The Moral Argument for God's Existence

@fmf said
Your assertions about what is and isn't the "truth" when it comes to supernatural things are entirely subjective. The discussion of it is 100% between you and me. Your "God" isn't posting on this thread, so there is nothing going on between me and your "God" when it comes to your opinions and beliefs. We are both being subjective about this and about morality. And that's fine. There's nothing untoward about that.

Metaphors and subjections any ole dance will do.

@kellyjay said
Metaphors and subjections any ole dance will do.

What "subjection" are you talking about? What "dance"?

@thinkofone said
No matter how many times you "start from the beginning". No matter how many times you talk around it. If you don't have an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible does not provide you an objective moral standard.

The Bible very widely open to interpretation. Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides as to topics suc ...[text shortened]... erpretation of the Bible, therefore the Bible does not provide you with an objective moral standard.

You seem to be conflating the existence of moral absolutes with me having an objective standard for interpreting the Bible. I reject your premise that moral absolutes can only exist if I have an objective standard for interpreting the Bible. I don’t believe the latter is a necessary requirement for the former to exist. The fact that an objective reality exists is not dependent on our subjective interpretations thereof.

@kellyjay said
Metaphors and subjections any ole dance will do.

Your extraordinary but feigned insistence that at some point in the not too distant future there will exist real beasts with seven heads, real dragons, real whores with their cloths dripping blood riding other beasts, real hosemen of the apocalypse, real bowls pouring out stuff onto the earth, a real city descending out of heaven onto the earth, is a sad indictment of your intellectual honesty and a reflection of your disdain for this forum.

That the internet is teeming with scholarly articles, books, blogs, videos and discussion about the entire symbolism of Revelation and how it reflects the symbolism in Ezekiel and Daniel ... yet you can stubbornly stand behind your laughable claim that “it’s all literal, not metaphors” is a toe-curling embarrassment for any honest Christian reading these pages.

To observe you and sonship openly “dancing” around the truth of scripture like children “dancing” around a maypole, dressing the poetic symbolisms with ribbons of manmade garnish to bolster your defence of your terrible excruciating but preciously held ‘eternal suffering’ error is cringeworthy in the extreme.

You both clearly come here to proselytise; to intellectually and spiritually take on some cynical and yet still curious atheists, some of whom (FMF and JS357 for examples) have lived through decades of Christian existence and who have attended church and clearly understand more about the realities of the Christian creed than you do. But you both approach your task with a choking sneering disdain for your audience which renders your effete efforts mute at best, sour in the stomach at worst.

You and sonship demonstrate a dire lack of respect for the forum, it’s unwritten but accepted intellectual protocols and it’s members. Your glass-chinned certainties wrapped in regurgitated extractions of biblical text and pious waffly furballs of church-speak run like beads of rain down the glazed fixed faces and off the thick-skinned backs of those you pour it on because it lacks the grace, the essential moral cohesion and the respectful intellectual honesty required for it to permeate.

Any ole dance... sure, but not yours.

@dj2becker said
You seem to be conflating the existence of moral absolutes with me having an objective standard for interpreting the Bible. I reject your premise that moral absolutes can only exist if I have an objective standard for interpreting the Bible. I don’t believe the latter is a necessary requirement for the former to exist. The fact that an objective reality exists is not dependent on our subjective interpretations thereof.

. I reject your premise that moral absolutes can only exist if I have an objective standard for interpreting the Bible.

You can reject that all you want. It's not what I wrote. Yours a straw man argument.

The following is what I wrote:

No matter how many times you "start from the beginning". No matter how many times you talk around it. If you don't have an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible does not provide you an objective moral standard.

The Bible very widely open to interpretation. Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides as to topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. People interpret the Bible based on their own subjective standard.

Your interpretation of the Bible is subjective. You have no objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, therefore the Bible does not provide you with an objective moral standard.

Evidently now I'll have to add "No matter how many straw man arguments you make". You continue to make one intellectually dishonest post after another. It's what you do. It's who you are.

@thinkofone said
. I reject your premise that moral absolutes can only exist if I have an objective standard for interpreting the Bible.

You can reject that all you want. It's not what I wrote. Yours a straw man argument.

The following is what I wrote:
[quote] No matter how many times you "start from the beginning". No matter how many times you talk around it. If you don't ...[text shortened]... ontinue to make one intellectually dishonest post after another. It's what you do. It's who you are.

The words 'intellectually dishonest' are rich coming from someone who has been refusing to answer questions for decades on here.

If you are not arguing that there are no moral absolutes based on the fact that there is no objective standard for interpreting the Bible, what on earth are you on about? Some could argue that the Bible is the objective standard by which the Bible should be interpreted, i.e scripture should be used to interpret scripture and single verses should not be taken in isolation and out of context like you do all the time.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

OT or NT?

Stick to your guns.
What diff does it make?

Stay with your principles.

As a non-believer, the nuances of the different translations means very little to me. Sorry.

You believe the nuances between the different translations of the Bible is akin to the differences in how God is portrayed between the OT and NT?

Have you thought that through?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You believe the nuances between the different translations of the Bible is akin to the differences in how God is portrayed between the OT and NT?

Have you thought that through?

Many think the God of the OT and NT are different, they are not.
I recall you attempting to tell me that.

@kellyjay said
Many think the God of the OT and NT are different, they are not.
I recall you attempting to tell me that.

Take faith out of the equation. If you read the OT and NT as you would any other book there is no way you would conclude that they portray the same deity. No way in a million years.

@kellyjay said
Many think the God of the OT and NT are different, they are not.
I recall you attempting to tell me that.

Christianity is quite obviously a breakaway religion from Judaism. The OT and NT are clearly different. The latter [Christianity] commandeered the literature of its predecessor. Revelation was glued on in about as clumsy a way as possible, as was stuff like 'born in Bethlehem' and virgin birth whathaveyou, and of course the oblique Trinity stuff was conjured up to try to make it work after the maverick rabbi some people had pinned their hopes on was executed.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Take faith out of the equation. If you read the OT and NT as you would any other book there is no way you would conclude that they portray the same deity. No way in a million years.

You are not looking at the fact it was God who created a people by calling out Abraham. Establish them as a nation, gave them His law, had them track their family heritage so we could not only tell what family each belong to but foretold and brought about the birth of Jesus Christ. It’s all God’s doing there is only One.

@kellyjay said
You are not looking at the fact it was God who created a people by calling out Abraham. Establish them as a nation, gave them His law, had them track their family heritage so we could not only tell what family each belong to but foretold and brought about the birth of Jesus Christ. It’s all God’s doing there is only One.

And you are not taking into account that the God of the OT is a petty, jealous and tribal God.

@dj2becker said
The words 'intellectually dishonest' are rich coming from someone who has been refusing to answer questions for decades on here.

If you are not arguing that there are no moral absolutes based on the fact that there is no objective standard for interpreting the Bible, what on earth are you on about? Some could argue that the Bible is the objective standard by which the B ...[text shortened]... ture and single verses should not be taken in isolation and out of context like you do all the time.

If you are not arguing that there are no moral absolutes based on the fact that there is no objective standard for interpreting the Bible, what on earth are you on about?

Becker asks this despite the fact that I included what I'm "on about" in the very post to which he was responding and despite that fact it's already been answered many times already.

We've all seen this movie time and time again.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

You believe the nuances between the different translations of the Bible is akin to the differences in how God is portrayed between the OT and NT?

Have you thought that through?

Let's see if we can get at least one thing established.

You care?
Or you don't care?

Which is it, before I labor on some reply to analyze your question.

Its of a concern to you or it is of no concern to you?
Which ?

Let's see if we can get at least one thing established.

You care?
Or you don't care?

Which is it, before I labor on some reply to analyze your question.

Its of a concern to you or it is of no concern to you?
Which ?

Some of the problems I have had here is further pursuing talk with posters who obviously don't want to be bothered with reasonings about my Christian faith.

From now on, when I get signals that someone is definitely not interested, I'm doing my best to leave you alone.

That means I'll just stop reading anything further you have to write on the subjects.