cyrexx: @ ceasar
Ad hominien is when you insult the person making an argument instead of directly addressing his argument. I dont think i or purist have done that. We only expose the flaws of your logic. We launched no personal insult at you.

Really? Perhaps I 'misread' his intent when Purist said:

Purist: ^^ lol, are you trolling or what?

Or your intent when you derided us 'Christian apologists' as people suffering from 'cognitive dissonance' and so more willing to embrace 'illogicalities' than your version of the truth.

Perhaps I misunderstood it all. Perhaps all this 'logic' is doing my head in.

Mr_Anony:
God is omnipotent creator and we can't question His purposes simply because to do that, we have to have just as much knowledge and power as He has i.e. to judge God, we must be equal to or greater than God. A chicken cannot judge your morality over why you chose to kill one chicken for dinner and leave the other. It is only a fellow man or a greater being that qualifies to judge your choice of dinner

i disagree
"So, what you are saying is that your god sees us as chickens or goats he can mindlessly kill for food any time he chooses? If that is the case, he is no better than us human meat eaters, is he? If he is no better than us humans, why worship and revere him? He is just as flawed as the rest of us, so...

Anyway, if a chicken can judge us to our faces (which it can't because it can't talk) for killing it's kind, then it should. It definitely has the right to. Maybe then we would all realize our errors of killing chickens for food and all switch to being vegetarians. But the right to judge us, they defo have. But, unfortunately for a chicken, or a goat, or a pig, they can't exercise this right because they can't talk to us. But we humans can talk, therefore we have the right to judge a wicked deity for it's cruelty to us humans. We can judge "him" to his face because of that ability to talk and express openly our feelings. That is our sentience. That is why we can judge his sorry butt. Another reason why we can judge him is because we keep him in existence. Without us, your god would be gone in a puff of smoke. Grasp that"- Jenwitemi.

scares me to see Christians arguing like Atheists

Mr_Anony:
We may never know exactly why God hated Esau before he was born but one thing I'd like us to know is that God is omniscient and can see the end from the beginning. besides, God still blessed Esau his enemy with a "multitude of material blessings", He just didn't have the same close relationship with him as He (God) had with Jacob.

As for the Israelites, the land Israel was occupying was the land God promised He would give them after they had wiped out all the Canaanites by the time the cup of their sins would be full (Genesis 15:16). When Israel sinned, God would send the Assyrians to destroy them. Israel had a relationship with God but God was never partial towards them in judgment. lets be careful not to drift away from the question of God as a moral Judge to God as a provider.

Agreed, God punished the Israelites sometimes, but more often than not, he sided with them and favoured them over all others. They were his chosen people. They were his "favourites". He also hated Esau for no reason. God was/is partial.

Mr_Anony:
God is omnipotent creator and we can't question His purposes simply because to do that, we have to have just as much knowledge and power as He has i.e. to judge God, we must be equal to or greater than God. A chicken cannot judge your morality over why you chose to kill one chicken for dinner and leave the other. It is only a fellow man or a greater being that qualifies to judge your choice of dinner.

Unlike God, I don't profess undying love for chickens.

Mr_Anony:
This is all just you creating your own meaning for scripture. The bible says that no evildoer will inherit the kingdom of God. The context in which Paul was speaking is that you cannot be good on your own, you need the grace and mercy of God but I can see how you could easily misread it.

That's the beauty of the scripture, innit? We can all create our own meanings, so far it suits us well. The bible says that no evildoer will inherit the kingdom of God, but the same also says that God decides whom he shows mercy whenever he wants and cannot be questioned. Thus, we could argue that if God can hate and punish people even when they have done absolutely no wrong (meaning, you could still land in hell fire no matter how born again you are), he may very well choose to accept even the most evil of men into his kingdom. He works in mysterious ways; who are you to question him?

Mr_Anony:
The laws were literal laws. But then again, this does not show God's nature to have changed any more than if your father used to flog you to make you go to bed early until it became your habit when you grew older and he stopped talking about it. It doesn't mean that your dad now thinks that late nights are good for you it's just that he feels you are now mature enough to know what you are doing. (see Galatians 4:1-7)

If my father used to flog me for wrongdoing, then he stopped and started having heart-to-heart discussions with me instead, I believe everyone including yourself would agree that he has changed.

Mr_Anony:
I have never claimed that the bible is word-for-word perfect, what I claim is that the message of bible is the true and perfect word of God.
When someone leaves the Spirit of the Word and focuses on the letter, the person is bound to run into error.
It is the Spirit that matters. I am very sure that even if all the bibles in the world were destroyed today, People will still get born again and be led by the Spirit. So perfectly will they live that it would be as if they were indeed reading from the bible. The first Christians had no bible and yet the Church grew and the hand of God was upon them.

Before you read between the lines, ensure that you have already read what is written on the lines themselves.

Problem is, the spirit is way too subjective to be reckoned with. There seems to be multiple Holy Spirits because everyone gets spoken to by the spirit, even when their interpretations are worlds apart. Therefore, we are only left with the "letter" to analyze objectively. I wish there was a way that we could try out your experiment though - destroy all bibles and see how many people still become Christians, much less, born-again.

Kay 17:

No. The laws reflected sins, like homosexuality, tattoos, eating of unclean animals, socialization with
Outsiders etc

Don't quite follow exactly what you are saying no to. Care to elaborate a bit

Kay 17: You were touching on rights. Pls who defined and gave him such rights??

God is almighty and by nature has absolute power. Your question sounds like "Why is a bachelor unmarried?"

Kay 17: Sin being disobedient to God. If God instructs me to kill my father and I don't, I have sinned. Some noble deeds are Sins.
Sentient beings are conscious, thoughtful and non mechanical beings, they shouldn't be treated as property.

Sin is going against God's nature. If God tells you to kill your father for no reason, God would have gone against His nature.
A cow is a conscious, thoughtful and non-mechanical being too.

The thing with you is you don't believe or even want to believe that a being greater than yourself calls the shots so you try to subject Him to your standards and it just doesn't work that way.

caezar:

Really? Perhaps I 'misread' his intent when Purist said:


Or your intent when you derided us 'Christian apologists' as people suffering from 'cognitive dissonance' and so more willing to embrace 'illogicalities' than your version of the truth.

Perhaps I misunderstood it all. Perhaps all this 'logic' is doing my head in.

If you cannot see why I asked if you were trolling, then sorry, I can't help you. I apologize if you feel insulted though. No hard feelings, bruv.

This here's the reason I pulled out, brothers on the forum. Argument for me is about rendering a witness for Christ. Acceptance or rejection of this witness is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to make sure a witness has been rendered for Him. I'm saying this to you, my brothers here because there is a point at which we will start to corrupt our testimony by insisting on getting the light through. Mr Anony, you remember the accusation of dishonesty made upon me. That is just one example of a beginning of corruption. The witness has been made. Leave our respondents to do with it what they will.

Mr_Anony:
Sin is going against God's nature. If God tells you to kill your father for no reason, God would have gone against His nature.

How about if there's a reason? Such as, to test his faith?

Ihedinobi: This here's the reason I pulled out, brothers on the forum. Argument for me is about rendering a witness for Christ. Acceptance or rejection of this witness is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to make sure a witness has been rendered for Him. I'm saying this to you, my brothers here because there is a point at which we will start to corrupt our testimony by insisting on getting the light through. Mr Anony, you remember the accusation of dishonesty made upon me. That is just one example of a beginning of corruption. The witness has been made. Leave our respondents to do with it what they will.

Could not have put it any more clearer than you just did. if one cannot come to realization on this, perhaps with time he will (or not) at least you have put in the Word

Purist:

Agreed, God punished the Israelites sometimes, but more often than not, he sided with them and favoured them over all others. They were his chosen people. They were his "favourites". He also hated Esau for no reason. God was/is partial.

I don't agree with you especially as regards the context of God being a moral judge. As long as when God wanted to judge evil, he didn't side His friends, He is an impartial judge.
He even blessed the Esau that He "hated" and wasn't unjust to him. What exactly is your big problem with God's justice?

Unlike God, I don't profess undying love for chickens.

Lol, God doesn't profess undying love for chickens.
But anyway, assuming you loved chickens, it wouldn't be out of place if you killed or quarantined the diseased ones so that the others can live healthy. the point is that the chicken does not have the right to question your decisions because it doesn't know any better.

That's the beauty of the scripture, innit? We can all create our own meanings, so far it suits us well. The bible says that no evildoer will inherit the kingdom of God, but the same also says that God decides whom he shows mercy whenever he wants and cannot be questioned. Thus, we could argue that if God can hate and punish people even when they have done absolutely no wrong (meaning, you could still land in hell fire no matter how born again you are), he may very well choose to accept even the most evil of men into his kingdom. He works in mysterious ways; who are you to question him?

Not so fast, you have not yet shown anyone who God wrongfully punished. Your little rant is baseless. God is merciful and just.

If my father used to flog me for wrongdoing, then he stopped and started having heart-to-heart discussions with me instead, I believe everyone including yourself would agree that he has changed.

No he didn't change his values, you only became more mature so he stopped using the cane.

Problem is, the spirit is way too subjective to be reckoned with. There seems to be multiple Holy Spirits because everyone gets spoken to by the spirit, even when their interpretations are worlds apart. Therefore, we are only left with the "letter" to analyze objectively. I wish there was a way that we could try out your experiment though - destroy all bibles and see how many people still become Christians, much less, born-again.

The Spirit of God is not sujective at all. As for your experiment, You have the early church as an example of a bibleless church .............and it thrived. In fact, christianity was spread by christians without no bibles.

It is the Spirit that quickens and not the letter.

Purist:
How about if there's a reason? Such as, to test his faith?

God will not let him kill his father in the end (refer to Abraham/Isaac sacrifice)

Ihedinobi: This here's the reason I pulled out, brothers on the forum. Argument for me is about rendering a witness for Christ. Acceptance or rejection of this witness is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to make sure a witness has been rendered for Him. I'm saying this to you, my brothers here because there is a point at which we will start to corrupt our testimony by insisting on getting the light through. Mr Anony, you remember the accusation of dishonesty made upon me. That is just one example of a beginning of corruption. The witness has been made. Leave our respondents to do with it what they will.

Na true my brother this is fruitless. I'm outta this thread. Funny thing is after giving all that advice, I got drawn back in (oh hypocrite that I am. lol)

@Purist and co. He that hath ears let him hear.

Goodbye

Un-follows thread

Mr_Anony:
I don't agree with you especially as regards the context of God being a moral judge. As long as when God wanted to judge evil, he didn't side His friends, He is an impartial judge.
He even blessed the Esau that He "hated" and wasn't unjust to him. What exactly is your big problem with God's justice?

I don't have any problem with your god's "justice". I'm simply pointing out to you that he's no different from Allah and the rest that you deride.

Mr_Anony:
Lol, God doesn't profess undying love for chickens.
But anyway, assuming you loved chickens, it wouldn't be out of place if you killed or quarantined the diseased ones so that the others can live healthy. the point is that the chicken does not have the right to question your decisions because it doesn't know any better.

If I were omnipotent, I wouldn't need to kill or quarantine the diseased chickens, I would simply make them as healthy as the others.

Mr_Anony:
Not so fast, you have not yet shown anyone who God wrongfully punished. Your little rant is baseless. God is merciful and just.

But I have shown you someone that God hated for no reason. Okay, in Numbers 31, we read of Yahweh's commandment to Moses to kill all Midianites. The Israelites were sympathetic though, and they spared the lives of the women and children. But when Moses found out, he was enraged and he ordered them (under God's commandment of course) to kill all the boys and kill every woman who had slept with a man (vs 17), and save for themselves all the virgins (vs 18). Now, if you can tell me the offense of these latter victims (the children especially) that God ordered them to be killed, maybe I may begin to see things from your perspective.

Also, a merciful and just God doesn't go about hardening people's heart just to boost his own ego. Your own god, however, is guilty of that.

Mr_Anony:
No he didn't change his values, you only became more mature so he stopped using the cane.

No, he changed his values. He initially believed in being forceful and aggressive to drive home his point (corporal punishment), but had a change of heart eventually and decided to go softer.

Mr_Anony:
The Spirit of God is not sujective at all. As for your experiment, You have the early church as an example of a bibleless church .............and it thrived. In fact, christianity was spread by christians without no bibles.

It is the Spirit that quickens and not the letter.

The Spirit of God is subjective. Isn't that why Christianity is often touted as a "personal relationship"?? Of course, Christianity was spread without no bibles. The swords did the job just fine.

Mr_Anony:
God will not let him kill his father in the end (refer to Abraham/Isaac sacrifice)

Okay

Mr_Anony:

Na true my brother this is fruitless. I'm outta this thread. Funny thing is after giving all that advice, I got drawn back in (oh hypocrite that I am. lol)

@Purist and co. He that hath ears let him hear.

Goodbye

Un-follows thread

It has suddenly become "fruitless" because you and your friends have failed to demonstrate how your god is different from other gods out there, and why he should be regarded as a moral authority at all.

Anyways, is morality possible without an authoritative source? Answer: YES!

Purist:

It has suddenly become "fruitless" because you and your friends have failed to demonstrate how your god is different from other gods out there, and why he should be regarded as a moral authority at all.

[size=15pt]Anyways, is morality possible without an authoritative source? Answer: YES[/size]!

SECONDED

This will be my last comment on this thread.

The op, mkmyers45, started the thread to find an answer to whether or not it is possible to have morality without an authoritative source. More than 400 posts since then have been addressing whether or not Yahweh is worthy of being the authoritative source of morality. That says that at some point early in the debate it must have been shown that the answer to that question is No, morality is an impossibility without an authoritative source.

In a sense that question sounds like "is length possible without some way to measure it?" Of course the answer is yes. Whether we know how to measure length or not, it is a reality. But it will remain a meaningless one to us and we will labor in incredible confusion in dealing with it until we learn how to measure it. For this reason, I submit that the more correct and logical question for debate is "IS IT POSSIBLE FOR MORALITY TO BE MEANINGFUL OR IS MORALITY MEANINGFUL WITHOUT AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE?"

To this question, the Christian's answer is No. The Christian's reasons for such an answer are enumerated below. What opposing views there are to it I may read but I will not respond to no less because of the tiresome debating styles of anti-Christians.

One
There must be absolutes for life to be meaningful and liveable. Without them, there is chaos and ultimately destruction of life because of the conflict that results.

Two
Absolutes cannot be agreed upon. This is because an absolute is a reality not a mental concept. Absolutes can only be accepted or rejected.

Three
A consensus with regard to establish an absolute to which individual standards must adhere never really works out as a marriage of different and most likely conflicting standards, but as an agreement to accept or reject an independent, neutral standard. This is an extension of "two" above.

Four
Morality or moral behavior, like length or time or mass is a measurable quantity and as such must have a universal standard or absolute against which it must be measured to prevent the arbitrariness that degenerates into chaos and inevitably destruction of life.

Five
Human beings are moral agents and as such cannot at the same time constitute moral authorities. This is evident because one thing cannot be in two opposing conditions at the same time.

The first four of the foregoing positions fully represent and satisfactorily too the Christian's answer to the question, "is morality possible without an authoritative source?" The last is just the Christian's extra and the beginning of the build-up to the worthiness of Yahweh to be supreme moral authority and morality's absolute which is a separate argument.

^^^^ From http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm

Like Stalin and Mao, Hitler illustrates the point made by both Dostoyevsky and earlier John Locke: when God is excluded, then it is not surprising when morality itself is sacrificed in the process and chaos and horror is unleashed on the world. So it has been in our time, and all the elaborate evasions produced by today’s atheists cannot change what their anti-religious kinsmen did, cannot change the grim facts of history.

Enigma: ^^^^ From http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0214.htm

The Crusades, the persistent religious intolerance and conflicts that unnecessarily plague is a consequence of the Fact that God doesn't make morality.

^^^ Whether it is religion in the form of Christianity, of Islam or of atheism, man is capable of misusing anything.

Even whether it is science or worse still scientism, man is capable of misusing it.

The point here though is the natural correlation between atheism and the absence of morality. Hence, people like you, Kay, try to coopt "morality" from borrowed bases which usually are bases to be found eventually in religion and ulimately in God in some way. This is even true of so-called "secular humanism".

^^
The source of morality is the society.

Its moot to discuss a correlation btw atheism and immorality.

The unsatisfactory consequences of violence and conflict from religions is not ONLY as result of misuse of power, rather sometimes fulfilment and obedience to religious doctrines.