Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[zooterkin]

Strawman, I never said if most people believed something it would be absolute morality.

Are you sure?

So I contend that since almost everyone believes the Holocaust and things like slavery and genocide and murder are evil (regardless of what others think or say), then this is an argument that there is an absolute morality in the world and thus this is an argument for the increased likelihood that a absolute moral lawgiver exists and that absolute moral lawgiver is either God or swamp scum (aka non-living physical material).

If that's not what you meant, then what did you mean when you said that almost everyone believing that certain things are evil implies there is an absolute morality?


What's with the repeated reference to swamp scum? People developed morality, although in many cases they attributed their ideas to a 'greater authority', a tactic you would be familiar with.

 

[DOC]

So, you must believe that Jesus isn't god and that the biblical god isn't the moral source. Afterall, it's clear that god of the bible condones slavery. And we even have evidence that Jesus condoned the beating of slaves. He used it as an analogy of our relationship with god.

You lose credibility when you bring this argument in especially after all I said in your slavery thread. I'm not going to repeat all my many posts I put in that thread in here.

 

[joobz]

You're confusing absolute with numbers that believe. "Absolute" in this instance means it is right or wrong no matter how many believe or disbelieve it is right or wrong. 100% could believe it right but it would still be wrong if the absolute law said it was wrong.

So, if you believe in the god of the bible. you must believe that slavery isn't against god's moral code.

 

[joobz]

You lose credibility when you bring this argument in especially after all I said in your slavery thread. I'm not going to repeat all my many posts I put in that thread in here.

You don't have to repeat those arguments.
YOu used morally relative arguments to justify WHY jesus didn't oppose slavery.

To summarize, you claimed:
1.) Back then, That it was better to have slavery than to have people starve. (Moral relativity)
2.) Back then, beating people was an acceptable form of discipline (Moral relativity).
3.) Jesus couldn't oppose slavery because he would have been persecuted sooner (moral relative argument)



In other words, You lose credibility by claiming moral absolutism is evidence for god, when your own god book supports slavery.

 

[six7s]

You lose credibility when you bring this argument in especially after all I said in your slavery thread. I'm not going to repeat all my many posts I put in that thread in here.

You can run (and dodge, swerve, prevaricate, waffle and lie) but you can't hide

Face it DOC, you're wrong on so many counts...

It's you that has NO credibility... none, zip, nada

Furthermore, by reminding you (and all those that read this train-wreck of a thread) that your so-called arguments are facile, futile, delusion-fuelling nonsense, joobz isn't losing credibility... he's maintaining a reputation for steadfastly debunking your pathetic woo wherever you post it

 

[DOC]

If that's not what you meant, then what did you mean when you said that almost everyone believing that certain things are evil implies there is an absolute morality?

I meant it shows that almost everyone believes in absolute morality. So that means almost everyone believes something is right or wrong regardless of how many people believe so.

So where did these absolute moral laws that almost everyone believes in come from? I contend moral laws must come from a lawgiver, they don't come from swamp scum. And since these absolute moral laws are outside the human experience they must have been made by someone outside of humanity {aka God}. That is unless you believe non living material like swamp scum can make absolute moral laws.

 

[DOC]

You don't have to repeat those arguments.
YOu used morally relative arguments to justify WHY jesus didn't oppose slavery.

To summarize, you claimed:
1.) Back then, That it was better to have slavery than to have people starve. (Moral relativity)
2.) Back then, beating people was an acceptable form of discipline (Moral relativity).
3.) Jesus couldn't oppose slavery because he would have been persecuted sooner (moral relative argument)



In other words, You lose credibility by claiming moral absolutism is evidence for god, when your own god book supports slavery.

I've must have left at least 40 posts countering your slavery {or rather servant} claims, don't try to summarize them in 3 sentences. This thread is not about slavery per se, you should go to your long gone slavery thread if you want to rehash all of this.

If you continue to bring up the same ol about slavery per se I'm going to complain to the moderator. He already spinned it off once, don't make him do it again.

 

[six7s]

I meant it shows that almost everyone believes in absolute morality.

Fascinating

Ridiculous... but fascinating

So that means almost everyone believes something is right or wrong regardless of how many people believe so.

It seems that you are so hell-bent on feeding your delusion that you are incapable of reasoned thought

EXPLANATION: Your waffle is non-sensical

So where did these absolute moral laws

Yet again, I ask you:
Which absolute morality?

I contend moral laws must come from a lawgiver, they don't come from swamp scum.

Why, other than delusion-reinforcing comfort, do you contend this?

And since these absolute moral laws are outside the human experience they must have been made by someone outside of humanity {aka God}.

Oh yes... argument from incredulity... welcome back

That is unless you believe non living material like swamp scum can make absolute moral laws.

10 out of 10 for littering

Minus several gazillion for credibility with regard to origin of species

 

[six7s]

I'm going to complain to the moderator. He already spinned it off once, don't make him do it again.

Woooooooo!

DOC, get real! If anyone is contravening the MA, it's you with your inane, off-topic obfuscations

Your OP promised 'evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.'

Ya got any?

 

[Akhenaten]

The "Moral Argument" for the existence of God is known in Apologetics. To say it is wrong without an explanation is to lose the argument. I would have to call it an ostrich approach, but if some skeptics want to use this ostrich approach I'll be glad.

How does this relate to the thread topic?

And since I have shown the increased likelihood that God exists, I have shown the increased likelihood the NT writers were telling the truth.

I don't really need a clever riposte here. That is an outright lie.

Another no explanation post. Without an explanation they mean nothing.

Read This - It is an explanation​

 

[DOC]

Posted by DOC

I meant it shows that almost everyone believes in absolute morality

Fascinating

Ridiculous... but fascinating

So then you don't believe that almost everyone believes it is wrong to murder innocent people?

 

[zooterkin]

I meant it shows that almost everyone believes in absolute morality.

Except it shows no such thing. Just because most people believe a particular thing is wrong, it doesn't mean that their reason for believing it is absolute morality.

So where did these absolute moral laws that almost everyone believes in come from?

Which absolute moral laws, exactly? If they are so absolute, it shouldn't be too hard to list them.

I contend moral laws must come from a lawgiver,

Based on what?

they don't come from swamp scum. And since these absolute moral laws are outside the human experience they must have been made by someone outside of humanity {aka God}. That is unless you believe non living material like swamp scum can make absolute moral laws.

I notice you ignored that part of my post which addressed this. Who is proposing that moral laws came from swamp scum? Or are you equating people with swamp scum?

 

[Akhenaten]

I've must have left at least 40 posts countering your slavery {or rather servant} claims, don't try to summarize them in 3 sentences. This thread is not about slavery per se, you should go to your long gone slavery thread if you want to rehash all of this.

I'll do it in two syllables. Piffle

If you continue to bring up the same ol about slavery per se I'm going to complain to the moderator. He already spinned it off once, don't make him do it again.

Speaking of topics, do you have that evidence yet? Professor Houlden is waitng. You DID read that quote, didn't you?

 

[six7s]

Fascinating

Ridiculous... but fascinating

So then you don't believe that almost everyone believes it is wrong to murder innocent people?

Are you approaching this ass-backwards on purpose?

DOC... do try to keep up...

Tip:

Actually READING the posts before composing a reply may well pay dividends
​

If that's not what you meant, then what did you mean when you said that almost everyone believing that certain things are evil implies there is an absolute morality?

I meant it shows that almost everyone believes in absolute morality.

EXPLANATION:

Note that your response to zooterkin was "Ridiculous... but fascinating"... so... your latest question to me ("So then you don't believe that almost everyone believes it is wrong to murder innocent people?") is irrelevant to the discussion​

See why you have no credibility?

Anyhoo...

For the third time, I ask you:
Which absolute morality?

 

[DOC]

Except it shows no such thing. Just because most people believe a particular thing is wrong, it doesn't mean that their reason for believing it is absolute morality.

So why do most people believe it is wrong to murder innocent people?

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

DOC, in regards to your claims.

Even when it comes to something that should be as simple as 'killing is wrong/right' you'd be hard pressed to find any form of consistency in humanity.
We range from full pacifism to people who kill others because they think its fun. The majority falls somewhere in the middle with their culture and upbringing being a major factor. You don't find many NRA supporters in the amish, you won't find many 'all soldiers are killers' types in a deeply conservative mid american town.
You are right in that non-living material has no morality whatsoever. No bullet is ever going to stop mid flight because it thinks what it's doing is wrong. That's because there is no magical particle of morality. To paraphrase Terry Pratchett. Take the universe apart, and show me one atom of justice. A molecule of mercy.
Those things are something dreamed up by humans. And their value is decided by humans. And they are part of our everchanging society. Hence things considered amoral millennia ago are now not a problem, and things considered moral then are amoral now.

As others have pointed out. Just because pond scum can't think up rules, doesn't mean humans can't. And some humans feel that saying that they made up the rules is not enough, so they then make up a story about a son of god telling them the rules. Which they write down and make others believe enough in to die for. But that doesn't make them any more or less valid than other rules made up by humans.

 

[six7s]

So why do most people believe it is wrong to murder innocent people?

Why won't you stick to the subject?

You promised "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth."

Ya got ANY?

________
ETA: If you really want to know 'why most people believe it is wrong to murder innocent people', do some RESEARCH. This is NOT a new issue...

See Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 2,840,000 for "the morality of murder"

 

[DOC]

Which absolute moral laws, exactly? If they are so absolute, it shouldn't be too hard to list them.

The Holocaust would be one. Many people in Germany believed killing Jews was in the best interest of their country. If you, like I, believe the Holocaust was wrong why should your opinion matter more than then those Germans in power at the time.

 

[zooterkin]

So why do most people believe it is wrong to murder innocent people?

False dichotomy. Off-topic, too.

 

[Think_Tank]

And this 186-page train wreck gets derailed again, this time into morality...

I've must have left at least 40 posts countering your slavery {or rather servant} claims, don't try to summarize them in 3 sentences. This thread is not about slavery per se, you should go to your long gone slavery thread if you want to rehash all of this.

If you continue to bring up the same ol about slavery per se I'm going to complain to the moderator. He already spinned it off once, don't make him do it again.

Bolding mine. The difference between the two groups is clear, and it's equally clear which is referred to.

And accusations of rehashing are hypocrisy of the highest order, given the number of references to Geisler, Christian martyrs and other inconsequential drivel.