continued from the Creation until now.
God’s absolutes cannot be superceded by man’s will without drastic consequences, as the world around us bears witness. This same principle of moral absoluteness is see in scripture, because the Bible contains definite teachings that are not open to man’s personal feeling and interpretation:

And we have the word of prophecy
made more sure; whereunto ye do
well that ye take heed, as unto a
lamp shining in a dark place, until the
day dawn, and the day-star arise in
your hearts: knowing this first, that
no prophecy of scripture is of
PRIVATE interpretation . For no
prophecy ever came by the will of
man: but men spake from God, being
moved by the Holy Spirit 2 Peter
1:19-21,

When God speaks, it is not for man to
interpret via his own feelings what God
has said. There is an absolute system of
teaching, just as there is an absolute set
of morals, both are defined by God.

malvisguy212:
yes you are right, no other way to put it than to insert the word 'create" that why I say in some way.

For when Gentiles that have not the
law do by nature the things of the
law, these, not having the law, are the
law unto themselves; in that they
show the work of the law WRITTEN IN
THEIR HEART , THEIR CONSCIENCE BEARING WITNESS therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them… Romans 2:14-15,.

malvisguy212:
am busy now, I will reply you later ,God willing.

PastorAIO:


Now to put the lie to that unorthodoxy that Paul wrote....

It would seem that God favoured the Gentiles more than the Jews in regard to this his moral law. Why?

Well he said this to them through Jeremiah:


For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

So the gentiles had the law of God written on their hearts which the Jews didn't so they had to be given the written code and only promised the one written on the heart later. Why would God deprive his own people so? Unless someone is BS-ing us. Either Jeremiah or Paul.

Or maybe the Jews were so morally depraved that they didn't have access to the law on their hearts and so needed to get it in written form first.