A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2014, 06:56 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 06:47 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 06:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you're not. You are here preaching.
You do not understand what atheism is as you don't have the courage to stand on your own. Time to grow up.

Even if this were true, it does not show my statement to be false for preaching is a form of talking or communicating, which is what I said I was here doing.

Preaching isn't talking to atheists ABOUT FUCKING ATHEISM, asshole.

Preaching is trying to shove your batshit-crazy superstitions down peoplle's fucking throats.

You are a fucking liar.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 06:58 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(20-06-2014 07:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-06-2014 04:08 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  God defines what sin is.

Great. Now all you have to do is explain where she gets the principles she uses to make that definition.

Although theistic metaethics assumes a rich variety of forms, there has been in recent years a resurgence of interest in divine command morality, which understands our moral duties as our obligations to God in light of his moral commands; for example, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart,” “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” and so on.

Our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a just and loving God. For any action A and moral agent S, we can explicate the notions of moral requirement, permission and forbiddenness of A for S as follows:

A is required of S if and only if a just and loving God commands S to do A.
A is permitted for S if and only if a just and loving God does not command S not to do A.
A is forbidden to S if and only if a just and loving God commands S not to do A.

Since our moral duties are grounded in the divine commands, they are not independent of God nor, plausibly, is God bound by moral duties, since he does not issue commands to himself. If God does not fulfil moral duties , then what content can be given to the claim that he is good? Here Kant’s distinction between following a rule and acting in accordance with a rule has proved helpful. God may act naturally in ways which for us would be rule-following and so constitutive of goodness in the sense of fulfilling our moral duties, so that God can be said similarly to be good in an analogical way. This fact also supplies the key to the arbitrariness objection. For our duties are determined by the commands, not merely of a supreme potentate, but of a just and loving God. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial and so forth, and his commandments are reflections of his own character. Thus they are not arbitrary, and we need not trouble ourselves about counterfactuals with impossible antecedents like “If God were to command child abuse, . . .” God may be said to be good in the sense that he possesses all these moral virtues (recall chap. 22)— and he does so essentially and to the maximal degree! Thus God’s axiological perfection should not be understood in terms of duty-fulfillment, but in terms of virtue. This conception helps us to understand the sense in which God is to be praised: not in the sense of commendation for fully executing his duties or even for his acts of supererogation, but rather in the sense of adoration for his axiological perfection.

Moreland, James Porter; William Lane Craig (2009-08-20). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (pp. 531-532). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

(20-06-2014 07:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Didn't Germey say he was a slave and bondservant of Jebus. And then he says others are not free as they are slaves of sin. Then he asserts he's "free" to serve Jebus, even though he's Jebus' slave. Clearly he's inconsistent with the use of his terms, and can change his meaning to suit the moment. Thumbsup

Jeremy said he was a bondservant of Jesus.

Those who have not been set free from the law of sin and death by the Son are bound and unable to freely serve God for they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I freely choose to serve Jesus Christ the same way that a Hebrew Servant in the seventh year (the year of release) could choose to freely stay with their master because they loved Him and His household. I am better provided for by Christ than by anyone else outside of His household, thus like the Hebrew servant that was free, I freely choose to be a servant of Christ. I choose this because this is what I want. It is what I desire. My desires are different than yours.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 06:59 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 06:09 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 05:09 AM)morondog Wrote:  You mean, those who claim to speak for God...

No.

God defines what sin is.

You mean, the iron-age goatfuckers who invented your mythical gawd-thing.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 07:04 AM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 07:19 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Quote: Although theistic metaethics assumes a rich variety of forms, there has been in recent years a resurgence of interest in divine command morality, which understands our moral duties as our obligations to God in light of his moral commands; for example, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart,” “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” and so on

Spamming fucking copypasta again. From "Larry" Craig, even worse.


Except those aren't quotes from your mythical gawd-monster, they are quotes from your mythical zombie-boi.
Stupid fucktard, you don't even know your own fairytale book.




Quote: Our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a just and loving God.

You mean the "just and loving gawd" who, in your fables, sets bears on children and murders Lot's wife for gazing upon its atrocities, and smiles while Lot and their daughters celebrate her death with an incestuous multi-night drunken fuck-a-thon. Check.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 07:17 AM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 07:32 AM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
Quote:Jeremy said he was a bondservant of Jesus.

Those who have not been set free from the law of sin and death by the Son are bound and unable to freely serve God for they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I freely choose to serve Jesus Christ the same way that a Hebrew Servant in the seventh year (the year of release) could choose to freely stay with their master because they loved Him and His household. I am better provided for by Christ than by anyone else outside of His household, thus like the Hebrew servant that was free, I freely choose to be a servant of Christ. I choose this because this is what I want. It is what I desire.



Meaningless moronic drivel of an insane person who cannot distinguish fairy tales from reality.


Insert Lord Voldemort for illustration.



Quote:] My desires are different than yours.

And here you demand that we honor your desires, yet you want to ignore and walk all over ours -- for example. our desire to be left alone by idiot fucktard proselytizing trolls like you. You don't give a fuck what we want, instead you selfishly iand egotistically nflict your moronic ass and youe peurile superstitions on the good people in this forum every fucking day.

Asshole.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
21-06-2014, 07:21 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 06:09 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 05:09 AM)morondog Wrote:  You mean, those who claim to speak for God...

No.

God defines what sin is.

Hey what's a god ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 07:23 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 06:47 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 06:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, you're not. You are here preaching.
You do not understand what atheism is as you don't have the courage to stand on your own. Time to grow up.

Even if this were true, it does not show my statement to be false for preaching is a form of talking or communicating, which is what I said I was here doing.

No. You said "talking about atheism". You're not.

Time for you to fuck off. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
21-06-2014, 07:27 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 06:53 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Because man put together the various books of the bible choosing through their own free will which books to include or omit, which parts to edit and of course errors in copying, is it not possible that there are sins that your god knows about but we don't know about ?

If your god communicates through men who can use free will to change that communication, then your level of gullibility must be very high.

As god personally told me last night when I was dreaming. "Gullibility is a sin"

God using men who could use their volitional capacities to change said communication does not equate to them actually doing so. To conclude thus would be a non-sequitur.

To see whether or not these men "changed" God's revelation to them, we would look for indicators or evidence of such amendments beyond mere copyist mistakes of say, a missing punctuation mark or or a left out letter in a word. Is there evidence that the men moved by God to record His revealed will changed what He communicated to them in a way that would affect even one essential doctrine of Christianity?

What does the evidence show? Let us look:

All ancient books in existence have survived only as copies of copies, yet the number, quality and age of the New Testament manuscripts is far superior to that of any other ancient work. F.F. Bruce concluded that 'there is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.'[16]

Even Homer's Iliad, one of the most famous works of ancient literature, has survived in just 643 manuscripts (ie. handwritten copies from before the advent of the printing press), the earliest of which dates from hundreds of years after its original composition. This situation is far better than for most ancient works, the basic integrity of which is not usually questioned. Yet the New Testament has survived in over 24,000 manuscripts, including lectionaries and early translations.

New Testament manuscripts have survived from at least the early second century onwards (eg. the John Rylands fragment of John 18:31, 33, 37, 38 in Manchester). This is a far smaller time gap from composition to first extant manuscript than any other ancient work.[17] Later New Testament manuscripts can be easily viewed, such as the Codex Alexandrinus (5th century) and Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) in the British Library.

Turning to the Old Testament (Old Testament), the situation is not quite the same, largely due to the greater age of the books concerned. Still, there are hundreds of Old Testament manuscripts surviving, and these again compare extremely favourably with those surviving from other works of the same period. The Jewish scribes (Masoretes) responsible for faithfully transmitting the texts turned their job into an art form, devising complex, multi-layered checks for ensuring that no mistakes had crept in, such as counting the number of times each letter of the alphabet appears in each book.

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a fascinating witness to the authenticity of the Old Testament text. Prior to their discovery in 1947, the oldest complete Old Testament texts dated from around AD 900. The Dead Sea Scrolls date to around a century or so before the time of Christ and include many Old Testament manuscripts. The book of Isaiah was found amongst the scrolls and 'proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling.'[18]

It is worth knowing something about the kinds of variant readings found in manuscripts of the Bible. Virtually all manuscripts contain variants, as happens whenever long passages are copied out by hand. This should not worry us. The biblical text that we have to defend is that of the original autograph, not later copies, as it was the authors that were inspired, not the copyists. Manuscripts are valuable in that they help to show us what the text of the original autographs was.

The vast majority of variants are variations in spelling and grammar that have no bearing on the meaning. Others are obvious slips of the pen, with one letter mistaken for another, or lines and phrases inadvertently missed out or repeated. Occasionally variants do change the meaning of the text and there are rare examples of a deliberate change, (such as harmonising the wording in two similar passages). Again, we should not be worried by the existence of these variants. There are a comparatively small number that change the meaning of the text and in virtually every case the original reading can be determined by comparing manuscripts together, a process known as textual criticism.[19] Bruce Metzger, one of the world's leading authorities on New Testament textual criticism, states that not one doctrine of the church is in jeopardy because of a variant reading in the New Testament. http://www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-r...-testament




What can we conclude from this evidence? New Testament specialist Daniel Wallace notes that although there are about 300,000 individual variations of the text of the New Testament, this number is very misleading. Most of the differences are completely inconsequential--spelling errors, inverted phrases and the like. A side by side comparison between the two main text families (the Majority Text and the modern critical text) shows agreement a full 98% of the time.[18]

Of the remaining differences, virtually all yield to vigorous textual criticism. This means that our New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine.[19]

Greek scholar D.A. Carson sums up this way: "The purity of text is of such a substantial nature that nothing we believe to be true, and nothing we are commanded to do, is in any way jeopardized by the variants."[20]

This issue is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we'd have to reject every ancient work of antiquity and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

Has the New Testament been altered? Critical, academic analysis says it has not.

http://www.str.org/articles/is-the-new-t...6WHJPldWjo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 07:28 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 06:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(20-06-2014 07:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Great. Now all you have to do is explain where she gets the principles she uses to make that definition.

Although theistic metaethics assumes a rich variety of forms, there has been in recent years a resurgence of interest in divine command morality, which understands our moral duties as our obligations to God in light of his moral commands; for example, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart,” “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” and so on.

Our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a just and loving God. For any action A and moral agent S, we can explicate the notions of moral requirement, permission and forbiddenness of A for S as follows:

A is required of S if and only if a just and loving God commands S to do A.
A is permitted for S if and only if a just and loving God does not command S not to do A.
A is forbidden to S if and only if a just and loving God commands S not to do A.

Since our moral duties are grounded in the divine commands, they are not independent of God nor, plausibly, is God bound by moral duties, since he does not issue commands to himself. If God does not fulfil moral duties , then what content can be given to the claim that he is good? Here Kant’s distinction between following a rule and acting in accordance with a rule has proved helpful. God may act naturally in ways which for us would be rule-following and so constitutive of goodness in the sense of fulfilling our moral duties, so that God can be said similarly to be good in an analogical way. This fact also supplies the key to the arbitrariness objection. For our duties are determined by the commands, not merely of a supreme potentate, but of a just and loving God. God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial and so forth, and his commandments are reflections of his own character. Thus they are not arbitrary, and we need not trouble ourselves about counterfactuals with impossible antecedents like “If God were to command child abuse, . . .” God may be said to be good in the sense that he possesses all these moral virtues (recall chap. 22)— and he does so essentially and to the maximal degree! Thus God’s axiological perfection should not be understood in terms of duty-fulfillment, but in terms of virtue. This conception helps us to understand the sense in which God is to be praised: not in the sense of commendation for fully executing his duties or even for his acts of supererogation, but rather in the sense of adoration for his axiological perfection.

Moreland, James Porter; William Lane Craig (2009-08-20). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (pp. 531-532). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

(20-06-2014 07:20 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Didn't Germey say he was a slave and bondservant of Jebus. And then he says others are not free as they are slaves of sin. Then he asserts he's "free" to serve Jebus, even though he's Jebus' slave. Clearly he's inconsistent with the use of his terms, and can change his meaning to suit the moment. Thumbsup

Jeremy said he was a bondservant

Those who have not been set free from the law of sin and death by the Son are bound and unable to freely serve God for they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

I freely choose to serve Jesus Christ the same way that a Hebrew Servant in the seventh year (the year of release) could choose to freely stay with their master because they loved Him and His household. I am better provided for by Christ than by anyone else outside of His household, thus like the Hebrew servant that was free, I freely choose to be a servant of Christ. I choose this because this is what I want. It is what I desire. My desires are different than yours.
We don't care about your slavery fetish so fuck off!

Religion is bullshit. The winner of the last person to post wins thread.Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Leo's post
21-06-2014, 07:31 AM
RE: A Christian's response to"An atheist's critique of the Bible
(21-06-2014 06:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Although theistic metaethics assumes a rich variety of forms, there has been in recent years a resurgence of interest in divine command morality, which understands our moral duties as our obligations to God in light of his moral commands; for example, “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart,” “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” and so on.

bla bla bla.
The QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU, is to demonstrate or state the origins of the CRITERIA your (supposedly non-capricious) deity used in formulating her "commands". The question is not "divine command morality" but the ORIGINS of it. You have evaded one again the point in question, OR you don't get what the question really is. THIS is the question :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
YOU have not, and cannot answer it.

(21-06-2014 06:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a just and loving God. For any action A and moral agent S, we can explicate the notions of moral requirement, permission and forbiddenness of A for S as follows:

Prove it, (to quote one Germey Wanker).

(21-06-2014 06:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Since our moral duties are grounded in the divine commands, they are not independent of God nor, plausibly, is God bound by moral duties, since he does not issue commands to himself.

Wrong. There are no "divine commands". HUMANS cooked them up, and presented them as divine commands, then changed them when it was convenient. Prove they are "divine" commands.

(21-06-2014 06:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  If God does not fulflil moral duties , then what content can be given to the claim that he is good?"

Thank you. Precisely exactly my point, and the point of the "dilemma" above.
Then the criteria for "good" exists EXTERNALLY to, and does not originate with your deity, and refutes your deity as the origin of goodness and Reality.

Again, Germey has painted himself into a corner.

(21-06-2014 06:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Here Kant’s distinction between following a rule and acting in accordance with a rule has proved helpful. God may act naturally in ways which for us would be rule-following and so constitutive of goodness in the sense of fulfilling our moral duties, so that God can be said similarly to be good in an analogical way. This fact also supplies the key to the arbitrariness objection. For our duties are determined by the commands, not merely of a supreme potentate, but of a just and loving God.

1. Thank you for proving you're not here for anything other than preaching, you lying SOB.
2. You have in no way, but ONLY PRESUPPOSED your god to BE "just and loving". Your reasong is circular, and totally Presuppositionalist.

(21-06-2014 06:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial and so forth, and his commandments are reflections of his own character. Thus they are not arbitrary, and we need not trouble ourselves about counterfactuals with impossible antecedents like “If God were to command child abuse, . . .” God may be said to be good in the sense that he possesses all these moral virtues (recall chap. 22)— and he does so essentially and to the maximal degree! Thus God’s axiological perfection should not be understood in terms of duty-fulfillment, but in terms of virtue. This conception helps us to understand the sense in which God is to be praised: not in the sense of commendation for fully executing his duties or even for his acts of supererogation, but rather in the sense of adoration for his axiological perfection.

Prove it.
(Copy pasta bullshit).

A list of Presuppositional assertions and NOT ONE WORD of proof.
The moon is made of green cheese is just as valid.

(21-06-2014 06:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Those who have not been set free from the law of sin and death by the Son are bound and unable to freely serve God for they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

Thanks for demonstrating you dishonesty. You said you were not here to preach. BTW, PROVE it.

(21-06-2014 06:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I freely choose to serve Jesus Christ the same way that a Hebrew Servant in the seventh year (the year of release) could choose to freely stay with their master because they loved Him and His household. I am better provided for by Christ than by anyone else outside of His household, thus like the Hebrew servant that was free, I freely choose to be a servant of Christ. I choose this because this is what I want. It is what I desire. My desires are different than yours.

Prove it.
Then you don't know the definition of either "bondservant" or "slave".
I see you NEED, I repeat NEED to assert your moral superiority, because we all know you were once (and remain) a moral reprobate by your own admission.

(21-06-2014 06:58 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am better provided for by Christ than by anyone else outside of His household

Exactly. Your motives are essentially self-serving, and selfish. You NEED your Jebus blankey. We all get that. You think by coming here, and arguing, it will make you look reasonable. You are delusional, and you are trying to prove to YOURSELF you aren't.

You are clearly here to debate. The first rule of debate is : "know your audience". Posting shit from William L. Craig demonstrates you haven't the first clue about debate.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: