If Christianity were proven true

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

59 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

Dan always acts surprised to learn that I don't support abortion.  And I am a republican.  Like these are exclusive to christians. His response is we are immoral and so cannot question the morality of others...

 

  

Dan is consistent in his limitations.  Dan can't wrap his mind around a Republican Atheist -- Or an Agnostic Atheist.

 

He's not alone.  David Silverman, former head of American Atheists -- tried to have American Atheists have a presence at a Republican convention.  There are Atheists who want small government -- with a balanced budget and minimal taxes -- and he's one of them.  That is what the GOP used to stand for.  The GOP leadership panicked and prevented American Atheists from participating.

 

You understand of course.  They were playing to their religious base.  And a base lot they are.

 

For the rest -- you know about that nasty obsession for absolute moral codes.  He's not being stubborn.  It's beyond his capacity.  It's a seamless outlook.  If his perspectives cracks at all, it will shatter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RevBogovac]

21 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Dan always acts surprised to learn that I don't support abortion.  And I am a republican.  Like these are exclusive to christians. His response is we are immoral and so cannot question the morality of others...

 

Yes, that's is always an interesting debate; who's the "more" moral one: the one with intrinsic moral values or the one who needs extrinsic moral values and some imaginary guard who punishes the "immoral"...  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

19 minutes ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Yes, that's is always an interesting debate; who's the "more" moral one: the one with intrinsic moral values or the one who needs extrinsic moral values and some imaginary guard who punishes the "immoral"...  

 

 

Nonsense about absolute moral codes, never helps.     

 

 

 

Edited September 4, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

On 9/3/2019 at 5:36 AM, cuchulain said:

Dan always acts surprised to learn that I don't support abortion.  And I am a republican.  Like these are exclusive to christians. His response is we are immoral and so cannot question the morality of others...

 

I've never said Atheist were immoral, I simply stated that they have no definitive source or written standards of morality, but that doesn't leave a person void of morals..  

[Dan56]

21 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Nonsense about absolute moral codes, never helps.

 

 

I'd agree... In a purely materialistic world there is no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good.... Without any absolute moral authority, morality is based on nothing more than what we think is right or wrong. The guy helping a drowning child and the guy shooting up a Walmart both think they are right... That's why I prefer extrinsic moral values over intrinsic ones; "No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I'd agree... In a purely materialistic world there is no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good.... Without any absolute moral authority, morality is based on nothing more than what we think is right or wrong. The guy helping a drowning child and the guy shooting up a Walmart both think they are right... That's why I prefer extrinsic moral values over intrinsic ones; "No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18)

 

 

Your comments would have some relevance -- if God existed.  That remains to be established.  God's existence is possible.  It is not established.

 

We have no objective, verifiable facts or information about God.  Not faith.  Not belief.  Objective, verifiable facts.

 

An extrinsic moral code, based on a nonexistent entity, is meaningless.

 

 

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

A moral code that allows for the mauling of kids for making fun of someone is immoral at it's core. Even if they wished that person harm or death...mauling is extreme.  Period. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

25 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

A moral code that allows for the mauling of kids for making fun of someone is immoral at it's core. Even if they wished that person harm or death...mauling is extreme.  Period. 

 

 

Of course the Bible is immoral.  That much is obvious enough.  The core issue here is extrinsic moral code -- and God's existence.  If God produced it -- it's extrinsic.  If Humans produced it -- it's mythology.  Mythology is not extrinsic moral code.  

 

The value of mythology -- Bible or otherwise -- is a different topic.  By all means, we can have a thread about the evil of the fictional God character -- and Scripture.  In this thread -- I think it's a distraction.  Just my opinion.

 

Edited September 5, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[cuchulain]

It's been posited that the Christian God is real, he produced morality, and that morality is rigid.  God commiting evil can't happen.  But mauling kids is evil, so the rest falls under suspicion as well.

[Key]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

It's been posited that the Christian God is real, he produced morality, and that morality is rigid.  God commiting evil can't happen.  But mauling kids is evil, so the rest falls under suspicion as well.

An argument on this had been shared on a thread somewhere on this forum before that the Christian God can not be held accountable according to the same standards as humans, as He is not human.

Whereas, a counter argument could be said that standards for humans differ from animals, therefore there can be no animal abuse as it is basically the same as the statement above.

It is an endless debate.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Key said:

An argument on this had been shared on a thread somewhere on this forum before that the Christian God can not be held accountable according to the same standards as humans, as He is not human.

Whereas, a counter argument could be said that standards for humans differ from animals, therefore there can be no animal abuse as it is basically the same as the statement above.

It is an endless debate.

 

We seem to be heading down this path.  So be it.

 

The only reason to say that the God of the Bible is good -- is the Bible says that God is good.

 

What an awful, pathetic reason.

 

 

 

[Dan56]

On 9/5/2019 at 8:15 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Your comments would have some relevance -- if God existed.  That remains to be established.  God's existence is possible.  It is not established.

 

We have no objective, verifiable facts or information about God.  Not faith.  Not belief.  Objective, verifiable facts.

 

An extrinsic moral code, based on a nonexistent entity, is meaningless.

 

 

Correct, there's no relevance where there's no faith.. The bible is information about God, some choose to to accept it and others reject it.. If its all myth, its not real and not relevant. If its all true, its very relevant. As Key said, its an endless circular argument with no resolution. We are called by faith, the verifiable objective evidence comes later.

 

On 9/5/2019 at 8:25 AM, cuchulain said:

A moral code that allows for the mauling of kids for making fun of someone is immoral at it's core. Even if they wished that person harm or death...mauling is extreme.  Period. 

 

Well, the biblical God obviously believes in discipline, and a verbal assault against one of His anointed prophets had repercussions. Nothing immoral about it to me. Perhaps if the young people weren't so enthralled in ridiculing Elisha, they would have notice the she-bears. Some might say that letting "kids" get away with disrespecting their elders is immoral? You may think getting mauled is harsh, but I bet they learned a much needed lesson and never harassed another prophet.

Edited September 8, 2019 by Dan56

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

57 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Correct, there's no relevance where there's no faith.. The bible is information about God, some choose to to accept it and others reject it.. If its all myth, its not real and not relevant. If its all true, its very relevant. As Key said, its an endless circular argument with no resolution. We are called by faith, the verifiable objective evidence comes later.

 

 

Well, the biblical God obviously believes in discipline, and a verbal assault against one of His anointed prophets had repercussions. Nothing immoral about it to me. Perhaps if the young people weren't so enthralled in ridiculing Elisha, they would have notice the she-bears. Some might say that letting "kids" get away with disrespecting their elders is immoral? You may think getting mauled is harsh, but I bet they learned a much needed lesson and never harassed another prophet.

 

 

It's myth.

 

It is clear, that you don't understand the meaning of objective -- or verifiable -- or evidence.  None of which requires faith.  That is what makes it -- objective, verifiable, evidence.

 

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Correct, there's no relevance where there's no faith.. The bible is information about God, some choose to to accept it and others reject it.. If its all myth, its not real and not relevant. If its all true, its very relevant. As Key said, its an endless circular argument with no resolution. We are called by faith, the verifiable objective evidence comes later.

 

 

Well, the biblical God obviously believes in discipline, and a verbal assault against one of His anointed prophets had repercussions. Nothing immoral about it to me. Perhaps if the young people weren't so enthralled in ridiculing Elisha, they would have notice the she-bears. Some might say that letting "kids" get away with disrespecting their elders is immoral? You may think getting mauled is harsh, but I bet they learned a much needed lesson and never harassed another prophet.

 

 

That says more about you, than it says about Scripture.

 

 

 

[cuchulain]

12 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Correct, there's no relevance where there's no faith.. The bible is information about God, some choose to to accept it and others reject it.. If its all myth, its not real and not relevant. If its all true, its very relevant. As Key said, its an endless circular argument with no resolution. We are called by faith, the verifiable objective evidence comes later.

 

 

Well, the biblical God obviously believes in discipline, and a verbal assault against one of His anointed prophets had repercussions. Nothing immoral about it to me. Perhaps if the young people weren't so enthralled in ridiculing Elisha, they would have notice the she-bears. Some might say that letting "kids" get away with disrespecting their elders is immoral? You may think getting mauled is harsh, but I bet they learned a much needed lesson and never harassed another prophet.

You literally claim that kids who mock someone deserves mauled by bears...that's sick.

[Dan56]

15 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

It's myth.

 

It is clear, that you don't understand the meaning of objective -- or verifiable -- or evidence.  None of which requires faith.  That is what makes it -- objective, verifiable, evidence.

 

I never said evidence requires faith? I said that faith replaces objective evidence, which Christians believe will come at the second advent.

 

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

That says more about you, than it says about Scripture.

 

Agreeing with scripture is all it says about me.

 

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

You literally claim that kids who mock someone deserves mauled by bears...that's sick.

 

Yes, I agree with God's judgement..They weren't just mocking "someone", they were indirectly mocking God. No different than those who mocked Christ when he was crucified. That's a big no no.

But I understand from the liberal perspective that disciplining youths is something you never do. "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them" (Proverbs 13:24)

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I never said evidence requires faith? I said that faith replaces objective evidence, which Christians believe will come at the second advent.

 

 

Agreeing with scripture is all it says about me.

 

 

Yes, I agree with God's judgement..They weren't just mocking "someone", they were indirectly mocking God. No different than those who mocked Christ when he was crucified. That's a big no no.

But I understand from the liberal perspective that disciplining youths is something you never do. "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them" (Proverbs 13:24)

 

 

Just so.  You have made your meaning clear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 9, 2019 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[RevBogovac]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

[...] Yes, I agree with God's judgement..They weren't just mocking "someone", they were indirectly mocking God. No different than those who mocked Christ when he was crucified. That's a big no no.

But I understand from the liberal perspective that disciplining youths is something you never do. "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them" (Proverbs 13:24)

 

That's an reductio ad absurdum; no one here is saying "that disciplining youths is something you never do". The point being made is: it is immeasurably disproportionate (and very immoral) to have children mauled because they ridiculed anything. By claiming that is an appropriate approach you are disqualifying both yourself as well as your god.

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

That's an reductio ad absurdum; no one here is saying "that disciplining youths is something you never do". The point being made is: it is immeasurably disproportionate (and very immoral) to have children mauled because they ridiculed anything. By claiming that is an appropriate approach you are disqualifying both yourself as well as your god.

Much better said than I was getting to 😀

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

That's an reductio ad absurdum; no one here is saying "that disciplining youths is something you never do". The point being made is: it is immeasurably disproportionate (and very immoral) to have children mauled because they ridiculed anything. By claiming that is an appropriate approach you are disqualifying both yourself as well as your god.

 

 

Dan just got through explaining, that faith is more important than facts.  It's too late for an appeal to reason.