For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 353
Topic's author
#331
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
Continuing:


So, with the historical evidence that we have available we can check for the most plausible reasons. All these people that make claims of the events being written AFTER the facts have no historical evidence, no historical confirmation to these claims. I have many lines of evidence that give credence to prophecy. The whole NT revolves around a soon, coming, near/at hand judgment upon a specific people (Mosaic covenant). The Olivet Discourse, which I claim can be found in the epistles of Paul and John and Peter and James, give evidence that the entire NT was written before AD 70. Paul and Peter were killed, according to early church fathers, before AD 70. Their epistles show evidence of this. The epistles speak of soon coming judgment to a people that no longer exist in covenant relationship with God after AD 70. The lack of mention of an already destroyed temple and the city is HIGHLY significant. Their whole way of life revolved around this temple and animal sacrifice system of worship. Mention after mention will show throughout the NT treats the OT sacrificial system as still in existence. If you ever read the NT again, pay particular attention to the audience of address. The gospels are focused on these OT people (John 1:11-12) and soon coming judgment with the (second) coming of the Messiah (Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9). You can't separate these Old Covenant people from the audience of address unless you isolate verses and ignore the pronouns and nouns of address. You can't escape it being the 1st-century audience if you pay attention to the timeline. Adjectives such as soon, near, quick, etc., imply a timeframe that concerns them. You CAN'T argue against this without reading into Scripture something it does not say. 

When you say, "you need to show god exists before you can show any of those things objectively exist" how are you going to believe in a Spirit Being if you fail to trust anything the Bible says? So the first step for me is to establish the Bible is reliable and reasonable to believe. Another way to do this is to show the unreasonableness of what you believe in making sense of anything ultimately. 

When you say, "you need to show god exists before you can show any of those things objectively exist,"  I ask you, what will you believe? You will question everything, no matter how reasonable, because believing in God means you are not in right relationship with Him. It means you either believe or you deny. It means you are responsible and answerable to Him. It is easier to deny Him so you can continue to pretend your little peccadillos are justifiable. 

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
 
God requires your belief in Him for you to be JUSTIFIED before Him (specifically in the One He has sent - His Son/Jesus). If you excuse yourself by denying His existence and ignoring His Son (you said you don't care one way or the other, if I remember correctly) then you have found a reason to deny Him. You put your limited mind and authority above that of His, the ultimate authority. You become that authority, as you have shown in your ability to make up your own 'good' which really is not good at all unless it complies with the ideal, fixed, final standard or measure.


It is not nonsensical to ask why a subjective opinion is good or better and in relation to what. 


It is nonsensical when the person you are conversing with has said that it would appear that A) there is no 'better' in an objective sense
Is that OPINION/statement good or better then since it is not objective because it only APPEARS, it lacks what is necessary for objectivity, yet it wants to make an objective claim? If it is not better, then why should I believe your subjective opinion?

#332
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
What is that question?

You state: "My starting point doesn't presuppose," it does, because it uses an atheistic worldview to look for answers and dismisses the Christian theistic worldview.


My starting point is the very simple question 'How did the universe come to be'. No presupposition there.

You have demonstrated in a post (and I drew your attention to this) that you take the side of interpretative data that supports the atheistic/secular worldview and you are biased towards the Christian worldview. You deny the Christian God exists on the belief that there is no evidence for His existence. Wasn't it you who called Christians ignorant and insane? 
I take the side of reason and what I can observe. I see no reason to assume more than my senses are reasonably accurate and that I can use them to make reasonable deductions of the universe around me. No, I have never called christians either ignorant nor insane. I don't believe either to true, if I did I'd have no reason to converse with them. That said, I haven't been presented with evidence of the validity of their claims.

I'm waiting for you to tackle Posts 182 and 191 with interest. 
I believe I began in a previous post with a couple of questions on the source of these prophecies. How exactly do you verify that the Gospels in question were written prior to ad70? Also your first bit about the olivet discourse being specific to a specific time is demonstrably speculation, since no date or time is given in the texts. What of: 
Mark 13

14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’[a] standing where it[b] does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.
20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
    and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[c]
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

Notice how it states 'in those days, following that distress' then proceeds to talk of the stars falling from the sky. Also: 'at that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds.' These are still the same period, so do we have any records of these things occuring? What you have so far is that Jesus stated a temple would be destroyed and it was... I hardly find that to be any sign of divine insight, he even stated he didn't know when it would happen.


Note, all this is simply initial opinions on prophecy from someone who claims neither to be well versed in prophecy or the history of the period.
Topic's author
#333
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
Makes sense of it? Why is your view any better than any other view? You have already admitted it is not. Thus, you are inconsistent which means you have major problems. Why is your good better than my good? Not only this but as I have pointed out a number of times, everything has an identity and that identity cannot be what it is not.
My 
Norm Geisler, Any Absolutes, Absolutely, had this to say:

"Finally, if morals are relative to each social group, then even opposite ethical imperatives can be viewed as right. But contradictory imperatives cannot both be true. Everything cannot be right, certainly not opposites."
That's absurd. If morality is purely subjective then no group is 'right' every group is simply stating an opinion. There is no contradiction if there is no objective morality by which to be right. You seem to think that my position is that no bodies morality is wrong. It's not, it's that I have know way of knowing if anyone's morality is right.
That is his point - if morals are relative to each social group, then even opposite ethical imperatives can be viewed as right. But that doesn't make it right for the very reason he states - Everything cannot be right, certainly not opposites.

You still don't get the difference between being right and opinion/preferences. Preferences are what is - I like ice-cream - description of a fact. Moral rights and wrongs are what should be - prescription - what OUGHT to be. Even without an objective morality, it can't be right, only preference for the simple reason you state next "You seem to think that my position is that no bodies morality is wrong. It's not, it's that I have [no] way of knowing if anyone's morality is right." 

Your position is without reason in that you can't tell that nobodies position is wrong IF...you have no way of knowing if anyone's morality is right objectively. 

A nobody is a person of no importance or authority.


If I were to assume no god exists and no objective morality then I could make sense of morality by acknowledging morality is a purely subjective set of values, same with best. This would make sense of them. They would be reasonable and easy to understand.
No, you can't make sense of morality. Morality implies a right and wrong. All you have is a preference. You assign to that preference a 'right.' What you do is SET the values. You say, "this is 'right' when it is no more than a set of preferences that a person or people like. They call it right. Hitler calls killing Jews right and American call it wrong. Both groups/social conventions hold an opposite definition on the same subject matter. 

Which is actually right:

Killing Jews is right. 

OR

Killing Jews is wrong.

They are both contradictory statements. Are you saying they can both be right - logically?

You see, you can't tell which is the actual right because you do not have the necessary means to do so. 

Now, if you are a Jew and you lived in Nazi Germany during WWII you could not make the argument that it was wrong for Nazi Germany to kill 6 million Jews, including you. They are doing what they feel is right. They have legislated killing Jews into their constitution. A class of people can be devalued just because those in power are impartial to that group and just like is done with the unborn human being today. You see, anything can be legislated if those in power have the means to do so. All you can say is you don't like what they did. When you are next in line for the gas chambers I'm sure your position would not be that they are right to do what they are doing, even if their society as a whole feels differently. Your kind of belief is something you can live with as long as it does not include you in a social injustice, but once it does then you know it is absolutely, objectively wrong. (At least I hope you would). That is when your subjective "morality" or preference becomes absolute. That is when you say, "It is most definitely wrong." Then they take you away to the gas chambers and terminate you. 

Adopting a set of ideas does not make them 'right.' What makes them right is if they are right. 



Morality would be a set of values a person adopts. Best would be a preference (can you show it's anything more than that). You keep attacking the straw man that I assume all morals are 'right' my position is actually that I can't call any moral values correct because no one has demonstrated we can know of anything to measure those values against.

No, morality would not be any set. Just because you adopt a set it does not make it right, it only makes it preferable to you. Best is not a preference. It is that which no better can be known, thus it is universal, absolute, fixed, final. You can't have two opposing 'bests' when they relate to the same thing and in the same manner. It is NOT LOGICAL. It is a logical absurdity and contradiction. Once you adopt such a contradiction you make it meaningless.

When you come to a red light some people believe it means 'Go.'
Other people believe it means 'Stop.' 

What is your preference? We know what is the correct/right rule regarding a red light. It is one view, not the other. The BEST practice is to obey the traffic rules unless the traffic light is broken, then common sense would dictate to Stop, look both ways and proceed with caution. 

(Continue on next post)
Topic's author
#334
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000


That brings another cog into the wheel, moral absolutes.
Only if you assume that there must be a 'right'. You're assuming that there's a right answer why? What reason is there to assume that any of our opinions on morality are right? We're still not even passed the simple question of how you can know there is an objective morality, let alone on to how we can know that anyone has come to the correct conclusions.
I know because of the impossibility of the contrary. You can't deny an absolute without stating one. When you state that there are no absolute rights and wrongs, are you absolutely sure of that because in order to deny an absolute you have to state one, which refutes your belief/
self-refuting.

You can't say anything is right unless it is. Right, like truth, is an absolute. Once you state, "such and such is right" either it is right or it is not. It can't be both right and wrong. When you assume something to be right unless it is you make an a_ _ of yourself. (a _ _ of you and me - ass-u-me  - me,
 if I believe you). Why would I believe you? There is no good reason. You can't provide one unless you have an objective authority that KNOWS.

Again, making sense of values is only possible with an objective source. Show me your source is objective. If not, then I claim you are wrong and I am right. One thing is certain your belief and mine both can't be true (logically) because they state opposites. 


1) To argue there is no absolute right you must state an absolute. 
2) To argue two opposing views can both be right is to deny logic and the Law of Identity. Once you deny the laws of logic communicating and making sense of anything becomes impossible. 

So convince me that your "good" morals (which are no more than your personal taste) are actually so - good, or don't call what you believe as good, even for yourself. Just call it your preference from this date forward.  


Funny thing is that you can't deny an absolute without implying one in the process of the denial and I noticed you have been fairly conscientious not to do so. God is that absolute.
I don't deny the absolutes so much as question them. If I have no evidence of these absolutes (which I don't), then why would I believe in them? I notice you haven't demonstrated any way in which we can show a moral absolute exists, until you can why should I accept it's true? You argue 'you need it to make sense of morality' not true, I could make sense of morality perfectly well by viewing it as non-existent, it's something we made up. If so then there is no 'best moral' simply whatever morals people choose, they aren't right or wrong, they're simply preference and opinion. Can you show any reason this can't be the case? Can you show any way in which this would be different from the world we observe?

You are denying absolutes are necessary regarding morality.

If you have no evidence of an absolute right or an absolute good then don't use the phrase right or good EVER when speaking of morality because you are not making sense of morality (right and wrong). 

Truth is objective and it is absolute. It CAN'T be anything BUT. Something is EITHER true or it is not. It can't both be true and not true (false) at the same time. That is a contradiction. So when you say something is good (and you are speaking of morals) then it either is or it is not. It can't be both. It can't be what it is not. 

If morality is non-existent then there is nothing wrong with someone shooting you dead. Are you willing to live, or should I say die, with this? 
If morality is non-existent then there is nothing wrong with someone torturing a child for fun. Are you willing to live with this?

So, when someone starts torturing a little child in front of you then you can't OBJECT to it being wrong, can you? All you can say it "I don't like it."

Your worldview is so inconsistent I don't know how you can live in it and make sense of anything. 

When you say, "You argue 'you need it to make sense of morality,' not true, I could make sense of morality perfectly well by viewing it as non-existent," you're not making sense of morality because morality (right and wrong) is the difference between right and wrong and you claim my view is not true, but truth needs an absolute. Truth can't change on a whim, even if it is your whim. When someone acts immorally you would be outraged, showing that you can state something, but you can't live by such statements. Again, inconsistency abounds. 

At least I hope you would be morally outraged if someone decided to torture your children, and for the fun of it ("they aren't right or wrong"). If morality is non-existent then you would have no reason to object to whatever happens as to right or wrong ("they aren't right or wrong"). You can't say anything is right or wrong.

So is torturing little children neither right nor wrong? EVERYONE, Mdh2000 doesn't know that torturing little children for fun is WRONG - hide your children and don't let him babysit them. 

Is that how you want to live your life? Do you really want me to push your moral button and show that you do believe that morality exists, that there are rights and wrongs and they are absolute??? If you can't distinguish between rape or torturing a child, and for fun, as wrong everywhere and in every situation I think you need to see a psychiatrist. I think that anyone who can't determine that is morally repugnant. 


Topic's author
#335
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
Yes, I can show it as reasonable and logical because only one system is necessary for morality and no other meets that criterion. If you want to know what is good you need God - the unchanging, benevolent final standard of appeal.
Missed this, sorry.

No, you can't show it as logical or reasonable. You simply assume that we must a means of judging 'best' or 'morality' You have shown no way in which this is actually in accordance to reality. Can you show that we do in fact have a means of judging best or morality (neither actually state they are objective values, even if they did then you would still need to show that something exists that fits the definition). Your argument seems to be close to assuming an objective moral standard in its premise (that would be begging the question).

You missed the reasonableness of my position because you have failed to engage, to date (see Posts 182 and 191). If prophecy is reasonable and logical to believe then it gives credence to the rest of Scripture as being so also. Who do you know who can make hundreds/thousands of predictions that come to pass with 100% accuracy? For your consideration, if God exists then it would be possible since He created the natural realm and TRANSCENDS it. He sees the end of things from the beginning. For a timeless Being, time is present to Him in past, present, and future at the same time. Thus, He can say, "Before Abraham was I am." He is the God of the living. He exists in the eternal now. If you are outside of time then you have no beginning and no end.

I believe about one-third of prophecy is predictive/prophetic.

If God is the greatest conceivable being, and He has chosen to communicate with His creatures (humanity) through humans, then miracles (that which circumvent the natural world or our abilities) is reasonable. If God is real then we can make sense of morality, existence (both life and death), origins, etc., because He has revealed as much.

If God is the Creator of all things then He understands every aspect of their creation. 

"Can you show that we do in fact have a means of judging best or morality"

I have asked you to explain why what you perceive as good is actually so. Can you do that?

If you can't then I ask you what would be necessary for us to know?
How can you have a concept of goodness without a fixed ideal and it still be reasonable?

You agreed that God would meet the requirements. 

Earlier in our communication, you stated something to the effect of it being good for you. Once you cross the line between morals v. preference there has to be an objective reference, just like there are objective reference points when we measure quantitative/empirical things. If you don't have such a reference what makes your ideas an obligation and a duty other than force?


Topic's author
#336
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
Some truths are logically self-evident. Would you know what straight was without knowing what crooked is? How would you measure good if all you knew was evil?
Can you show that anyone knows what good is? Or what evil is? Can you demonstrate why their definition is better than anyone else's? Let's talk about objective morality and abortion. My position is that neither position is correct to state their position as morally correct. Neither have to my knowledge demonstrated any way they can know their moral position is objectively accurate, or that there is any objective morality for it to be accurate against.
I can't show you anything, no matter how reasonable, unless you are willing to test and believe it. What is necessary for goodness? Can you answer that?

1) With abortion, is it reasonable to believe the unborn is a LIVING HUMAN BEING? (If not what kind of living being is it? Or are you claiming it is not living?) 
2) When you devalue one class of human being because you choose to (a woman's 'right' to choose) then what is to stop you devaluing another class (say all toddlers). 
3) Do human beings have value? That is something you have to decide. Do they? If not then it doesn't matter who is killed or for whatever reason (or no reason) possible. Can you live with that? If you can then your next! Step this way. 
4) If there is nothing that is right or wrong then none of this matters. Can you live like none of this matters?



The law of identity states that a thing is what it is. (A=A)

So? In this case we have morality:

 a doctrine or system of moral conduct

So, why do these systems have to be anything more than a collection of subjective values and preferences? Morality isn't in conflict if the systems someone holds are different since by definition the system isn't specific. 
Yes, it is. The Law of Identity, as well as the Law of Non-contradiction, is violated. Good has a specific identity or it means nothing or everything. If you want to live a life that denies these logical laws or principles then you WON'T be able to make sense of ANYTHING. Do you want to live like that?

1
If you assert A in this case to be morality then there's no issue,
however
if your A is something else then what exactly are you talking about as A?
A has a specific identity. It is that thing and nothing else or it is not A (non-A)


With goodness, how would you know what that was unless you have a standard to compare goodness to that was ideal? And you can't arbitrarily call something good without it actually being good. Why should I believe your opinion? Hitler thought it was good to eliminate 6 million Jews and 11-12 million undesirables. Is it good because he called it good? NO. Good has to have an identity that does not change on a particular issue and morph into its opposite. Abortion was an example I gave you. Before Roe V. Wade abortion was considered wrong and a crime unless the mother and unborn were both threatened and would lose their life. After Roe v. Wade abortion was legalized to a specific period in the development of the unborn.
Who said we do know what goodness is? We have opinions, but can you prove in any way that we know what is good and what is bad? Can you demonstrate that anyone's idea of good is more accurate to reality to anyone else's? You're still unable to address your claim that a moral absolute must exist, you certainly haven't done anything more than state your preference that there be a moral absolute because you dislike the implications otherwise. This doesn't suggest your position is accurate. Care to address how we can know morality exists as anything more than [subjectivity?]

If you don't know that it is wrong to torture little children for fun then you have a problem. Do you know this? Can you say it is wrong? Or are you just going to say it is neither right or wrong and let someone torture your little children? That is why when you meet someone who denies morality is absolute and objective it is time to separate your children and loved ones from that person/group. 

I prove it by the unreasonableness and impossibility/senselessness of the contrary. If you don't know what good is then how can you say yours or anyone's opinions are either good or right? You can't. Eliminate such references from your vocabulary and don't object to someone who thinks otherwise, since you don't know. Yet all I see is your constant objections. IT IS INCONSISTENT but matches your worldview. Inconsistency spells something is terribly wrong/contradictory with your thinking. You have no means to object to this since you have no concept of wrong. Why are you constantly objecting then? 


So who was right with abortion? They both can't be logically right since they state opposites. Right, or good loses its identity when it can mean the opposite depending on who holds the view. It is stupidity to say that both views are right/good.

We're not even really arguing this point. All I can really say is so what? I don't know as I'd go so far as to say it's stupidity, but I see no reason to see it as anything more than an expression of opinion and preference. Can show any statement on morality is more than that?
So what? Do you value your life or that of your loved ones? If a whole class of human beings can be devalued don't think that they can't do the same with you. So what? If you don't care then don't object to someone else who doesn't either and who wishes to treat you with disrespect and as worthless.
Topic's author
#337
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
You said that good can mean anything (and I agree if there is no ultimate standard then any standard goes). You said I could not demonstrate there is such a thing as objective good. I agree if there is no objective source. However, the Bible claims there is such a source and gives good reason to believe it is that source.

No, I said everyone forms their own opinion of good. That's not the same as saying either good can mean anything (though that's technically just in definition, any word can mean anything depending on how we define it, but I also didn't mean that anything can be good). No, I never said you couldn't, I asked if you could and have stated that you haven't.
What is the difference between good meaning everything and everyone forming their own opinion of Good?

If Peter believes X is good, morally; Paul believes Y is good morally; Mary believes Z is good morally, and they all centre on the same subject matter (killing the unborn), which is the correct position?

Let's give a value to X. X = killing the unborn because the unborn is not a person is good. Y = the woman should make the decision on whether to kill the unborn because it is leaching off of her body and she believes in bodily autonomy so her choice is good. Z = killing the unborn is killing an innocent but helpless human being which is good because it is not useful as yet. We can add other values, say A. A = the unborn is not alive so you are not killing anything (subjective, right, so the person can make the value whatever they like) thus it is good to do what you like.  B = killing the unborn is okay because I like killing, therefore killing it is good. Do you think none of these opinions is right or that they all are equally valid/good because, after all, every one forms their own opinion!? I could keep making up values from C-->infinity. I could make B31 the opinion that killing the unborn is NOT good because it is an innocent human life and killing an innocent human being opens up to killing other classes of humans. Once we have exhausted A-Z, then we can go A1-Z1, A2-Z2, and so on. How do you make sense of it unless there is a true value for Good? You don't, so there is no good. Good means anything, therefore nothing/meaningless. It loses its identity.

In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.



I chose the abortion debate as one issue in which we can question what the "good" is. Whose view is more reasonable and logical?.... 
Not really no, you wouldn't come to a moral conclusion by concluding what is more logical. Morality has never been synonymous with logic to my thinking. The rest of your position is an argument to consequence/appeal to emotion and meaningless to prove anything exists.
My first thought was, why is your thinking justifiable, let alone right?

It is more than an appeal to emotion, it is an appeal to human decency. Is that allowed?

If morality is not synonymous with logic then nothing makes sense and we are free to do whatever we want as long as we can get away with doing what we want. If nothing makes sense then it doesn't matter what we do. Are you willing to live like that? Or are there some things that are moral and logical?

If morality does not make sense (Thou shall not kill/murder) then it is permissible to murder, especially those who don't want the unborn, or someone you dislike.

Is it okay to murder those you don't want or don't like? (murder = taking an innocent life)

 • Most women who have an abortion do so because they become pregnant when they do not intend to. In developing countries, 84% of unintended pregnancies occur among women who have an unmet need for modern contraception. Thus, meeting this need is an important strategy to reduce unintended pregnancies—and the abortions or unplanned births that often follow.
• As of 2010–2014, an estimated 99 million unintended pregnancies occur each year worldwide. Of these, more than half (56%) end in abortion. 

That is approximately 55 million unwanted human lives each year between 2010-2014 (roughly 210 million). They did not want to keep the unborn for a variety of reasons, possibly because they felt they felt they could not afford to or it was inconvenient. They did not want to or else these human lives would not have been terminated.

That is the facts; 210 million human beings terminated because they are unwanted. Could you justify doing that with a country like South Africa, killing every single human being within the country because we did not feel they were wanted?

25  Southern Africa  / 2016--->56,015,473
                                / 2017--->56,717,156

Could we go to China and kill every single person? That is roughly the number of people killed/murdered by abortion since 1980:

What is wrong with that? Nothing if there is no logic to morality.


Topic's author
#338
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
So, you must answer why it is okay to kill one whole class of human beings because of the choice of another class (i.e., unborn and women), yet you punish and set rules with other classes when they kill whole classes. That same woman can kill her unborn human offspring but not her two-year-old? The class of born as opposed to unborn gives different laws on killing. Why can't you kill the newborn but you can the unborn? They are both dependent on her. They are both smaller than she is. The difference is their environments. Is it okay to kill someone because they are in a different environment than you are?
This also does nothing to prove an objective morality exists.
IF
you can't determine that killing innocent human beings is okay. Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? Yes, you say? Okay, you're next!


If you have no objective standard then you are at the mercy of those in control and it is okay for them to do what they prefer because they are in control. Is that reasonable and logical to believe? If so, "You're next; please step this way!" 
No. I can very much say I'm against it. I can very much say that I will fight to change it, I will just do so with the intellectual honesty of admitting that my reasons for that are a collection of personally formed opinions, preferences and views. The same as someone who does this with a supposed (and as of yet unshown) moral authority.
You're against it? Who cares if there are no objective moral standards? What does it matter unless you are in control? And those who fight to change the current moral climate in a country are moral reformers. They go against what everyone else regards as right or desirable. 

Go to North Korea and tell Kim Jong-un he is wrong. Go there with the intention of fighting him.

Without God show me your moral standard matters? 

So, is might makes the right GOOD? How can you know? Only if a necessary objective standard exists. Without it I would be in the same position as you, not knowing any moral truth, and that is where you are. 
You are in the same position as me. The difference is you have pointed at something and said 'that's my objective morality'. You certainly haven't demonstrated such an objective morality yet.
I can't demonstrate something you are unwilling to hear. You will just reject it, without justification. 

No, I am not in the same position as you. I believe in God and I believe He is the perfect, ideal, best measure. I can make sense of morality, of what is necessary. You have no idea. I compare goodness with Him and His character as revealed in the Bible. I can make sense of good. You have no idea what is good, or at least that is the claim. You just make up good on what you like and that makes it good for you. Do you know what they call that - postmodernism? It does not work anywhere it has been tried. It is an illogical position. 

I point to what I KNOW. You point to what you don't know and tell me I can't know it either. 

So, I say, Is it okay to kill, steal, lie, covet, commit adultery, dishonour your parents, etc? To each his own, right?

I can have certainty where God has revealed what is moral. I have what is necessary to make sense of it. You cannot have certainty because you can never know. You do not have what is necessary to make sense of it.  

Have you ever been put in a life or death situation? God puts each of us in such a position, for eventually, we all die bodily. Those who do not know Jesus as Lord and Savior are already dead to God spiritually. You take the chance that bodily death is the final frontier, based on what, your limited and subjective authority? You're gambling on it. Why SHOULD you or anyone else trust it? You haven't given me a GOOD reason yet. 

As I said, I can give you logical and reasonable evidence to trust the biblical God, but even though I can do this I can't make you believe. Now, will you discuss it? So far, you have shown you are not interested. You keep talking around it, around the very thing this thread was premised on. 
#339
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Without God show me your moral standard matters?
Show me your god.

Topic's author
#340
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
What is that question?

You state: "My starting point doesn't presuppose," it does, because it uses an atheistic worldview to look for answers and dismisses the Christian theistic worldview.


My starting point is the very simple question 'How did the universe come to be'. No presupposition there.
And what do you use to examine this question - the biblical God or everything but?


You have demonstrated in a post (and I drew your attention to this) that you take the side of interpretative data that supports the atheistic/secular worldview and you are biased towards the Christian worldview. You deny the Christian God exists on the belief that there is no evidence for His existence. Wasn't it you who called Christians ignorant and insane? 
I take the side of reason and what I can observe. I see no reason to assume more than my senses are reasonably accurate and that I can use them to make reasonable deductions of the universe around me. No, I have never called christians either ignorant nor insane. I don't believe either to true, if I did I'd have no reason to converse with them. That said, I haven't been presented with evidence of the validity of their claims.
Can you observe 'reason'? It is an abstract concept, not a physical thing. Thus, the five senses cannot be employed to observe it.

Then engage in answering the questions in Post 182 and 191. Oh, great, I see you have started! 

(Continue with next post)

Topic's author
#341
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000

I'm waiting for you to tackle Posts 182 and 191 with interest. 


I believe I began in a previous post with a couple of questions on the source of these prophecies. How exactly do you verify that the Gospels in question were written prior to ad70? Also your first bit about 
the olivet 
discourse being specific to a specific time is demonstrably speculation since
no date or time is given in the texts


Great, we are actually getting somewhere. 


Here are your two points to date:
1) The Olivet Discourse being specific to a [certain] time is demonstratable speculation.  
2) No date or time is given in the text. Let us examine those statements.

We will work with Mark 13, but I will also employ Matthew 23-24 and Luke 20 in later posts since they deal with the same discourse. I could also use many of the epistles and the Revelation since it is also about the Olivet Discourse. We will stick with the three synoptic gospels for now in examining your claim.   

Mark 13
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it
 does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress
unequaled
from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be
equaled
again.

20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them.21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
    and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[c]
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.



Now let's add the verses that you failed to give regarding this account in Mark:


13 As He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples *said to Him, “Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down."3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?” 5 And Jesus began to say to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. 6 Many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am He!’ and will mislead many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors9 “But be on your guard; for they will deliver you to the courts, and you will be flogged in the synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them. 10 The gospel must first be preached to all the nations. 11 When they arrest you and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour; for it is not you who speak, but it is the Holy Spirit. 12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and have them put to death. 13 You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
of wars, do not be frightened;  those things must take place; 8 For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will also be famines. These things are merely the beginning of birth pangs.
 but that is not yet the end.
28 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 
30 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away. 32 But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone


(Continue on next post)
Topic's author
#342
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
(Continuing)

So, I want you to notice all the text I underlined that have to do with the audience of address and the time frame. 

Who is the audience of address as revealed in this passage? Please identify it from the text. Notice the pronouns and who they refer to. 

I claim it is the disciples as that primary audience, per verse 3. Jesus is telling them what will take place until He comes again and after His warning of the destruction of the temple. The disciples are curious when this destruction will come pe their questions in verse 3.

What is the time frame? Can you identify it from the text that I underlined that deals with time statements?

First, it is the destruction of the temple and Jesus' coming that Jesus is talking about (v. 3)

He tells His disciples all the things that are going to happen to them AND their generation. Who does the 'you' refer to in Mark 13?

"This generation" is which generation? Can you identify that from the text? I can most definitely, but I will let you tell me what it means.

What does "this age" refer to in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:3? Did you know that Jesus refers to TWO ages in the Gospels?
Pay attention to the NT references to AGE in the Gospels.


[1] Notice how it states 'in those days, following that distress' then proceeds to talk of the stars falling from the sky.

[2] Also: 'at that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds.' These are still the same period, so do we have any records of these things occuring?

[3] What you have so far is that Jesus stated a temple would be destroyed and it was... I hardly find that to be any sign of divine insight, he even stated he didn't know when it would happen.


[4] Note, all this is simply initial opinions on prophecy from someone who claims neither to be well versed in prophecy or the history of the period.



[1] The disciples are currently are living in the days of Jesus leading up to His crucifixion during His Olivet Discourse. Those days refer to many days down the road, but still in the timeframe of that 1st-century generation, the time of the end of that age.

[2] To understand the reference you have to understand what it means. In the OT we see similar references and it applies to God coming in judgment.
Read from the heading, The OT and the Coming on the Clouds, if you are interested in understanding the reference. I can list a large number of OT verses to help you understand the cloud reference if you are still perplexed. 

[3] When you understand the significance of the temple and OT economy you would understand that their whole heaven and earth, everything they knew revolved around this ritual worship system. It was the covenant they agreed to keep with God, so the destruction of the temple was a curse from God. There are numerous passages in the OT that speak of this destruction. I can identify some for you if you want to test it further. 

If you pay attention to both testaments in the warnings God gives these people for disobedience, you understand the judgment is the promised curse of Deuteronomy 28. Everything in the NT is in relation to the OT in some way. If you don't understand the OT you are going to find it hard understanding the underlying themes of the NT. 

[4] Noted, and I was there once also. 

Now to your other statement:

How exactly do you verify that the Gospels in question were written prior to ad70?

By the internal evidence and history. Did you know what the late date dating game of the NT is largely based on by modern scholarship? As I said, you let the text speak to you. What does it say? Who is the audience of address? What is the time frame? What does it mean to that audience?

In the Olivet Discourse can you identify the primary audience of address? 

If you fail to identify the proper audience then you do not understand the Author's message.
Topic's author
#343
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Without God show me your moral standard matters?
Show me your god.

You first!
#344
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
What?
It does because your god doesn't exist.
Or show me.
Topic's author
#345
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted

Without God show me your moral standard matters?
Show me your god.

You first!




What?
It does because your god doesn't exist.
Or show me.


Thanks for your assumptions and assertions! How does that show me anything? 

You fail. 

Why is what you believe morally good, such as abortion? Without objective morals, all you have is opinion and preferences which make nothing any BETTER than what those who oppose you believe. It is all relative and means nothing if relativism is true unless you have the power (like Kim Jong-un) to enforce your preferences. You have not shown what you believe is BETTER. To the contrary, you have not been able to defend the pro-choice position with reason and logic. All those questions I asked you were left unanswered, yet I answered your queries. Instead of reciprocating the requested questions, you ignored mine and assaulted my character. That is something people do when they are on the defensive and can't find a good reason to nullify the opposite view.

You are not interested in the evidence. All you are interested in doing is making assertions and mocking me.

Engage in Post 182 or 191 if you want to test the truthfulness of the Bible. 


#346
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You don't have objective morals, you have an immoral code dictated by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages who you call god.
Topic's author
#347
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
You don't have objective morals, you have an immoral code dictated by ignorant, primitive, superstitious savages who you call god.
Thank you very much for your assertions and for engaging so thoroughly in answering my abortion questions. Great job as always! 
#348
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
That doesn't change the fact that you have an immoral code dictated by primitive, ignorant, superstitious bronze/iron age savages. When you can discuss abortion honestly I may engage but that is a highly unlikely scenario. There is no evidence for the alleged prophecies in the bible.
Topic's author
#349
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
That doesn't change the fact that you have an immoral code dictated by primitive, ignorant, superstitious bronze/iron age savages. When you can discuss abortion honestly I may engage but that is a highly unlikely scenario. There is no evidence for the alleged prophecies in the bible.

Thank you very much for your assertions and for engaging so thoroughly in answering my abortion questions. Great job as always! 

#350
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I accept your surrender.
#351
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
So is torturing little children neither right nor wrong? EVERYONE, Mdh2000 doesn't know that torturing little children for fun is WRONG - hide your children and don't let him babysit them. 

Is that how you want to live your life? Do you really want me to push your moral button and show that you do believe that morality exists, that there are rights and wrongs and they are absolute??? If you can't distinguish between rape or torturing a child, and for fun, as wrong everywhere and in every situation I think you need to see a psychiatrist. I think that anyone who can't determine that is morally repugnant.
The problem is that all you have done is point out that people make moral judgements, not that morality exists.   If you want an analogy,consider colour.   We judge the colour of objects and even largely agree on the colour of objects, but colour has no objective existence.

 


Topic's author
#352
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
So is torturing little children neither right nor wrong? EVERYONE, Mdh2000 doesn't know that torturing little children for fun is WRONG - hide your children and don't let him babysit them. 

Is that how you want to live your life? Do you really want me to push your moral button and show that you do believe that morality exists, that there are rights and wrongs and they are absolute??? If you can't distinguish between rape or torturing a child, and for fun, as wrong everywhere and in every situation I think you need to see a psychiatrist. I think that anyone who can't determine that is morally repugnant.
The problem is that all you have done is point out that people make moral judgements, not that morality exists.   If you want an analogy,consider colour.   We judge the colour of objects and even largely agree on the colour of objects, but colour has no objective existence.


Moral judgments signify an idea of right and wrong.

Morality exists only if God exists because relativism can't make sense of morality. Yet every single person who is rationally sound believes some things are wrong. The reason I see this is so is,

 25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Even those who are not Jews understand the Law that God gave to Moses on Sinai. You understand that it is wrong to kill/murder (or at least I hope you do), along with the other commandments such as lying, stealing, coveting, adultery, etc. If you are like me you have broken some/all of these laws, since Jesus equated anger to murder and looking at a woman lustfully as committing adultery. 


5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.) 6 May it never be! For otherwise, how will God judge the world? 7 But if through my lie the truth of God abounded to His glory, why am I also still being judged as a sinner? 8 And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), “Let us do evil that good may come”? Their condemnation is just.
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; ...

People suppress the truth of God because they want to justify themselves in their own minds. They do not want to be guilty, thus they deny God so that they can do their own will, in unrighteousness. The whole of humanity understands right and wrong to an extent, but they suppress the truth of it, like you do when you suggest morality does not exist.


19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin...


If you want an analogy, consider colour.  We judge the colour of objects and even largely agree on the colour of objects, but colour has no objective existence.

It is a poor analogy. Colors can be empirically verified. They are part of the quantitative value scheme/system. We describe physical things. There is no OUGHT or SHOULD to them. Morals are qualitative and part of the abstract. There is a moral ought assigned to them. Thus one is DESCRIPTIVE, the other is PRESCRIPTED. 

But it does. The color name is what we use to identify a specific shade or hue, but that hue or shade exists whether we give a name to it or not. Thus it is universal. Morality is universal too. Every culture has ethical laws based on aspects of the moral code of the Bible.  


20 days later

Topic's author
#353
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

Daniel was written written in the 2nd century BC, and the "prophecy" it records is actually history. It is also thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future but of his own. As to the passage from Deuteronomy, it speaks of "towns" (plural). I fail to see how this can be the temple (singular). It seems to me, this passage tells believers they can not get away from the wrath of god (not in the city not in the country) and has nothing to do with 70AD. 
Again, no support for your claims. 

Who said that? 

What evidence do you have? 

Please break down your points from this link further. What exactly do you want me to dispute? Earlier on I requested no 'linkzwars,' that is being bombarded by links without any idea of the points that you want me to dispute. I'm not going to dispute the whole article. I could just give you a dozen links that address the problem if this is all we were doing. In this way, no specifics are ever exchanged.


Again, please supply your specific points you want me to debate.

Again, please give the specific points you want me to discuss and refute. 


...and for the record - this is not my claim, but the view of modern scholarship. If you want to reject that, then your debate is not with me.

As to your Deuteronomy defense, I don't find it compelling. "It shall besiege you in all your towns", but only Jerusalem was affected? That is not a match.

I asked you for an early scholarship that supported your view that Daniel and the NT were written after the fact. So far, you have confirmed that Daniel was written before the fall of Jerusalem, just not in the timeslot of 605-586 B.C.