• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
six7s said:
Why won't you stick to the subject?
Click to expand...
I am sticking to the topic. If it can be shown through the "Moral Argument" that a God is more likely, then that would mean it is more likely that the NT writers were telling the truth.
 
DOC said:
So why do most people believe it is wrong to murder innocent people?
Click to expand...


DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...


DOC said:
I am sticking to the topic. If it can be shown through the "Moral Argument" that a God is more likely, then that would mean it is more likely that the NT writers were telling the truth.
Click to expand...


Derail.jpg
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...
You opened the door to this question, not me.

You made the moral absolute argument for god, stating that people's rejection of slavery is evidence of a moral absolute (and evidence for god).

I show quite clearly that the god of the bible condones slavery. As such, if you believe slavery is immoral, than you must not believe in the biblical god.


If you feel that this is too uncomfortable to you, that isn't my problem, it's yours.

And by the way, Those summary arguments are accurate to your 40 posts.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
The Holocaust would be one.
Click to expand...
NO


Eddie Izzard: Mass Murderers​

Hitler ended up in a ditch covered in petrol on fire...so, that's fun.
And that's funny.
Because he was a mass-murdering ****head!
Pol Pot killed one point seven million Cambodians, died under house arrest, well done there.
Stalin killed many millions, died in his bed, aged seventy-two, well done indeed.
And the reason we let them get away with it is they killed their own people. And we're sort of fine with that.
Hitler killed people next door.
Oh, stupid man.
Click to expand...
After a couple of years we won’t stand for that, will we?
 
BobTheDonkey said:
Actually, Doc, what happened is that you made the argument for us...

See, (as others have already pointed out), you stated that even if the Axis had won WWII, at least some part of the population (this is what most means, btw) would believe the Holocaust was a bad thing. Since some people (even if it's just 1 person, really) believe the Holocaust was a bad thing, then morality cannot be absolute.
Click to expand...

Like some others in here you are giving the wrong definition to absolute. I have explained this in previous posts.
 
DOC said:
I am sticking to the topic. If it can be shown through the "Moral Argument" that a God is more likely, then that would mean it is more likely that the NT writers were telling the truth.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. It's another common fallacy of yours, called a "non sequitur."
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

So the fact that some Germans believed that killing Jews was morally correct disproves absolute morality.

Does this make the existence of a god less likely in your opinion now that you have proven that there is no absolute morality?

And the lack of existence of god proves that the NT writers were not telling the truth?
 
DOC said:
I am sticking to the topic. If it can be shown through the "Moral Argument" that a God is more likely, then that would mean it is more likely that the NT writers were telling the truth.
Click to expand...
FTFY :)

Thing is DOC, your "Moral Argument" tangent is so pathetic it will NEVER show that a god is more likely...
 
DOC said:
BobTheDonkey said:
Actually, Doc, what happened is that you made the argument for us...

See, (as others have already pointed out), you stated that even if the Axis had won WWII, at least some part of the population (this is what most means, btw) would believe the Holocaust was a bad thing. Since some people (even if it's just 1 person, really) believe the Holocaust was a bad thing, then morality cannot be absolute.
Click to expand...
Like some others in here you are giving the wrong definition to absolute. I have explained this in previous posts.
Click to expand...
Yeah... but YOU are wrong... its YOU that is using a wrong definition of absolute and it doesn't matter how many times you protest otherwise
 
six7s said:
Yeah... but YOU are wrong... its YOU that is using a wrong definition of absolute and it doesn't matter how many times you protest otherwise
Click to expand...
It seems that to DOC, the definition of absolute morality is relative.
 
joobz said:
You opened the door to this question, not me.

You made the moral absolute argument for god, stating that people's rejection of slavery is evidence of a moral absolute (and evidence for god).

I show quite clearly that the god of the bible condones slavery. As such, if you believe slavery is immoral, than you must not believe in the biblical god.


If you feel that this is too uncomfortable to you, that isn't my problem, it's yours.

And by the way, Those summary arguments are accurate to your 40 posts.
Click to expand...

Actually I probably left much more than 40 posts on this slavery/servant issue. If you read joobz thread,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151336

especially towards the end you will understand why I used the word servant. It is only wishful biased thinking to use the word slavery instead of servant when talking about Jesus with regard to this issue. And personally I believe it is dishonest not to also talk about the what the servant did whom Christ said the master punished with some lashes
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Actually I probably left much more than 40 posts on this slavery/servant issue. If you read joobz thread,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=151336

especially towards the end you will understand why I used the word servant. It is only wishful biased thinking to use the word slavery instead of servant when talking about Jesus with regard to this issue. And personally I believe it is dishonest not to also talk about the what the servant did whom Christ said the master punished with some lashes
Click to expand...
You're speaking off topic here. I wasn't debating the argument of servant/slave.

But, to advance this moral absolute argument (and not explain why you are blatantly wrong about servant/slave), let's pretend it is a employed servant, one who could leave the job at any time.


Jesus condones the beating of employees. Do you find this an acceptable practice? Would it be acceptable for A McDonald's manager to beat the fry cook if he spilled fries on the floor? How many lashes would be acceptable?


Please explain your response in "Absolute moral" terms that wouldn't contradict Jesus' condoning of beating employees.
 
DOC said:
Actually I probably left much more than 40 posts on this slavery/servant issue. If you read joobz thread,

<stuff>
Click to expand...


Speaking of post counts, I see the Australia thread is pushing towards 20 000 reads. I finally cottoned on that the reads/posts ratio goes up if I stop posting in the silly thing. Any help to you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom