Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I’m not entirely sure how much simpler, or slower I can explain this. It seems no matter how simply I explain this, multiple people are making this same insane argument.But let me try again!
Yes, you should try again because you are not making your charge understood by me. Are you including me in the "multiple people"? I'll be glad to look at your charge if that is the case and also explain to you the fallacy you are committing (one of many).
So let’s assume that in the reality in which we exist: God exists. Morality is objective. Values are Objective. Yay.
Morality is only objective if it meets the standards of objectivity. I think you should define what you mean by objective morality.
Will you grant you are a subjective being? Will you admit that you are a relative, limited in understanding human being who does not see the whole picture? Will you admit that for us to know "better" there must be a fixed, ultimate reference point (or else any reference point will do providing the person has the power to enact it and all you have to do is look at the world to see this power struggle in operation where those in power dictate what is right and what is wrong and in the process their preferences are in conflict with those of others)?
I await your answers!
As an Athiest, I should be able to take this Morality (which I share or can derive from religious explanations), and take these objective values - and apply them to the universe.
Here is where you demonstrate the fallacy of equivocation. What you do is apply the same standard to two different measures that are not related.
First, I want to know how you apply morality and objective moral values to the universe? Your statement implies you can.
The universe is an entity that is not personal (or do you want to argue that it is?). The universe is a physical entity without intent. Explain to me how it can be moral yet you are equating and applying morality to it?
Second, you are confusing how you get an ought from an is. How can something that is amoral make moral decisions? Person, intentional beings, make moral judgments and are about morality. The universe could not care less (for it doesn't care or are you implying it does?).
Third, you have continually used the word "better" and "objective" in reference to morality and the universe. You need to explain what your standard of comparison is in arriving at "better." Then you need to show it meets the standard for being objective. So far, you have not established any of this.
Lo and behold - in a universe where morality and these religious values are objective - the universe would be the best possible universe that could be imagined.
Imagined by who? What makes your imaginations the standard that I judge other imaginations from? Are you NECESSARY for my belief in morality to be objective? Again, you use the word "Best."
First, establish your moral view is objective or even has what is necessary for objectivity.
Second, why is your limited subjective biased imagination the standard?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Surely there must be some protestants who must know Jesus Christ.
Are you judging who is and who is not saved? Is that not of God to decide? Many profess Jesus and not all are saved yet I do not believe it is my right to say who is saved or who will be. That is God's prerogative alone. The fruit of the Spirit is an indication though, and when someone preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus of the NT then he/she is to be corrected and shown his/her error. If a person preaches another Jesus it does show they do not know the Lord and what He has done. If you want to go that far and question whether protestants know Jesus Christ then point out what we have said that goes against His word. His word is THE standard.
We know Jesus Christ by the Word (and He is the Word who became flesh), by the Spirit, and through God's grace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
"Better" is just an opinion and preference unless you can demonstrate a final, ultimate, universal standard or measure.You can't, haven't and won't demonstrate a final, ultimate, universal standard or measure.
Are you absolutely certain of that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
A perfect world is best: the definition of perfect in this context is one that most and best fulfills the specific goals God has.
The goal was for humanity to have fellowship and live with Him forever, so the universe and this world is irrelevant to that. It is a means to an end, not the end.
The universe may not meet our criteria for perfection, but unless your willing to argue that God did a sloppy Job and could do better, it should be perfect by his definition; no?
When Adam sinned God cursed not only the earth/world/universe through entropy but also placed curses on the woman in childbirth, the ground, the serpent, and barred humanity from intimate everlasting fellowship by barring humanity from the Garden and eating from the tree of life and living forever. This was a temporary provision until the Son restored that fellowship, conquered death, and provided a means to live everlastingly with God in joy and happiness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Please explain to me where, exactly, the logical flaw in the following argument is:P1: If your God exists, the universe we see would be the best possible universeP2: The universe is not the best possible universeC: Your God doesn’t exist.
I question P1 as to the soundness of the statement. You assume there would be no other explanation that God would allow an imperfect universe, which was put in motion once Adam sinned for a particular reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Again; I don’t entirely know what planet you’re on: but the concept here is that if your God exists, I should not be ableto imagine a universe that better fulfills the goals attributed to him. If I can, that God cannot exists.
What makes you think this universe is the ultimate reality? God is the greater and perfect reality, not this universe. Your premise is faulty. You give an either-or proposition but you have excluded any third option. The fault in thinking is that if God exists then you should not be able to imagine a better universe but this is fallacious on two fronts. First, how do you get to better in a qualitative sense without God and second, there is a logical reason that God has allowed sin and evil. It is so that something better and permanent may be realized by His creature and achieved through His grace.
I’m not actually going to create a universe, and it doesn’t matter how much you irrationally scream that God is reality and so exists: if I can imagine better, your god isnt real.
How do you arrive at better? What is your standard for comparing "better?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
I am actually very much using your religious framework - you may not like that, but I’m effectively evaluating the religions self-consistency.
From your very first premise - "1.) Religions all state that God has a generalized set of goals for the universe, and inherent properties (just, loving)). If a human can postulate a better universe that better matches those properties and fulfills those goals - that God does not exist" -
how do you postulate a better universe without a universal, absolute, unchanging, fixed best reference point and what is that reference point? If you can't demonstrate how you do that then your premise is false.
I have clearly elaborated on how it’s clearly possible to show some things are better than others in this context, and while it’s neat that you simply reject summarily my ability to use what the biblical says, does and wants: the precepts set out are fairly clear. I invite you, as I did Mopac to explain what elements ovegoggen wrong and why,
I'm not following what you are saying. It seems I have to try and figure out what your words mean. What exactly are you saying and how have you elaborated better to me?
Again, what makes your subjective opinion regarding "better" actually better? Is it because you claim it so that it is better? Then what happens if I disagree? Which subjective opinion is the actual better then? Logically, if our opinions of better contradict then one has to be wrong since the Law of Identity is contravened.
You keep making a series of fundamental blunders, however such the clearly absurd notion that I am claiming that paedophilia is condoned by the Bible. How on earth did you get that?
You said: "...how I am misinterpreting the religious framework - or explain to me the reason some humans being sexually attracted to children, leading them to rape and murder toddlers could be considered “more perfect” than a system where no human has that problem"
First, you question how you are misinterpreting the religious framework, then you want me to explain why some humans are attracted to children as if God is to blame. That is not a teaching of the Bible but a sin. God does not condone pedophilia. He condemns it just like He condemns any sin and punishes it. The problem is not God but humans who disobey and disrespect their Creator to do their own thing.
I’m pointing out that if paedophilia wasn’t created - there’d be less unnecessary suffering of the innocent for little if any loss.
A pedophile is someone who disregards God's laws and commands and does evil in God's sight. God allows it for a time yet punishes all injustice at the judgment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
Sure, in an atheist framework, you could argue that neither could be argued as “better”.... but I’m not arguing from an Atheist Framework. I’m arguing from your own religious framework. I am adopting your rules and applying them to the universe.
No, you are not. You are mixing moral rules and reference points with physical rules and reference points and you are being inclusive about God's rules as applying to any God-believing religion. The biblical God is a specific God. If you want to argue with me about God I will only make my defence with the biblical God, so I invite you to get specific.
"Better" in a moral sense speaks of a standard and measure that is not physical but mental. The universe is not a moral being (or you can argue it is if you are a pantheist or of an eastern religious persuasion - go ahead). You can also argue that everything is physical if you are an atheist. Go ahead if this is your persuasion. My religious standard/framework is the biblical God. I'll argue against any other god with you, but from a Christian framework, you will have to demonstrate you are applying those standards. I argue that you are not. I'm arguing that you misunderstand and misrepresent such a standard. UNTIL you can show otherwise the burden is on you since you have just made assertions about my religious viewpoint.
In this case, if God abhors unnecessary suffering; a universe that minimizes unnecessary suffering is preferential by the standard religion sets for itself. At the same time - if God also wants suffering to lead to positive things, then we can also concurrently judge the world by that criteria too. Given that humans are also supposed to understand morality, and justice - on what basis can we not apply common accepted principles of morality and justice too.
Again, in the short term, does God have a purpose for suffering? Yes, He does. It highlights that there is a better way, a better life. Our earthly existence, since the Fall, has been riddled with pain and suffering for a purpose. That purpose is that some will come to seek a better way, a permanent solution and that some will find it. That is why God has provided the witness of history. It shows us that humanity, unaided by God cannot find a suitable solution.
Is this point your not seeming to grasp. This is an assessment of the religious framework to asses the universe, rather than mine. There are many ways (as I’ve outlined) where we can indeed make a value judgement based upon them.
The point you are not grasping is that you have 1) not represented my Christian framework, and 2) that you can't provide a "better" one. I invite you to try without first smuggling in Christian moral values. Go ahead. This is the fourth or fifth time I will ask you.
I have not read all your responses on this thread, so if you have a "better" value judgment than the Ten Commandments then please state it to me. I have not seen you list your moral judgment of "better" within the scope of our posts. Please do so, then we can discuss.
By all means feel free to explain how I am misinterpreting the religious framework - or explain to me the reason some humans being sexually attracted to children, leading them to rape and murder toddlers could be considered “more perfect” than a system where no human has that problem
Where do you see such an interpretation as humans being sexually attracted to little children as being condoned in the Bible???
I don't go by other religious views. If you want to charge the biblical God as being unjust and not existing then we will speak about such a God. I do not support any other gods so when you dialogue with me please understand we are speaking of a biblical framework. Where do you find the affirmative to pedophilia presented in the Bible?
I do not see such a viewpoint as sexually harming little children as either morally permissible by humans or condoned in the Bible and I challenge you to provide the passages since you have made the charge. Yes, you stated it.
If the biblical God takes an innocent human life (little children) He will restore it and to a better place. We, as limited humans are not capable of restoring to life someone who is dead and buried.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
So the issue is that you seem to be arbitrarily mixing and matching my opinion, and the presuppositions of an argument. It appears to that you believe that I as an Atheist are unable to pressupose that morality, for example, is objective and that my judgement is subjective whilst you also argue that you; sitting in the same universe that operates by the same rules don’t have the same problem.
You're doing a good job of mixing and matching them yourself. You, as I have explained, are confusing your measures, a qualitative with a quantitative measure. They have different standards for verification. One can be seen, the other can't. One has to be understood other than by sight.
The standard you adopt without God would have to be atheistic (in the sense that you deny God exists or ignore His existence and live life by ignoring Him), IMO.
If you are an atheist, I invite you again, to demonstrate you have an objective and unchanging standard. Perhaps we should clarify what we mean by objective? I'm using it in the sense of objective versus subjective. "Subjective" is personal opinion, interpretation, even emotions. "Objective" is fact-based and is what IS whether you agree or not.
If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound if no one is there to witness it?
Now, if two different cultures believe opposites concerning a moral value which is the true value? The Law of Identity (A=A) states that it is logically inconsistent to say that the identity of A is B.
So, as I pointed out: religions are normally very clear on what God wants or doesn’t, what is general desire and aims are with the universe. free will, faith, etc: we can presuppose some aspects of those can be justified with the universe.
So, you are taking a quantitative value, the universe, and mixing it with a qualitative value, goodness. They are measured and justified separately. One is done through sight; the other through mental processes. The question becomes why your or some other subjective mental process should be the measure when it can be demonstrated that such limited human mental processes are changing and finite. History is replete with these shifting human standards. One person's good is another person's evil. Hitler or Kim Jong-un have different qualitative standards than many in America. Within America itself there are many subcultures and individuals that disagree with the culture at large. It brings to mind which is right? Which is the true, the objective standard?
Now: the part of tour argument that makes no sense, is that its impossible for me to render a value judgement, even if I know the value your religio gives me. You’ve highlighted objective morality you hold, and the values by which you assess.
If you are incapable of doing this (see underlined) then what makes your values any better than mine or anyone else? You keep making these self-refuting and self-defeating statements.
I have highlighted what is NECESSARY for objective morality. I have argued that without such values morality does not make sense. I have asked without such measurements for values why your beliefs are any better than any other belief? You keep talking around the central issue. Can you say that what you believe is better the Ten Commandments? And btw, Jesus summed up those Ten Commandments in two - love God and love your neighbour.
The issue is that whilst I may have a hard time assessing whether Hitler is better than Stalin, I have no issues if I pressupose your moral and religious framework I’m assessing that Hitler is morally worse than Adam Sandler.
Both Hitler and Stalin were morally corrupt. So is every other person that is able to morally distinguish God's laws with the exception of the Person, Jesus Christ. He was without sin and you are with it. For instance, have you ever lied, have you ever been angry with your brother or a friend (Jesus likened this anger to murder), have you ever lusted after a woman who was not your wife (committed adultery mentally, not just physically), have you ever harboured impure sexual thoughts, have you ever stolen, have you ever coveted something that belongs to someone else, have you ever disrespected/mocked God, have you ever taken His name in vain, have you ever not given Him His just respect? Then you have done wrong. Thus, you see that the standard you live by does not meet His perfect standard. Hence, the need for a Redeemer, for One that has lived a perfectly just and moral life before God (not like Adam, or you, or me) and has also paid the penalty for your sins and on your behalf (death or separation from God for eternity).
So Adam Sandler does not meet the moral standard either and is in the same boat as Hitler and Stalin - he bears his own guilt before God for breaking God's just standards. He either pays for his moral wrong on his own behalf or he accepts the free gift God has provided in His Son. That is the lesson from history. It showcases the moral corruption of humanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You’re making a major logical error in your response here. Your issue appears to be divorcing itself from the realities.So you feel you have an objective mechanism of measuring good, bad, evil. Etc. You believe that is based upon Gods revelation.Whether God exists or not, you are still posting on this forum that you have a method of objectively determining good, bad and better.
I have a way of making sense of morality which I claim you do not unless you first presuppose God. I invite you to make sense of why your morals are or can be "Better" than anyone else without first identifying a fixed, universal, unchanging standard. Can you do that? If not, I am justified in saying you can't make sense of why your subjective moral opinions are and "Betgter" than anyone else.
So; if your god exists, your mechanism is objective, and I should never be able to apply it to a fictional universe and determine that the fictional universe I have created is better: because this universe I must already be the best.
Again, as I explained in my last post, don't confuse the "universe" with morality. Morality is a conscious qualitative value. The universe is a physical state; morality is a mental state. Best in quantitative values can be measured physically. How do you measure moral values? What is the measure you use? If it is a subjective, limited, and changing system of measure then why it better? Better is a comparative measure. What is your best, the standard that measures better? Is it something you arbitrarily makeup or is it fixed? Please answer my questions so we can 1) discover and 2) resolve.
You can apply the standard to a universe you make up if you like. that is up to you.
You are misunderstanding why the universe is the way it is by neglecting the Fall. Until you understand what the Bible describes as happening you can't justify your charges against God. You apparently skip over them in your focus.
if your Or doesn’t exist, your mechanism is not objective, and I would be able to apply it to a fictional universe and determine that the fictional universe I have created is better; because everything is arbitrary.
If God did not exist and we are a byproduct of a change meaningless universe then morality is just a game we play in which nothing matters in the long term. There is no justice, just some arbitrary rules we make up to protect ourselves for no ultimate reasons other than to survive a little longer, and if these changing rules are disregarded and we die - so what? What does it all mean? Yet, here you are, looking for meaning, arguing for meaning, and charging a God who you believe does not exist with not having the best standard but you want to make up an arbitrary one and CALL it better. Go figure?
So even if EVERYTHING you say about arbitrary and objective mechanisms for measuring good, bad and better - the only universe in which I could postulate a universe that is better - is one where your god doesn’t exist.
Just because you can think this it does not make it so. If you want to live in your dreamland and ignore reality then that is up to you. If you want to make sense of morality you need an ultimate, objective, unchanging/fixed, universal, and eternal standard of measure, a fixed reference point. All I can hope from a relative, limited mind, such as yours or mine is a shifting reference point. Demonstrate otherwise. Make sense of why what you believe should be the standard everyone else SHOULD live by. Go ahead. I have been waiting for three posts now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
God's existence and revelation give a fixed, unchanging, ultimate, universal, omniscient (knows all things) standard of appealPlease explain how this standard of appeal is anything but some hypothetical god(s) subjective opinion?
I'm saying it is necessary for making sense of morality. Other than God all you have is subjective preference and the question becomes why is Hitler's preference any worse than Mother Teresa's. He kills others and she loves others. Which do you prefer becomes the question?
Show me why your moral preference is any better than any other moral preference without first showing me an objective, fixed, universal best from which "better" can be compared? Go on! Instead, will you sidestep my questions and continue to ask your own which I have bothered to answer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
That’s not what’s happening here. Assuming “better” is impossible to determine; and then conclude “you can’t show X is better than Y” is assumed in the premise you’ve taken.
And in the premise you have taken, you assume better is possible to determine yet you won't say how. It is just an assertion. We could get into specific examples if you want? That way we can test your "better."
That is begging the question.
No, I disagree and have given my reasoning.
"Better" is just an opinion and preference unless you can demonstrate a final, ultimate, universal standard or measure. What do I care about what you believe is "Better" unless you can produce such a standard and reference point? Your view is no "better" than any other view if you have no fixed reference. So, again, I ask, what is this standard that has a qualitative valued system that you can term something "better?" YOU? Your opinion?You are not a necessary being. Why is your moral opinion any "better" than mine or Kim Jong-un's?Again; I’m using Gods own goals, and own principles the value by which I’m judging the universe.
God's own goals or the ones you have made up for Him?
What principles are those you are judging the universe by? You never say. You just allude to "God's own goals and principles." Spit them out so we can discuss your perceptions and see if they conform to what you say are God's.
Are those “objective” values to use? Religious people like yourself seem to think so.
Yes, I do think so. The question is how do you get to an objective moral value without a fixed, unchanging, ultimate, omniscient, universal, objective Being who has revealed them? It immediately brings up the question of why your subjective view is qualitatively better???
You could argue that it’s impossible for humans to use Gods goals to make objective value judgements.
God's goals or principles?
How else do you arrive at objective morality with a subjective mind? God's mind is objective. He sees and knows all things.
That destroys the objective morality argument completely - if no one can objectively quantify morality, how can you say it’s objective?
That is your presupposition, not mind. I know it is wrong to murder, to lie, to steal, to covet something that is not mine, to dishonour my parents and above all to dishonour God with idols or by not giving Him what is rightfully His, honour and glory and majesty as the Creator and Sustainer.
The reality of it, is pretty simple. If minimizing overall pain is a goal, while I cannot say whether a paper cut is better or worse than a stubbed toe; I can objectively tell that a flicked ear is better than a broken leg.
There is a purpose for pain and suffering. If we did not experience it and were not watchful we would not know enough to take our hand off of a hot stove until our hand is burnt off.
When we see suffering or experience it ourselves we look for what is better and an end to it. Sometimes, with some, we turn to God to help us, and I would argue, this makes the difference.
In the same vain: explain to me what purpose is served objectively by the existence of paedophilia, if God simply didn’t include the ability to be sexually attracted to children in humans - the same way he doesn’t include the ability to be sexually aroused by pulling your intestines out through your nose; what aspect of justice and elimination of unnecessary suffering is not made better? How is any of the red lines of God - free will, etc, affected by that?
It is a moral injustice, a wrong, an atrocity that boils our blood and reminds us that some things are objectively wrong and should not be done. These are things that some people choose to do ignoring here is what the Lord Jesus warned would happen:
Matthew 18:6 (NASB)
6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
Justice will be required for such offenders.
Remember - you can’t beg the question by presuming that there must be some explanation no matter how obscure and obtuse (assumed because you conclude God exists)
I'm not begging the question. Either there is an explanation or ultimately nothing matters. I'm making sense of why some things are or should be unjust. I'm inviting you to do the same. Make sense of why what you believe is moral is actually so.
In reality that proof would look like a theist saying “While there is no plausible or reasonable condition that I can posit why your posited universe is not objectively better - I am forced to believe it is, and the benefit is just unknown”.I have what is capable of making sense of better and is a necessary condition (omniscient, omnipresent, unchanging, eternal, living, loving, omnibenevolent Being). Demonstrate you do have such a standard that is necessary and can make sense of morality since you are bringing to the discussion qualitative values (better than what and in whose opinion?).So, you believe you are capable of making sense of better; yet you arbitrarily assert that I am unable to assess the same?
I'm inviting you to try without first presupposing God and an objective (unlimited in knowledge and thus able to distinguish the difference), universal (applying to all humanity), unchanging (not shifting like is the case we witness in history, and countless examples can be given), and eternal (applying for all times).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
You said, "2.) The goals and properties of the gods of all current human religions can be better fulfilled with a different universe that humans can think odd - therefore those Gods do not exist."What does this mean? Better according to you? Why should your shifting, subjective, relative standard be the one all others follow?Firstly, I’m not talking about whether cake or ice cream are better.
That is right. Let's not confuse a tangible measure like ice-cream and cake (a quantitative value) with an intangible measure such as a value or moral (a qualitative value). Please, do not mix the two together as the same kind. With a quantitative value, we have a physical measure. We can see and physically verify what we are measuring to a fixed sight standard. We have a standard that quantitative values are measured against.
The question is how do you, Ramshutu, measure a qualitative value? What is the standard you use?
The idea that all judgements are subjective as you’re implying is odd, and frankly a bit illogical.
Yet it can be demonstrated throughout history, even though it is illogical. Hitler or Kim Jong-un or President Xi have different "tastes" or preferences than many other people. Thus Hitler viewed killing those he saw inferior as a justifiable standard. Some classes of people in different societies and cultures are treated as less favourable than in other cultures by the majority or by those in power. These minorities are victimized, dehumanized, discriminated against and devalued even to death. Thus, they are not viewed as being "good" as others are.
The point I am making is how do you arrive at a fixed ultimate qualitative moral value from a subjective mindset? Please explain this to me.
The important aspect as I pointed out: I’m not using my criteria to Judge - I’m using the goals religion tells me about God.
You are the one claiming that such values (God's values) do not work because you are arguing against God (and I'm right there with you regarding gods, just not God Himself. Gods - small g - are just fictions in human minds and I do not believe they are real). So, once you deny God then what standard are you appealing to as binding that does not shift and change?
Once you answer my last question (your standard) then justify your claim.
If God values fairness, justice, doesn’t want people to suffer unnecessarily- if I can imagine a more jist universe with less suffering (but still allows for sin and free wil) - that value is measured off the value the religion gives me.
Suffering is permitted by God for a purpose, hence with the Fall of Adam and humanity God cursed the ground (entropy), barred humanity from living forever, created pain in childbirth, and separated humanity from His immediate presence.
The world is unjust because we do not seek out God nor abide by His perfect standard of love, which does no harm to our neighbour.
What should generally happen, is with a potential universe, you shoul be able to find plausible reasons why the universe isn’t better.
So you recognize that it could be potentially "better" but it is not within your power to change it (is it?). Heaven is such a place that is better! Trusting God leads to a better life and place after our physical bodies pass away.
The universe is exhibit A. History is exhibit B in speaking to us about the problems of this world. We witness the inhumanity of people who ignore and bypass God as the greatest measure of goodness. Once we put ourselves in the place of God all kinds of problems happen and we seek ways and escapes to avoid these problems.
I suspect you know you wont be able to do that; hence why you’re arguing that in a universe where Hod exists, and objective morality is a thing - somehow humans are unable to make objective value judgements using Gods objective rules.
Humans are capable of recognizing objective morals. The problem is acting on them. They would rather live by their own standards. That is what we call sin. Sin pits itself against God and His goodness.
If you tell me God wants X, and I am able to provide A universe that better satisfies X, your God cannot exist.So far you are just begging the question that you can. What is X? Why is X better, because you like it?Begging the question is where the Conclusion is being assumed in the premise.
You assume you can live "better" without God. You assume that you can meet a standard that is better without God. That is your conclusion and because of this, you justify to yourself that He does not exist. The problem is why should I live by your arbitrary standard? You look at the God standard and see it is not being followed thus you disclaim God rather than recognize that it is not God that is the problem but you and me. (And I keep asking you to reveal such a standard that replaces God so I can see how it can be evaluated as "better." So far you will not comply).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
There are a lot of "ifs" and hypotheticals floating around here but the question is how do you come up with a better without an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, unchanging, eternal Being?How does the existence of such a being make what is better or worse anything but a subjective opinion?
God's existence and revelation give a fixed, unchanging, ultimate, universal, omniscient (knows all things) standard of appeal (i.e., Thou shalt not kill; Do not steal; Do not lie, etc). Thus, there is a best we can compare good, better and evil with. Without such a standard then evil, good, and better, are shifting and changing. Human beings can claim good is evil and evil is good. Hitler's Germany can be no better than Obama's America or Netanyahu's Israel. In one country they promote the killing (murder) of Jews, in another many are anti-semite, in the third Jews are loved and defended. Each country makes up its own values that can be diametrically opposite which brings to mind which is the logically correct position since the Law of Identity has been violated. A does not equal A. A dog is not a dog. Good is not good. It can mean whatever the person assigns it to mean.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
What standard do I use at judging why is better? The very standards the religious give me about God’s desires and wants. This is not operating in a vacuum driven by my opinions - that’s the point.
I don't follow - "judging why is better?"
What do you mean?
You said, "2.) The goals and properties of the gods of all current human religions can be better fulfilled with a different universe that humans can think odd - therefore those Gods do not exist."
What does this mean? Better according to you? Why should your shifting, subjective, relative standard be the one all others follow?
If you tell me God wants X, and I am able to provide A universe that better satisfies X, your God cannot exist.
So far you are just begging the question that you can. What is X? Why is X better, because you like it?
"Better" is just an opinion and preference unless you can demonstrate a final, ultimate, universal standard or measure. What do I care about what you believe is "Better" unless you can produce such a standard and reference point? Your view is no "better" than any other view if you have no fixed reference. So, again, I ask, what is this standard that has a qualitative valued system that you can term something "better?" YOU? Your opinion?
You are not a necessary being. Why is your moral opinion any "better" than mine or Kim Jong-un's?
In reality that proof would look like a theist saying “While there is no plausible or reasonable condition that I can posit why your posited universe is not objectively better - I am forced to believe it is, and the benefit is just unknown”.
I have what is capable of making sense of better and is a necessary condition (omniscient, omnipresent, unchanging, eternal, living, loving, omnibenevolent Being). Demonstrate you do have such a standard that is necessary and can make sense of morality since you are bringing to the discussion qualitative values (better than what and in whose opinion?).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
There are a lot of "ifs" and hypotheticals floating around here but the question is how do you come up with a better without an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, unchanging, eternal Being? IOW's, should I believe your opinion is better than mine?If God’s the predicate for Moral realism, and we find a scenario that is objectively better - then God doesn’t exist and he isn’t the predicate for moral realism.
What gives a limited subjective human knowledge of objectively understanding what is better? What is the standard you use to come up with better?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You know exactly what I'm talking about and you are to cowardly to address it.
You mean "too cowardly" and again you insult me, put me down, and falsely accuse me. That is why I enjoy our exchanges so much that I tend to avoid your remarks.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
No idea. You did not provide the context.You know exactly what I'm talking about and you are to cowardly to address it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
No idea of what you are talking about and don't care.So Yahweh never dictated anything!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
There were many enemies around them that wanted to do them harm.They were an insignificant little backwater that foreign armies spanked, without breaking step, on their way to real battles.
More twaddle. What does any of this mean? Are you anti-semitic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-were-hebrews-ever-slaves-in-ancient-egypt-yes-1.5429843There is no direct evidence that people worshipping Yahweh sojourned in ancient Egypt, let alone during the time the Exodus is believed to have happened. [from the article]whose names indicate that forty-five were of Asiatic origin. [from the article]Christian apologetics. Meaningless.
Ridiculous assertion. An argument is judged on the basis of its factualness and logic, not who holds the position, or else I could use the same argument of meaninglessness on any atheist that used one of the talking points found on an atheist website. That is what is constantly rehashed on these debate forums, these atheist talking points.
A highschool student are you having a lend. What a joke.None of this is evidence of your claims.I do know what 70 weeks is and your "prophesy" says 70 weeks, you pretend to yourself that 70 weeks is 490 years and then claim the prophesy was fulfilled in 490yrs, but the prophesy says 70 weeks regardless of the lies you tell.
No, you know what 70 weeks means to you, not what its intended meaning was to the culture in which it was written. You are clueless to that meaning. I have demonstrated the biblical understanding a number of times but it is like arguing with a stone when dialoguing with you. You are blind to seeing/understanding the points because of your worldview bias.
As I pointed out earlier, it is pointless dialoguing with you. You regurgitate the same talking points all the time.
Did Yahweh ever dictate to the bible authors?Try this, actual science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Leviticus 19:34 - The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born [not deported]. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
Treated as a native in what way? How were Jews to treat their fellow Jews? (i.e., love your neighbour as yourself)
This verse appears to be quite straight-forward and easy to understand.None of the "context" you've presented contradicts this simple command, "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born".
In what way? The very next verse tells you, for crying out loud - "Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."
You appeal to the ancient tradition of building walls to protect cities from ARMIES. This does not contradict Leviticus 19:34.
The idea of walls was to protect them from those who would want to harm them (i.e., enemies) and just like today. It served to keep unwanted and undesirable people out.
You appeal to "common sense" by proposing that people leave their doors unlocked. This does not contradict Leviticus 19:34.
You misunderstand me. I invited those who propose open borders to apply common sense. Would they leave their doors and windows open to anyone? Would they invite criminals and undesirables into their homes? Yet they want to do this with their southern border in which the majority of criminals, MS 13, drug smugglers, child traffickers, and illegal aliens come into your country from. It is not common sense.
Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
As long as they follow your laws and the law of the land. People came into cities for protection in the ANE. That is why there were numerous gates into Jerusalem. There were many enemies around them that wanted to do them harm.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Who asked you.It's pretty strange that you would choose to attempt to bully someone out of a public forum instead of supporting your claim with specifics.
I agree totally!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
How does that answer the question I asked you? Again, you are incapable of responding to a question except with extreme bias. Again, you immediately go off on a tangent as per most posts. That is why I avoid discussions with you.You asked a question about a non existent being, why not ask me about the Easter bunny. I don't believe in that man made character.
That is my point. Why would I engage with a person who doesn't believe and does not want to believe, nor will he look at the evidence for the Christian position.
Again, how do you know God opposes protecting the innocent from the corrupt???Your god doesn't exist it can't oppose anything.
That is your presupposition that ignores the evidence as reasonable. Either God of chance happenstance are the two main explanations of origins. Which is more reasonable to believe?
How do you know the Space Goblin doesn't like apples?
Because there is no reasonable or logical evidence that it exists for me to believe in it. What is there to know about it?
In answer to your question, I'll answer it with another question, just like you did. Show me how you know the Bible is not God's word recorded by men as God instructed them to write?Your god thinks that bats are birds and insects have four legs and a flood covered the Earth.
Please cite your verses regarding bats as birds and which version.
Geology was built on a uniformitarian view. There is evidence for a worldwide flood in this way; it explains why we find billions of fossils in rock layers all over the earth. Fossils, generally speaking, require a catastrophic event, a quick burial to fossilize in most instances.
There was no 400yrs in egyptian slavery, there was no exodus. Did your god ever dictate?
Evidence has started to confirm the Exodus.
The Oasis of Hazeroth exists, mentioned in the Exodus journey in Numbers 11:35, Numbers 12:16 and Deuteronomy 1:1
i.e., Numbers 11:35 From Kivroth Hata'avah the people traveled to Hazeroth, and they stayed in Hazeroth.
There is evidence that Jews were enslaved in Egypt via the tomb of vizier Rekhmire:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-were-hebrews-ever-slaves-in-ancient-egypt-yes-1.5429843
Name's inscribed in the Brooklyn Papyrus include Jewish names:
Events described in the Bible during the time of Moses correspond with and "contain a vast knowledge regarding the customs, geography, and etymology of ancient Egypt" such as slaves being required by the Egyptians to meet quotas for brickmaking. The author of the Pentateuch demonstrates a knowledge of the geography of ancient Egypt, as noted by "Steven Collins, a specialist in the region of the Jordan Valley comments on this in his book Discovering the City of Sodom regarding the passage Genesis 13:10."
If you use Martin Anstey's Chronology the exodus happened in the 1400's BC, which coincides with a number of events, one being
"the exodus took place in 1446 BC, the pharaoh of the exodus was Amenhotep II. Coincidentally, during the reign of Amenhotep II, the Egyptian city Avaris was entirely abandoned. This shows massive evidence for the exodus to have actually happened. It’s truly incredible. Furthermore, according to the Bible, God destroyed pharaoh’s army in the red sea. We see that after the reign of Amenhotep II, Egyptian military expeditions are dramatically reduced. Douglas Petrovich, an egyptologist in a published paper titled Toward Pinpointing The Timing Of The Egyptian Abandonment Of Avaris During The Middle Of The 18th Dynasty published to the journal JAIE, makes the following statement regarding Egypt’s complete military collapse that happens right after Amenhotep II."
Another event that coincides with the Exodus is in this time frame there is a "massive" decline and "destruction of Canaanite cities such as the city of Khirbet el-Maqatir, in perfect coordination of the Biblical exodus timeline. In other words, not only do we have good confirmation for the actual exodus, but what the Bible tells us happened right after the exodus, actually happened in history."
I have good reasons to believe the Bible is God's word which I am willing to discuss with those who are interested. Some of those reasons include the prophetic message which the evidence points to as being written before the events they predict and foretell. Other reasons are that the biblical God justifies what is necessary for morality, life, origins, knowledge, etc., whereas mindless chance happenstance cannot make sense of anything because there is no intent behind anything. We keep finding meaning from what your worldview contrives origins from = the meaninglessness, purposeless, blind, indifferent, unintentional happenstance.There is no reason to assign truth to that primitive book and your prophecy only works if you can magic 70 weeks into 490yrs. Pass.Did your god ever dictate?
Again, regarding the 70 weeks, you show no knowledge of the meaning of the passage and how it was understood by that Jewish culture.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
He has shown me time after time that he is not interested in a discussion. We keep talking past each other. He doesn't hear the argument he is so invested in justifying his worldview, as are you that you are both to the point where you attack me rather than my arguments.That is just one of the many lies you've told here. I'm tired of hearing them from you and constantly having to correct you. It's pathetic. That's all you do here. You have no arguments.
Good, because I'm bored of your assertions, insults, and insinuations (without proof).
BTW, great contribution! Here is the entire effort of your dialogue on this threat addressed to me.
Post 63: "Because something can't come from nothing, that is one of the theists strongest assertions when it comes to opining on origins."
Post 943: "The alleged upstanding Christian shows his true colors of hatred of others and wanting to keep them out. PGA2.0, the new and improved anti-Christ."
Post 954: "Notice that PGA can only contribute blatant lies to his hateful narrative of others he fears due to the hate mongering of his beloved Trump."
Post 961: "Your questions are not valid, that is the point, they are all based on lies, they don't need to be answered, you need to start asking questions that are not based on lies. Do you understand?"
Post 969: "I have no idea why you lie all the time. You tell me why?
Post 971: "All of them. There are too many to count. Your posts are filled with them. I have no idea why you lead your life chasing lies. Seems rather absurd."
Post 973: "That is another lie considering he just asked you to show him. This is what I refer about you constantly lying."
Post 984: "That is just one of the many lies you've told here. I'm tired of hearing them from you and constantly having to correct you. It's pathetic."
That's all you do here. You have no arguments. You fail to engage except in name calling.
***
Your contribution to Mopac and Polytheist-which was much of the same:
Post 52: "But, it's not your fault, you can't help it that you're deluded, hateful and one dimensional.
You're presence here regarding your God has zero influence, while your presence here in general is annoying, repetitious and void of intelligence.
Turning on your brain and using it would be a good option. Or, has it completely rotted from religion?
One could only be educated by you if they were a psychiatrist working on a case.
So, you join a debate site."
Post 57: "You don't value or care or even read anyone's opinion because you have no morals or ethics."
Post 59: "LOL. The stupidity. You block me but you respond to me. Grow up."
Post 74: "You could try shoving a cucumber up your ass, then I might believe you.
Don't be silly, I could think of a half dozen causes off the top of my head and a great deal more given some thought.
As usual, the sick, demented Christian who brings the hatred pretends to act the victim."
Post 83: "You never offer or show charity, so you deserve any. You do show hatred, intolerance and deceit to us when you call us names, and tell us we're nothing more than murderous scum and we should all fall to our knees in your presence, yet YOU claim to be the victim here.
So, this is all about your projection of hatred onto us, not the other way round, nitwit."
Post 86: "You continue to deceive, you have no intention of being like me or like anyone else here, you have stated you are here to educate us, you have called us all morons and idiots and murderous scum, we are not fit to lick your boot as far as you're concerned.
It is YOU who demands all of us to be just like you, and not more like you, but exactly like you; bat shit crazy."
Post 92: "Offending people is what you do, it's all you ever do, you do nothing else here but offend. It is the only reason you are here.
You have no concept of reasoning, it does not exist in your rotted mind. Seek professional help, immediately."
Post 98: "False equivalence, just because you and Mopac are mentally ill doesn't mean everyone is, Poly."
Post 99: "No one is more guilty than you, who constantly accuse us of being idiots, morons and murdering scum who aren't fit to lick your boot.
You're a terrible liar, Mopac, thinly vieled."
Post 107: "Forgiveness? LOL! For accusing us of being idiots, morons and murderous scum? For thinking you're our teacher and you're educating us? For repeating the same shit over and over for months on end? For being an asshole?
You already act like a small child so no pretening is required."
Post 111: "Yes, you are indeed. When are you going to stop being wicked?"
Post 112: "Poly still has me blocked, but still manages to respond to me, even if she is incapable of making any sense."
Post 114: "Just because you're mentally ill doesn't mean everone is."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
you are both to the point where you attack me rather than my argumentsPost 967Now go off on your usual rave about personal attacks.
Okay, I will! Again, you are incapable of processing anything but your groupthink. I perceive a mental deficiency on your part in my dialogue with you in that you are not capable of answering questions.
POST 967
God's laws are always greater but what makes you think that God opposes protecting the innocent from the corrupt?Show me which of the laws written by men are god's laws and how do you know? Now go off on your usual rave about personal attacks.
How does that answer the question I asked? Again, you are incapable of responding to a question except with extreme bias. Again, you immediately go off on a tangent as per most posts. That is why I avoid discussions with you.
Again, how do you know God opposes protecting the innocent from the corrupt???
In answer to your question, I'll answer it with another question, just like you did. Show me how you know the Bible is not God's word recorded by men as God instructed them to write?
I have good reasons to believe the Bible is God's word which I am willing to discuss with those who are interested. Some of those reasons include the prophetic message which the evidence points to as being written before the events they predict and foretell. Other reasons are that the biblical God justifies what is necessary for morality, life, origins, knowledge, etc., whereas mindless chance happenstance cannot make sense of anything because there is no intent behind anything. We keep finding meaning from what your worldview contrives origins from = the meaninglessness, purposeless, blind, indifferent, unintentional happenstance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
How can I show someone who does not want to be shown?That is another lie considering he just asked you to show him. This is what I refer about you constantly lying.
He has shown me time after time that he is not interested in a discussion. We keep talking past each other. He doesn't hear the argument he is so invested in justifying his worldview, as are you that you are both to the point where you attack me rather than my arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
What lies are you accusing me of?All of them. There are too many to count. Your posts are filled with them. I have no idea why you lead your life chasing lies. Seems rather absurd.
"All of them" but you can't identify one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
God's laws are always greater but what makes you think that God opposes protecting the innocent from the corrupt?Show me which of the laws written by men are god's laws and how do you know? Now go off on your usual rave about personal attacks.
How can I show someone who does not want to be shown?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
How is that so?I have no idea why you lie all the time. You tell me why?
What lies are you accusing me of?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Based on lies? Really? How is that so?Your questions are not valid, that is the point, they are all based on lies, they don't need to be answered, you need to start asking questions that are not based on lies. Do you understand?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Here's your quote,The law of justice in the USA is that a foreigner must come into the country legally.You're clearly mixing and matching "gods law" with "man's law" when it suits your mood.
You guys were the ones who brought open borders and other issues (i.e., your Post 939) and I responded in Post 941 in which I mentioned that in biblical times and before walls were used to keep unwanted people out and protect those within.
Nehemiah was given the task of restoring the walls of Jerusalem and I liken that concept to what Trump was trying to do (i.e., protect those within from evil outside - for one the drug smuggling and deadly gangs infused by crooked cartels).
***
Here was part of my post:
Nehemiah 2:17-18
17 Then I said to them, “You see the bad situation we are in, that Jerusalem is desolate and its gates burned by fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem so that we will no longer be a reproach.” 18 I told them how the hand of my God had been favorable to me and also about the king’s words which he had spoken to me. Then they said, “Let us arise and build.” So they put their hands to the good work.
Nehemiah 3
7 Now when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the Ashdodites heard that the repair of the walls of Jerusalem went on, and that the breaches began to be closed, they were very angry. 8 All of them conspired together to come and fight against Jerusalem and to cause a disturbance in it.
The last two sentences I underlined sound like the Democrats.
Nehemiah 6:15-16
The Wall Is Finished
15 So the wall was completed on the twenty-fifth of the month Elul, in fifty-two days. 16 When all our enemies heard of it, and all the nations surrounding us saw it, they lost their confidence; for they recognized that this work had been accomplished with the help of our God.
***
Notice how the Ammonites and others were very angry that Nehemiah had resorted to rebuilding the wall. They, in that respect, were very much like the Democrats who once supported a wall but now oppose it. Notice how these people conspired to cause a disturbance, just like the Dems conspire every day to cause a disturbance.
Notice how Israel's enemies heard of the completion of the wall and lost their confidence. They recognized this work had been accomplished with the help of God, so how was not God for the wall???
Either stick to either "gods law" or "man's law" or explain how you decide which one takes precedence.
I've given evidence that God does not oppose walls to protect people. They also provide needed privacy as well as the safety aspect.
You understand all this quite well. You probably have doors on your house and a wall or fence around your property and you probably do not let just anyone wander through your house and yard yet you do not apply the same standards to your country. You appear unconcerned on who comes through and neglect the crime that the open southern border promotes. If you want open borders then start with yourself and tear down your own property fences and open your doors to everyone. Feed them, clothe them, house them, and provide schooling care for them and maybe then you will realize the cost and drain on you and also think about the drain on your country.
Ideally, everyone would get together but that has never been the case and walls are needed. Even the heavenly Jerusalem speaks of walls, in a symbolic or figurative way, IMO.
Leviticus 19:34 - The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born [not deported]. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.This verse appears to be quite straight-forward and easy to understand.
A verse out of context is a pretext. Read the surrounding context instead of plucking it out of context.
What makes you think that "man's law" somehow supersedes Leviticus 19:34?
God's laws are always greater but what makes you think that God opposes protecting the innocent from the corrupt?
Again, you are trying to apply ANE laws to today and ANE laws provide examples for us in that God allowed for the protection of His people. He was significantly focused on protecting His people when they followed the covenant and when they did not He taught them many invaluable lessons that are also an example to us who think we know better than God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I perceive you have no justifiable argument because you attack me rather than the argument.I perceive you have abandoned the spirit of the following scripture,
But instead of addressing the argument you attacked me. You made it a personal vendetta by attacking me rather than the argument. You did not stay focused on the argument.
Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born [not deported]. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
I already addressed this verse by including the context. I answered your query about this Scripture in Post # 944. You failed to engage further except to accuse me. How did that address my argument?
In Post # 945 you made a statement that did not argue your case other than to accuse me of hiding behind the law when it suited my mood yet you never stated how I did this. Thus, the post because of a personal attack instead of defence of your position. Accusing me does not show how I have done this thus you have made a fallacious statement that has nothing to do with Leviticus 19:34. If you are going to accuse me of "hiding behind the law" to suit my "mood" then provide evidence that I have done this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Can you (your country) afford to support the rest of the third world freeloading in your country (send them all to your sanctuary cities and States and see how they fare)? What does the debt load mean to your children and grandchildren? Can you afford the drug epidemic most of which is transported through your southern border? How many of these illegals have criminal records? How many are MS 13? What about the child and sex trafficking going on?Notice that PGA can only contribute blatant lies to his hateful narrative of others he fears due to the hate mongering of his beloved Trump.
Again, you avoided answering the questions and instead attacked me personally. This just shows you are not interested in a productive dialogue.
How are asking questions lying?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The question is what is unjust about not allowing people into your country unless they follow the laws of the land???)Consider two people in Houston doing similar jobs and living similar sorts of ordinary lives. One drove from new york to look for a job, one drove from Tijuana. Neither commits any robberies or murders. yet only one is subject to the threat of losing their livlihood and being deported. Indeed the new yorker has considerable advanteges over the mexican.
So you are for open borders. Which countries in this world have open borders where anyone can come into the country without a passport or visa? Canada and the US border is one that I know of and that is only between Canadian and US citizens. The European Union is another example. You have to be a member of the European Union to qualify.
If you are a Brit or Turk you still need a passport and visa to enter the USA to my knowledge.
You have again not answered any of my questions.
Would you leave your doors open and permit anyone to come through your house without even knowing who they are?
Why are you pushing for allowing something that is illegal and lawbreaking to happen and how is that just?
The only 'crime' the mexican commited was being born on the other side of a line on a map.
This is not true as reflected on the Southern border. The Mexican entered another country illegally. He/she did not follow the protocol for entering the USA. The USA is not against people entering their country legally, as long as they meet the legal requirements in doing so. From watching the TV show Border Security I believe that someone who has a criminal record cannot enter the USA or Canada without first proving they have not had a criminal conviction for a number of years. So, even with our open border between Canada and the USA, not everyone can enter either country with this liability. They have to prove they are upstanding citizens and have not violated the law for a number of years.
Is that justice, or is it about humanity's innate 'us and them' mentality?
It is unjust and against the law to enter the USA illegally. Even on the open USA Canada borders, you have to stop a Customs and Immigration and show you are a citizen of one of those two countries and state how long you will be visiting and your intentions.
Is it just, let alone sensible to let anyone enter and leave your house whenever they want, uninvited and when you don't know their character?
Did God not tell the people who were under the covenant with Him to expel those who were evil in His sight? God knew the intentions of these people and that they would only harbour malice and strife for His people. He knew they would corrupt His people and because His people did not listen to God that is precisely what happened.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If you live in Texas, say, and someone comes from Oregon or Ohio to do a job that is no problem, but if he or she comes from Mexico it is. There are, I am sure, thieves and rapists in Oregon and honest hard working Mexicans, but the criterion is not what an individual is like but on the meaningless detail of their 'nationality'.
It is not a problem if someone comes from Mexico as long as they enter and leave your country legally and are not criminals.
What is your problem with legal immigration or entry???
I asked you this in my last post and did not get an answer. (i.e., The question is what is unjust about not allowing people into your country unless they follow the laws of the land???)
Do you lock your doors at night? Will you let anyone freely enter and leave your house who you don't know?
Can you fly to England, or Turkey, or South Africa without a visa? Can you visit these countries without going through Customs and Immigration? What countries in the world can you do this besides the good old USA (or Canada)?
Can you (your country) afford to support the rest of the third world freeloading in your country (send them all to your sanctuary cities and States and see how they fare)? What does the debt load mean to your children and grandchildren? Can you afford the drug epidemic most of which is transported through your southern border? How many of these illegals have criminal records? How many are MS 13? What about the child and sex trafficking going on?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The law of justice in the USA is that a foreigner must come into the country legally.One should never, ever confuse what is legal with what is just. They should be the same, but they frequently aren't.
Hi Keith, I see you did not include my name in the "Receivers" (therefore I was not notified) so I take it this is an open response?
I agree with the underlined and it can be argued for legitimately, IMO, yet what is written into law in your country is being broken.
The question is what is unjust about not allowing people into your country unless they follow the laws of the land???
People are not allowed to enter your country illegally without being charged with breaking the law yet that is happening. They break your laws whether you think these laws are just or not. The Dems are impeding the laws of the land working. IMO, Dems refuse to fix them unless it benefits them and brings in more Democrat votes so I do not see them as looking out for the best interests of their people just themselves as per usual (anything to get elected). They are a party of groupthink and brainwashing of the mass media which they control because most in the mainstream media are educated by groupthink liberal Democrat universities.
Countries act sovereignly to govern themselves unless they are a puppet state. In a Democracy or Republic, it is up to the people to elect just representatives. In a socialist government of the big government, the masses are usually controlled by such a system as a dictatorship or oligarchy. In your system (USA) the problem, as I see it, is that most are not capable of thinking about what is just anymore because they have no fixed standard and measure for justice. It all becomes a matter of personal preference and opinion. Thus, Hitler's Germany (with such thinking) can be no better than the most desired place in the world to live. When personal taste instead of justice and righteousness is the standard we are in big trouble. When a big government and tyranny, dictatorship or an oligarchy controls the masses anything can happen.
Even in ANE Israel, God expected the people of the land to live within a righteous system of justice and obey the covenant He made with them. Any foreigner coming into the land of Israel was responsible to live according to the laws of the land. Thus, you see over and over again where God lists their injustices and how they have unrighteously been influenced by foreigner nations and peoples in ways that are not just, even sinful and heinous.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Open borders on the Southern US border is an idiot concept, IMHO.President Trump wants to build walls in the southern states of America to lessen illegal drug traffic, trafficking, MS13, and illegal aliens.There were walls built around cities and towns in biblical/ancient Israel to protect the people.Isreal today has used walls/fences effectively in controlling the terrorism from Gaza.The Great Wall of China has proven effective in protecting the Chinese for centuries. Many nations use fences along the border of their countries to deter and lessen illegal activity. It makes sense (something your Democrat Party lacks on most issues).The alleged upstanding Christian shows his true colors of hatred of others and wanting to keep them out. PGA2.0, the new and improved anti-Christ.
Again, this has nothing to do with the argument I gave and I see it as a cheap attack on me and a bankrupt exit from the issues you charged my Christian worldivew with. If this is all you have I'm not interested in responding further.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The law of justice in the USA is that a foreigner must come into the country legally.I love how you hide behind the law when it suits your mood.What does The Jesus say about it?
I perceive you have no justifiable argument because you attack me rather than the argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.This sounds an awful lot like "amnesty for all U.S. residents"...
Have you considered the rest of the context to find out how these foreigners were to be treated?
9 ‘Now when you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the very corners of your field, nor shall you gather the gleanings of your harvest. 10 Nor shall you glean your vineyard, nor shall you gather the fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them for the needy and for the stranger. I am the Lord your God.
11 ‘You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear falsely by My name, so as to profane the name of your God; I am the Lord.
13 ‘You shall not oppress your neighbor, nor rob him. The wages of a hired man are not to remain with you all night until morning. 14 You shall not curse a deaf man, nor place a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall revere your God; I am the Lord.
15 ‘You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.16 You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the Lord.
17 ‘You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him.18 You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.
33 ‘When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God.
35 ‘You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measurement of weight, or capacity. 36 You shall have just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin; I am the Lord your God, who brought you out from the land of Egypt. 37 You shall thus observe all My statutes and all My ordinances and do them; I am the Lord.’”
So, the greater passage of Leviticus 19 is speaking of love and justice for the people and the foreigner is to be treated with the same love and justices used for the native-born. We do not live in an ANE culture in the West, but the same principles should be used by treating the foreigner as you would any native-born citizen with respect to love and justice. IF SOMEONE BREAKS THE LAW THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED THE SAME WAY ANY NATIVE-BORN CITIZEN WOULD.
The law of justice in the USA is that a foreigner must come into the country legally.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.This sounds an awful lot like "open borders"...Mr. DJT, tear down this wall.
Open borders on the Southern US border is an idiot concept, IMHO.
President Trump wants to build walls in the southern states of America to lessen illegal drug traffic, trafficking, MS13, and illegal aliens.
There were walls built around cities and towns in biblical/ancient Israel to protect the people.
Isreal today has used walls/fences effectively in controlling the terrorism from Gaza.
The Great Wall of China has proven effective in protecting the Chinese for centuries. Many nations use fences along the border of their countries to deter and lessen illegal activity. It makes sense (something your Democrat Party lacks on most issues).
Nehemiah 1:1-3 (NASB)
1 The words of Nehemiah the son of Hacaliah.
Now it happened in the month Chislev, in the twentieth year, while I was in Susa the capital, 2 that Hanani, one of my brothers, and some men from Judah came; and I asked them concerning the Jews who had escaped and had survived the captivity, and about Jerusalem. 3 They said to me, “The remnant there in the province who survived the captivity are in great distress and reproach, and the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire.”
Now it happened in the month Chislev, in the twentieth year, while I was in Susa the capital, 2 that Hanani, one of my brothers, and some men from Judah came; and I asked them concerning the Jews who had escaped and had survived the captivity, and about Jerusalem. 3 They said to me, “The remnant there in the province who survived the captivity are in great distress and reproach, and the wall of Jerusalem is broken down and its gates are burned with fire.”
Nehemiah 2:17-18
17 Then I said to them, “You see the bad situation we are in, that Jerusalem is desolate and its gates burned by fire. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem so that we will no longer be a reproach.” 18 I told them how the hand of my God had been favorable to me and also about the king’s words which he had spoken to me. Then they said, “Let us arise and build.” So they put their hands to the good work.
Nehemiah 3
7 Now when Sanballat, Tobiah, the Arabs, the Ammonites and the Ashdodites heard that the repair of the walls of Jerusalem went on, and that the breaches began to be closed, they were very angry. 8 All of them conspired together to come and fight against Jerusalem and to cause a disturbance in it.
The last two sentences I underlined sound like the Democrats.
Nehemiah 6:15-16
The Wall Is Finished
15 So the wall was completed on the twenty-fifth of the month Elul, in fifty-two days. 16 When all our enemies heard of it, and all the nations surrounding us saw it, they lost their confidence; for they recognized that this work had been accomplished with the help of our God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I define slavery as owning people as property.
First, there is a difference between a slave and an indentured servant. The principle of indentured servants of biblical times could apply in a similar way to the employer/employee relationship.
Second, slavery was a common practice in the ANE.
Third, Isreal was not permitted by God to treat those captured by warfare in the same manner of how they had been treated and exploited in Egypt. That was like chattel slavery in which the person was treated in a harsh and sub-human level.
Fourth, slavery teaches a lesson. There is a biblical spiritual lesson to be learned from slavery in several ways.
***
The bible gives provisions to do just that.
The OT does, but not in the same way as practiced in many ANE cultures, such as the one they came from (Egypt).
Exodus 1:14 They made their lives bitter with harsh labor in brick and mortar and with all kinds of work in the fields; in all their harsh labor the Egyptians worked them ruthlessly.
Exodus 2:23 During that long period, the king of Egypt died. The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God.
Exodus 3:9 And now the cry of the Israelites has reached me, and I have seen the way the Egyptians are oppressing them.
Exodus 6:6 “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.
And now the clincher:
Exodus 22:21 “Do not mistreat or oppress a foreigner, for you were foreigners in Egypt.
Exodus 23:9 “Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt.
Leviticus 18:3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.
Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.
Leviticus 25:42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves.
Leviticus 15:12-18
12 If any of your people—Hebrew men or women—sell themselves to you and serve you six years, in the seventh year you must let them go free. 13 And when you release them, do not send them away empty-handed. 14 Supply them liberally from your flock, your threshing floor and your winepress. Give to them as the Lord your God has blessed you. 15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you. That is why I give you this command today.
16 But if your servant says to you, “I do not want to leave you,” because he loves you and your family and is well off with you, 17 then take an awl and push it through his earlobe into the door, and he will become your servant for life. Do the same for your female servant.
18 Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because their service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the Lord your God will bless you in everything you do.
So, the type of biblical slavery is different from the bondage and oppression practiced by other ANE cultures. Those taken into an Israeli family were to be treated with dignity and respect. That may not have happened in practice, but the Lord God expected it.
It doesn't matter what word the bible uses if the definition is owning people as property that is slavery definitionally.
Slavery teaches a lesson. You, too, are a slave to whatever controls and owns you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
It is not me who is delusional but you. You are in denial. You show how much you care about what you believe by constantly shouting down the Christian worldview as wrong and erroneous. You constantly go out of your way to engage in this topic which shows how much you care about it.I deny that all of the gods created by man, and that is all proposed gods, exist.
If you deny God then you must have another explanation for your existence or else you are speaking out of ignorance and have not examined what is reasonable and likey. Which is it?
So, I will ask you again, what explanation do you have for why you (humanity) are/is here (the origins of your/humanities existence)?
You can classify that as denial, unfortunately it's truth. What is it that I neglect in order that go out of my way to engage in this topic. Typing a few words on a keyboard is not going out of my way, if it is for you then you have my pity.Another entire paragraph attacking me and not anything I've written.
You were the one who started the ad homs, remember that. It seems to me by your replies that these personal attacks are the only types of conversation you capable of demonstrating.
If that is the case you are a fool. You speak of things you do not understand. The very fact that you choose to engage and the vitriol you show by your constant ad Hom attacks shows the contrary to what you state.Look up ad hom and then read your paragraph. I mean really!
If you have not thought of why you exist other than to say you exist because you exist you are ignorant or foolish in regard to my underlined proposition in Post # 930. I'm pointing out to you that a fool comes to a gunfight with only his fists.
What I have said about your vitriol stands. I think many others would reiterate that you constantly use ad homs instead of addressing the arguments.
Your existence is not explained by your existence. That is a tautology. It says nothing. Somehow you got here. Somehow you are.Without my existence I would not exist, I was born and I am. That seems to be a concept beyond comprehension.
There has to be some reason how you got here (origins). What is it?
First, this is oversimplified. If this life did not matter why are you being so inconsistent and making it matter by arguing with me? Holding to your worldview it just doesn't matter yet you fight tooth and nail to make your particular belief matter.Your delusion goes much deeper than I thought if you believe that arguing with you gives my life any meaning and that I'm somehow fighting tooth for a worldview that I have never expounded upon and that you have never the less assigned me. Do try to be even a little honest.
If it did not matter to you then why do you continually engage in and respond to my posts? You care enough to take the time. You take the time to dispute the reasons I give for meaning yet you are so petrified to disclose anything about your worldview yet it comes out in your opposition.
Because you continue to exist leads me to believe you want to live longer, and I'm glad of that! Maybe one day you will be led to the truth of your existence and I wish you well in that respect.I exist until I don't and my continued existence doesn't rely on what I want, you seem confused bout this.
Your existence does not explain why you are here. You continue to reply, "I am here because I am here."
There is a reason for origins. If you don't know what that reason is (ignorance) or have a logical explanation then you cannot rationally deny God as that reason.
I have the truth, we live and we die, I'm sorry you will never understand that truth.
I understand we live and die, so your statement is false and misleading as usual.
Your ultimate fixed standard places genocide, child rape, human sacrifice, infanticide and slavery on the GOOD side of the moral ledger they are nothing of the sort.
No, it does not. You again misrepresent my position because you are ignorant of it. I have laid it out in previous posts and no one challenged it. Instead, they relied on their standard group-think responses and talking points.
You and your disgusting version of morality is what is wrong with this world.
Wrong again. I hold onto that which is good and right and I challenge "your version" of morality as being able to explain the moral (for the truth about morality is narrow and does not change).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I made a general statement about worldviews and then I got specific about yours. I say generally because it is irrelevant to someone who has not thought about their existence or does not care. You seem to be in the camp that says they don't care, yet even your words betray that sentiment as I will point out below.You made a general statement and erroneously attempted to apply it to me, someone you know absolutely nothing about, you fail.
If you think along the lines of naturalism/materialism which would be the automatic default if you do not believe in God or a personal creator then that worldview has a distinct way of understanding why you exist. If you haven't thought about it you are ignorant or in denial of the explanation. Nevertheless, the naturalistic/materialistic worldview has a particular way of looking at life's ultimate questions. Not bothering to look at the deep questions of life by examining your existence is something you should think about if you are going to participate in a debate forum about the existence of a specific God because denying such a Being brings up the question of another explanation which you struggle to or are incapable of giving.
Your second sentence is you trying to pigeon hole me into your erroneous generalisation when you know nothing about me. I am not in a camp and you never got around to supplying my sentiment.
I know enough about you to understand that you are very angry and in opposition to the Christian God. That is the sentiment you express in most of your posts.
An entire paragraph about what you think of me and not a word about what I write, in your absurd paradigm you would call that ad hom.
I already expressed what I thought and you sidetracked the conversation to personally attack the person (me) instead of the argument (which you manage to do in the majority of our exchanges, which is why I seldom answer your posts).
Your worldview is not the majority oneWill you just look at that profound nonsense, my worldview is my worldview and not anyone elses, still generalising ad homs.
Again, please supply the rest of the context. You have a habit of cutting it short to misdirect posts. You started the ad homs.
Generally speakingBeen there got the T shirt.Here again, your words betray what you state previously and even those words are loaded with meaning ("what could I possibly care about that"). There is a difference between what you could and what you do believe about existence.My words betray what I have previously said, at least I'm not a hypocrite like some others here. As you pointed out so comically I've said before that my existence is undeniably a result of my existence.
Your exitence is a result of your existence? What does that mean?
You are not the cause of your existence or else you would have self-created yourself which is a logical impossibility or you would have always existed which is not plausible. No, something or Someone else was responsible for your existence however much you want to deny this and avoid the issue. Logically, there are only a couple of likely scenarios which you fail to face up to. Until you are willing to discuss this we are at an impact and stalemate to a productive dialog (which is usually my experience whenever I answer your posts) and the conversation is not worth pursuing further.
The fact is you have stated you don't know, you doubt you would care, and then you appear to care since you add the words "very much." So, your whole sentence is pregnant with doubt and inconsistency. On the one hand, you imply and deny that you care and then on the other you add the caveat emptor "care very much."It's actually incredibly straight forward. I would need to be in that situation to give an honest (look that word up) answer but I don't think I'd care very much after all I have to die sometime, unlike you and your godist mates I have no fear death, I even recognise it's reality.
Again, there is doubt in your wording which signifies or suggests a contradiction in what you are saying about not caring because of your lack of surety and conviction.
You also might like to look up caveat emptor.
It means "let the buyer beware" or "sold as is" and your words betray what you really think and I'm alerting anyone else who wants to buy into your self-deception.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
You provided nothing but an ad hom in the previous postYou provided nothing but fabricated lies, what do you think you should expect from that? Hugs?
I made an argument. Dispute it or show how it is inconsistent by showing what you believe is its fallacies instead of making assertions.
I came here for discussion, not slander.
Stop lying and you'll be treated with respect. Keep lying and you won't.
Apply this standard to yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
your reply is significant in that it is an ad hominem directed at the person instead of the issueYour previous response was nothing short of fabricated lies and childish rants. You insult our intelligence with your nonsensical posts. You are not here to have reasonable discussions, but instead, to promote your religion at any cost, including your honesty and integrity, what little you have left.
You provided nothing but an ad hom in the previous post. It did not address any of the issues I raised. Thus, you are full of wind blowing nowhere. It appears to me that you are incapable of addressing the issues, thus you attack the man (me) with insults.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
I have no idea what you mean, thus you have not communicated with me and this is a waste of my time, once again.And what about Duterte? A good Christian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Again, your reply is significant in that it is an ad hominem directed at the person instead of the issue, thus it is an irrelevant statement and clearly fallacious for this reason. It bypasses the issue. You have done nothing - nothing - to prove your assertions. Pathetic and inadequate waste of my time to respond except to set the record straight.As usual, everything you say is contrary to reality, logic reason and intelligence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
In your everyday life do you try to make sense of existence by adopting particular positions? Sure you do. Those positions, your worldview, shape how you look at your existence. Obviously, that is true.Don't ask me questions and then answer erroneously on my behalf. Your definition of true is what bounces around in your bonce and that is a piss poor definition indeed, it only works in your world of delusion.
It is not me who is delusional but you. You are in denial. You show how much you care about what you believe by constantly shouting down the Christian worldview as wrong and erroneous. You constantly go out of your way to engage in this topic which shows how much you care about it.
Your worldview, as does every worldview, attempts to understand why you are here and supply the meaning.Wrong again.
If that is the case you are a fool. You speak of things you do not understand. The very fact that you choose to engage and the vitriol you show by your constant ad Hom attacks shows the contrary to what you state.
For an atheist, your existence is explained in a limited way by natural unintelligent random processes.For an atheist, as for everyone, my existence is explained by my existence. That existence is limited in a cosmic sense but I'll enjoy it for time I have it.
Your existence is not explained by your existence. That is a tautology. It says nothing. Somehow you got here. Somehow you are.
There is no ultimate meaningFinally you've told the truth. We are born we live and we die, just like every other animal that has ever and will ever exist on this planet.
First, this is oversimplified. If this life did not matter why are you being so inconsistent and making it matter by arguing with me? Holding to your worldview it just doesn't matter yet you fight tooth and nail to make your particular belief matter.
You make meaning for the protection of your existence and hope others buy into that meaning because it means you live longer, so existence is important.You prove with every word you write that you live in delusion and know ABSOLUTELY nothing about me. Why would I want to live longer, dead sounds alright.
Because you continue to exist leads me to believe you want to live longer, and I'm glad of that! Maybe one day you will be led to the truth of your existence and I wish you well in that respect.
But without an absolute, unchanging best, a fixed and ultimate standardYour fixed and ultimate standard partakes in infanticide, genocide, childrape, human sacrifice and slavery, my self appointed standards are parsecs better than that so I don't know why you keep claiming superiority. An argument could be made that Hitler had a higher moral standard than yours.Gods are the creation of human imagination, don't be scared you won't even know you are dead.
Again, your paragraph is loaded with meaning that betrays your beliefs. If there is no ultimate standard and measure what does it matter, yet you fight tooth and nail to make it matter. You are a walking contradiction and are inconsistent with a non-Christian worldview.
The question is if there is no ultimate fixed standard and measure then why yours is any "better" than any other, as you claim. I do not see it that way. If everything is relative then your belief is no better than any other relative belief. Your arrogance is what wars are fought over. Also, you state the argument could be made that Hitler had a higher moral standard than mine, but in relation to what? Do you just arbitrarily give meaning to morality and that becomes the ultimate standard that you claim does not exist? Your meaning is just your feelings and I do not recognize your feelings as any better than that of a toad if there is no ultimate standard and reference point. Your overbearing and presumptuous claims mean nothing if everything is relative. What you believe not better than the Christian worldview. Also, you betray what you really believe because you make such a big issue over genocide, child rape, human sacrifice, and slavery when what does it matter if there is no ultimate standard? Your standard becomes just another drop in the myriad of personal beliefs that is no better or worse than any other in a relative world of shifting standards.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You sidestep the question as usual to misdirect.What you have said is that you are alive and that you will die and you accept that but if someone threatened your existence right now with death would you care? But as I said, this misdirects what I was getting at.I answered you very specifically which makes you, as always, a liar.
I made a general statement about worldviews and then I got specific about yours. I say generally because it is irrelevant to someone who has not thought about their existence or does not care. You seem to be in the camp that says they don't care, yet even your words betray that sentiment as I will point out below.
Here is the original context:
I'm just pointing out that every worldview tries to make sense of existence but only one can99.99% of worldviews don't give a fat rats arse about existence.Do you not care about whether you live or die?For the one I am and for the other I will, what could I possibly care about that?
Your worldview is not the majority one but I would argue an exception if you truly feel the way you do.
What could you possibly care about? Being wrong and being externally separated from God.
What could you possibly care about? Spending eternity in a wicked place separated from God's love and mercy.
Generally speaking, every worldview (i.e, Christianity, atheism, paganism, materialism, naturalism, Isalm, Hinduism, etc) has a view of existence. The worldview answers at least four basic questions such as who we are, why we are here, what difference does it make, what happens to us when we die. Whether you personally care does not change that, so your statement that 99.99% do not care about existence is misleading. They care enough about it to believe particular things about existence. They care enough to hold particular beliefs about those four categories.
Would I care if someone threatened my life right now?I dunno I'd need to be in that situation, but I doubt I would care very much.Death comes to us all and we won't even know it.
Here again, your words betray what you state previously and even those words are loaded with meaning ("what could I possibly care about that"). There is a difference between what you could and what you do believe about existence.
I dunno I'd need to be in that situation, but I doubt I would care very much.
The fact is you have stated you don't know, you doubt you would care, and then you appear to care since you add the words "very much." So, your whole sentence is pregnant with doubt and inconsistency. On the one hand, you imply and deny that you care and then on the other you add the caveat emptor "care very much."
Created: