Posts by simon17

104

Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense

by bohm in

jw
friends

today i tried to read a transcript of a debate william lane craig had a few years back.

this particular argument which i have heard him give many times stumbled me for all the wrong reasons.

the argument is as this: (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard02.html).

simon17

Ok Ding, I appreciate your responses but the it reveals two flaws: First i understand that the Bible doesn't examine every situation that is why I let you have a 3rd option of "Depends".

#1) Part of WLC's argument is that there are absolute laws of morality that we all intrinsically just "know". He uses Rape and Hitler because we all generally feel that way. Now you extend this to homosexuality. Well, a lot of people don't intrinsically have any sort of feeling that this is wrong. I am one of these. Many homosexuals will grow up feeling that homosexuality is absolutuely RIGHT to them and how their body functions (we have one on this board who described it just a week or two ago). So we run into the problem of "ok, we have objective morals that everyone knows because they are objective -- like rape". But then we have all these other objective morals that people don't naturally feel at all! So how are they objective? You see? WLC appealed to their existence by our ability to just know them but then he (and you) extend it to things that this is not true about at all!

#2) We then have things like genocide that you basically want to say are objectively and absolutely immoral. Oh, but no. Not absolutely. If God does it, its ok. Oh, and if God asks you to do it, its ok. Well now its not an absolute AT ALL! Its now a subjective moral value. Genocide is wrong unless xxxxxxxxxx. So that destroys the notion of absolute morals anyway.

This doesn't show God doesn't exist mind you. I'm just arguing absolute morality doesn't exist. If you want to argue that there is not absolute right or wrong, everything depends on the situation and God can do whatever he wants at all times because he's unstoppable, then go ahead.

My point with this is your own definition of absolute morality is ruined by your examples of it.

118

"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

by Qcmbr in

i've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.

this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.

everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.

simon17

This is just so far fetched. If Jesus was just using the story as a well-known, uninspired story that people could relate to, then would you at least agree that it has caused a tremendous amount of confusion for millenia about the history of the earth? I mean, I'm sure you can find an example or two of people who argued against a literal Genesis but I'm sure you would also agree that the VAAAAAAAAST MAJORITY of people took it as inspired (and many did so BECAUSE OF Jesus' words).

Even today people believe the worldwide flood (mistakenly so according to you) because of Jesus' words. BrotherDan is an example in this very thread. So basically if your speculation is correct, than at the very least, Jesus' words were incredibly (and unnecessarily) misleading.

118

"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

by Qcmbr in

i've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.

this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.

everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.

simon17

Well Psac, I like reading your analysis in general: Agree to disagree I suppose.

118

"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

by Qcmbr in

i've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.

this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.

everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.

simon17

First of all, I make references to movies pretty often. For example I might say to my family: "I set my phone up so I can track it online, just like Sherlock did with that murder victims phone."

I can safely use that example with my family because I know they saw that episode. And I don't have to point out that I don't believe it actually happened.

Jesus could easily have used the Noah story as an example because he knew his audience would be familiar with it. That doesn't have to mean that he believed it actually happened. He also doesn't mention anything about it being global.

No. In your example you can use the allusion becuase you AND YOUR AUDIENCE don't actually believe it. Every Bible believer up until modern geology believed that the Flood account was accurate as stated. So it would be misleading for Jesus to allude to a story HE knew was false but which he knew his audience believed as true. It would also call into question the entire inspiration of Genesis which would have further ramifications.

25

I need help with what to believe?

by hannahmcmanus in

i've been jehovah's witness for about a year now, and recently i've been finding problems in some teachings that my parents and congregation can't answer satisfactorily.

since i began voicing my issues my mum in particular has become increasingly overbearing and, although she says there's nothing wrong with asking questions, it's obvious she doesn't like me having doubts and not accepting her answers, even though they don't explain any of my problems.

it feels like i'm being forced down a path that i don't want to take, but i don't know what to do.

simon17

Asking "help me with what to believe" will simply lead you from one high control group to another. Figure out what to believe FOR YOURSELF. You may never get to a satisfactory point, but you will be truly satistfied with whatever progress you do make.

118

"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

by Qcmbr in

i've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.

this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.

everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.

simon17

Those are some weak arguments PSac.

The wording of the Genesis account CLEARLY indicates that all humans and animals and the entire world was destroyed by the flood.

Jesus talks about how "everybody" and "all" the people were swept away in a flood. And he is referring to an account in which the WHOLE WORLD was flooded.

It is very clear what he is speaking about and referring to by these statements.

What you are suggesting is that the Genesis account is inaccurate (although inspired?), that Jesus came and invoked this inaccurate account to describe a future event giving most people a misimpression, but while technically not saying something to contradict the actual true version of the Genesis account (a local flood) that only he and heavenly entities know about (and which a few geologists would eventually figure out 2000 years later).

Seriously, who is putting words in someone's mouth here???

104

Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense

by bohm in

jw
friends

today i tried to read a transcript of a debate william lane craig had a few years back.

this particular argument which i have heard him give many times stumbled me for all the wrong reasons.

the argument is as this: (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard02.html).

simon17

If a people cannot establish that a certain behavior choice is actually harmful it wisely must avoid demanding people abstain.

I'm just going to jump to devil's advocate here: The phrases "cannot establish" and "actually harmful" is going to be a lot of trouble for this sentence:

* Based on a bunch of opinions on the matter, society "cannot establish" that manmade global warming is true or not. But there is an absolute truth as to whether global warming is true or not (even if can't agree on it). So lets suppose manmade global warming IS true and is a major problem: then it would NOT be wise to say "do whatever you want"

* Also what IS "Actually harmful"? Harmful to who? The universe in a cosmic sense? Sentient creatures in the universe? Humans? Living things on the earth? The well-being of life-supporting planets like earth?

Is genocide "actually harmful"? Well it doesn't seem like a good thing by human standards in our society. But overpopulation and exponential growth are a MAJOR problem to society that will face us in a few years. Increasing the death rate in some way might be one of the most helpful things to the longterm stability of the planet and human family.

.... In short, if you're going to take this position against objective morals, you have to go all the way. I see a lot of people debating WLC that will recoil and say that Hitler was absolutely evil. You can't crawl back to "oh, this seems really bad so it must BE absoultely bad" at any time... Bad in our current society and evolutionary development is the best we can do (which is still a relatively strong position; just not the absoultely strong position that people want to be when discussing Hitler and rape and whatnot)

118

"Look it wasn't a global flood.."

by Qcmbr in

i've heard the statement from bible apologists so many times that the global flood story of genesis was not a global flood but was probably a local flood.

this seems problematic.. this directly disagrees with the bible.

everywhere the bible internally references a global flood of worldwide scale (i'll throw in matthew 24:39 as a nt example and genesis 6:17 as a ot example.

simon17

The case about a global flood is this:

Jesus believed in it and spoke of it. If I reject the flood, then I reject Jesus. That is why I take an all or nothing approach to the Bible. When you begin to throw out 1 part, you end up having to throw out the whole thing.

Just saying: Earlier in this thread you were amazed how people find the FDS is not true and then reject the Bible. That is not at ALL how it happens. Instead, you've just described how it happens. You start researching various aspects of the Bible like the flood, like the creation account, etc etc and you can't just eliminate one thing. Once you remove one domino, all the rest quickly start to fall. And if you go in and remove... 10 dominos, well the whole gig collapses quite quickly.

So you can really have two choices: It says what it says and I believe every word. I cannot accept a world without God so I cannot consider any evidence contrary to the Bible.

Or you can say: I'm going to examine everything with an open mind. If something doesn't check out, then I'm going to eliminate it and face the consequences.

104

Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense

by bohm in

jw
friends

today i tried to read a transcript of a debate william lane craig had a few years back.

this particular argument which i have heard him give many times stumbled me for all the wrong reasons.

the argument is as this: (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard02.html).

simon17

What do the scriptures say?

How do you read them?

Irrelevant to my position. I've already stated my opinion that there is no objective absolute morality. To me the scriptures represent a subjective morality of the time, some of which has survived until our day and some of which has not. YOU are the one claiming absolute morality, so I would like to know what your stand on those issues are.

104

Help me make sence of William Lane Craigs nonsense

by bohm in

jw
friends

today i tried to read a transcript of a debate william lane craig had a few years back.

this particular argument which i have heard him give many times stumbled me for all the wrong reasons.

the argument is as this: (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith_harvard02.html).

simon17

God is the ultimate judge of what is moral and not moral and His judgment is based on conformity or lack of conformity with His character.

So perhaps you could enlighten us with some specific examples of objective morality. For the following, please tell me if it is a) absolutely and objective bad; b) absolutely and objectively good or c) depends on the situation (i.e., subjective).

1- Homosexuality

2- Abortion

3- Slavery

4- Genocide