If Jesus is not God then perhaps you'd like to try to answer this?
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/obj_Jesusdied.htm
Get over it. The Bible predicted that the Messiah would be God, Jesus claimed to be God, the (physical body) resurrection proved His claim, Chrisitians worshipped Jesus as God. These are the facts about Jesus. Quit dancing around the points. "I believe such and such" is entirely irrelevant!
Rex
Shining One
JoinedPosts by Shining One
-
28
romans 6 vs 9
by stillajwexelder in(romans 6:8-11) 8 moreover, if we have died with christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
9 for we know that christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.
10 for [the death] that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time; but [the life] that he lives, he lives with reference to god.
-
-
Shining One
-
10
Dictionary of Theology:more links for 'Seekers'
by Shining One inthe necessary preconditions are not there.
how is the rational possible is all that exists is chance and time?
how do you know the moral urge is not .
-
-
Shining One
http://www.carm.org/dictionary.htm (Theological terms)
http://www.carm.org/bibleonline.htm (Complete Bible online)
http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm (Christian doctrine)
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinityplural.htm (trinity and plurality in the O.T.)
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/obj_Jesusdied.htm (dual nature of Jesus explained)
And now for your displeasure, my naturalist friends, I present a post from another board that debunks many of your notions. These are the same notions that you refuse to admit defeat on!
n response to In response to 0
Mon Jul-18-05 07:42 PM by J. Sloan
Rooting Morality in Evolution
In an attempt to ground morality, Chad has argued that morality is to be rooted in an evolutionary explanation:
"As our brains developed over countless generations we developed an increasingly sophisticated moral sense that built on previously-existing forms of altruism and reciprocity – and it developed because it was advantageous to our ancestors in their struggle to survive, compete for resources and to reproduce."
Basically Chad’s contention is this: That which maximizes fitness is where our moral sense can be rooted.
This has severe problems however because while it may,
…explain the agreement component to 'moral agreement,' it fails to account for the moral component. How? Morality is prescriptive, not descriptive. Entailed in the notion of morality is the concept of duty - 'oughtness'. Evolution cannot truly account for this. All evolution does is explain why I FEEL I OUGHT to do something - this moral sense was selected because it increased fitness. But it doesn't explain WHY I OUGHT to do something.<1>
Being able to explain why we feel that we ought to do something (such as we “ought” to tell the truth) is not the same thing as explaining why in fact we ought to do something. Most people feel that we ‘ought’ to be honest, that we ‘ought not’ hurt other people, that we ‘ought’ to treat people the way that we would like to be treated ourselves, and so forth. But how can an evolutionary explanation account for the crucial component of genuine "oughtness" to morality? According to atheism, evolution is not a process guided by intent or purpose. And without intent or purpose you have no “ought” component. To see more clearly exactly why the atheist has not given a coherent basis or accounting for morality and why the “ought” component cannot be explained in an atheistic universe, it is necessary to look at the nature of transcendental reasoning and what knowledge itself presupposes.
Transcendental Knowledge
Chad, in his opening statement, listed what he considers three possibilities for what he takes, “account for morality” to mean:
1) An atheistic worldview can account for the existence of our moral sense and the various codes, philosophies, etc. that follow from it.
2) An atheistic worldview can provide an adequate framework for acting on one’s moral beliefs.
3) An atheistic worldview can establish a moral code as an objective fact that exists independently of individual values, beliefs, etc.
Chad has stated that he will focus on the first point. I do not agree that any of the above points adequately describes what “accounting for” means. All three points fail to address the epistemological problem that atheism faces.
When dealing with epistemology (how we know what we know), it is important to examine the transcendental nature of knowledge itself. That is, when reasoning transcendentally, we are not asking what knowledge itself is (such as laws of logic, mathematics, ethics, induction, deduction, language, etc.); rather, we are asking what knowledge itself presupposes. What are the necessary preconditions, that “…must be fulfilled for any particular instance of knowledge to be possible”?<2>
A philosophical accounting must be given in order to justify knowledge (justified, true belief). So to state that one must give an “accounting” of morality is to ask an epistemological question (how we know what we know).
In the context of this debate the question could be asked, “How do you know that such and such is right or that such and such is wrong?” What preconditions does your stated worldview have that can give a basis for knowing that not telling the truth is wrong? An evolutionary explanation may tell us why we feel we should not lie, but I am asking for more than that. How does the atheist know that lying is wrong and how is such knowledge possible given the ontology of atheism? In order to ground such instances of knowledge, necessary preconditions must exist for that knowledge to be possible at all.
For example, if all that existed in the universe was rock, would this be a precondition for wood existing? Likewise, if all that existed in the universe were irrational states such as chance, would this be a precondition for rational, invariant, abstract laws of logic? No! The necessary preconditions are not there.
In the case of atheism, no metaphysical groundwork exists that has the necessary preconditions to account for morality when we lay bare the ontology of an atheistic worldview. At its basic core, atheistic worldviews consist of time, chance, and matter. Matter is not moral or immoral, chance is not rational (it is irrational), and it is these preconditions from which I am attacking Chad’s worldview because it is these preconditions that cannot ground knowledge of any kind, much less moral right and wrong. How is the rational possible is all that exists is chance and time? Matter itself does not account for or ground moral right and wrong, so Chad has an epistemological dilemma on his hands. He must explain how we derive the moral from the non-moral. Chad wants to move beyond the preconditions of his worldview without an explanation of how these preconditions make knowledge (in this case ethics) possible at all. I am asking Chad to dig deeper here and explain his epistemological foundations which are derived from one’s ontology and “account” for moral right and wrong.
Further, an atheistic ontology has a striking anomaly; namely, can the irrational be reduced to the rational? That is, chance is irrational (it has no rhyme or reason), and it is from this irrational state of affairs from which a rational state of affairs must be derived (in this case, ethics). So the question is asked, if the rational in this case (ethics) is reduced to the irrational (chance), can the irrational be reduced to the rational? If not, then how is it that the rational is derived from the irrational? What grounds the irrational (time and chance)? The atheist would have to admit that nothing grounds the irrational, that is their starting point (brute fact).<3>
There is a complete failure on the atheist’s part to account for morality at all. Even if we move beyond the epistemological troubles that atheist runs into with their ontology, an evolutionary explanation cannot explain the “ought” component to morality; it can only explain why we feel we ought to do something. Even this has trouble however. Michael Bumbulis noted several problems<4> with rooting morality with evolution. I will give three:
1. “The moral urge is no different from an urge to do violence. Both urges stem from our evolutionary history. So why follow the moral urge instead of the violent urge?”
Why choose the moral urge as compared to the urge to do violence if both urges are rooted in our evolutionary past? Why not kill off those who are weak, sick, or mentally or physically challenged and choose this urge as opposed to the moral urge to spare them, treat them fairly, and give them equal rights with regards to their personhood?
2. “There are many immoral choices that would not threaten my survival or decrease my chances to contribute offspring to the gene pool. So why not choose the immoral act?”
Here again, we must ask the question of why we should not choose one moral act over an immoral act?
Chad stated that,
"As our brains developed over countless generations we developed an increasingly sophisticated moral sense that built on previously-existing forms of altruism and reciprocity – and it developed because it was advantageous to our ancestors in their struggle to survive, compete for resources and to reproduce."
Many examples can be given that contradict this claim. For example, given a morality rooted in our evolutionary past, what is wrong with cheating on my wife and lying to her about it?
4. “There is a phenomenon in evolution known as vestigialism.
These are non-functional traits that served a purpose in the past,
but not in the present. How do you know the moral urge is not
vestigial? Or maybe certain aspects of the moral urge are
vestigial?”
Perhaps morality is no longer needed, nor will one day no longer be needed. Fast forward a few billion years and explain why truth is advantageous over telling lying (generally speaking), why a woman’s virtue is important, why should we value family and friends? The facts are that today we could do away with many values that are considered morally virtuous and it would make no difference if we chose the moral choice or the immoral choice.
So while evolution may have some explanatory power with certain traits or behaviors; it cannot explain the actual moral component, the “ought” and the “ought not” and it cannot explain the many immoral choices such as rape, killing the weak, etc. that in no way effect (and in some case help) increased fitness.
In the end, an atheistic accounting of morality fails on both epistemological grounds (having no ontology to ground morality), and even when an explanation moves beyond epistemology (evolutionary explanations), we see failure to rationally account for morality.
Naturalistic Fallacy
Chad stated that,
"The objection is often presented that I have no objective basis for claiming that my morality is superior to that of a child molester and thus if I am logically consistent with my beliefs (i.e. my belief that morality is subjective) I will allow him to follow his own moral code."
Chad thinks that this is nonsense, and claimed that this objection depends on the assumption that if no objective values exist with which to make judgments that one’s own moral values are “trivial” and can be ignored if they conflict with another person’s moral values. Chad then stated that, “If a person wishes to commit rape or murder my moral code places a much higher value on his victims than on his wish to harm them.” But Chad gives no reasons why his moral opinion does hold more authority than anyone else’s or why it is anything but trivial.
In fact, assuming that atheism is true, then moral right and wrong are subjective in their very nature so one’s moral opinions are trivial because they are rooted solely in our subjective thoughts. There is no reason why one moral value is better than another or why one moral value is worse than another. Chad has his moral opinion, and the rapist has his. Of course these may conflict, but on principle, they are equal. Chad has attempted to give his moral opinion more weight and authority because he personally values a woman’s right over that of her attackers. But perhaps the attacker values shooting people who interfere with his actions. In the end, we still have one moral opinion here and another moral opinion there. Sentiments of one person, verses the sentiments of another person.
Chad claims that our moral values are the “ought.” But this makes no sense because it then looks like this:
(i) Ought
(ii) Therefore, ought.
This leaves open the question, what makes the value a value?
Strangely Chad argues that values are the foundation themselves, but given an atheistic ontology; how is it that value just “is” a foundation? There is no meaning or purpose in an atheistic universe, so why posit values as a brute fact? The brute fact for atheism is that there are no values, no foundations, no moral right and no moral wrong. There are personal sentiments that sometimes conflict with other personal sentiments; all of which are equal for the very reason that there is no objective foundation that one can ground values. Chad has just arbitrarily posited value as a foundation, and the example that he gave was a non-moral example that is not related to the moral “is” “ought” problem.
If I cheat on my wife and she asks me if I cheated on her; why, in an atheistic universe “ought” I to tell her the truth? This is not to ask what implications might follow if I do lie and get caught or if I do lie and don’t get caught, but why should I tell my wife the truth given a fact that lying is neither right or wrong, but rather just a personal sentiment?
The atheistic worldview simply fails to account for, ground, and provide a basis for morality. The Christian worldview can, and as I will explain in my first rejoinder, the atheist does indeed borrow capital from my worldview in order to make sense of moral right and wrong.
Sources
<1>Bumbulis. Michael J. soc.religion.christian Thread[br />
<2>Bahnsen, Greg L. Van Til’s Apologetic Readings and Analysis p. 178
<3>Van Til, Cornelius Defense of The Faith p.142
<4>Bumbulis, Michael J. soc.religion.christian
~ J. Sloan -
122
Very good apologetics for honest seekers
by Shining One inare you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?
here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!
http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .
-
-
Shining One
I commend you on your analogy, Mylaine. The pair that are disputing your analogy continue to evade the point. Accepting responsibility is tough and it’s easier just to pass on the blame for their own condition. Blaming God and ignoring the gospel is nothing new, the excuses never end.
One of the clever things about Satan's use of a cult like the WBTS is that he smears bona-fide Christian churches so much that most that leave have nowhere to go. Nowhere is non-belief, bacchanalia, regression of morals and the desire to discourage everyone's faith.
Rex -
28
romans 6 vs 9
by stillajwexelder in(romans 6:8-11) 8 moreover, if we have died with christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
9 for we know that christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.
10 for [the death] that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time; but [the life] that he lives, he lives with reference to god.
-
-
Shining One
Thanks for the quote, Carmel. Let me ask you this: do you think the Baha himself considered his own claims in light of John 14.6? You seem to have a Universalistic approach to faith. The problem is that you cannot reconcile Universalism with other faiths that have a prophet or savior that claims divine authority. There is no truth to build upon in Universalism. Even naturalism has foundational beliefs but Universalism is an exercise in futility. It promotes the New Age corruption and the disintegration of western civilization. They will not put up with it, nor do they have the decency and compassion of Christianity. What compassion, some might ask? The fact that voices speaking blasphemies is tolerated (in our civilization) and you have your choice of belief or non-belief, that inalienable right granted by Divine Christian decree. Our country was founded by Christians and Deists, yet the corruption I speak of gnaws away at that very foundatioN.
I've never seen any riots and death because someone claimed a Bible got flushed down a commode. When Islam arrives in force the New Agers and atheists are going to be dispatched quickly.
Rex -
122
Very good apologetics for honest seekers
by Shining One inare you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?
here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!
http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .
-
-
Shining One
>It is GOD'S JUDGEMENT that all decendants of Adam are worthy of death (arbitrary and whimsical as it is) which put us in a treading water situation.Think about it.
Terry
1) God rules by divine providence.
2) Man knew the rules.
3) Man broke the rules.
4) Man chose to rebel, separating himself from God.
5) God covered man's sin.
6) God provided a savior for man.
7) He died for man to be reconciled: He took the hit.
8) YOU have a choice.
John 3.18-19 explains quite nicely why people condemn themselves and Romans 1 describes how people are given over to their own way.
God may have used a simplistic metaphor here to describe why the world is filled with corruption: the pride of man: who thinks he needs not the creator and sustainer of life, the self-existent one. Do you can have it two ways, literal fundamentalism or figurative liberalism. You can cry and whine, judge God if all you like but in the final analysis all of your effort is for naught: If Christianity is true, you are eternally damned; if it is not true you are eventually just dead.
That's reality, not metaphor. -
122
Very good apologetics for honest seekers
by Shining One inare you tired of the arrogant assertions of the elite ex-jw clique here?
here is some powerful ammunition to "demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of god"!
http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm .
-
-
Shining One
Alan said:
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!
AlanF
My how the 'high and mighty' have fallen.
Rex -
36
The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - new - The Long and the Short of It
by RunningMan inand there were giants in those days genesis 6:4
there is a simple principle of physics that has changed the way i look at the universe.
it has also prevented me from being taken in by a huge array of common legends and misconceptions.
-
-
Shining One
Leolaia,
The Hebrews used letters to represent numbers, therefore there is often confusion in these types of interpretations. Again, you are missing the point of the passage in question in order to belabor this point: to 'prove' scripture is contradictory or errant. I wonder if ex-members of other cults are this 'wooden headed'? BTW, that's not mean't to be literal, you don't actually have a wooden head! LOL
Rex -
36
The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - new - The Long and the Short of It
by RunningMan inand there were giants in those days genesis 6:4
there is a simple principle of physics that has changed the way i look at the universe.
it has also prevented me from being taken in by a huge array of common legends and misconceptions.
-
-
Shining One
Hey Runningboy,
You also have no problem believing that a 'pig's tooth' is evidence for human evolution (see the Scopes 'Monkey Trial') and that life came out of nothing with no cause! LOL
Rex -
36
The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - new - The Long and the Short of It
by RunningMan inand there were giants in those days genesis 6:4
there is a simple principle of physics that has changed the way i look at the universe.
it has also prevented me from being taken in by a huge array of common legends and misconceptions.
-
-
Shining One
Steven,
Do you remember the book list I posted on the topic of Biblical interpretation? Try Henry Virkler's 'Hermeneutics' and Robert McQuilkin's, 'Understanding and Applying the Bible'. It behooves you to research what you appear to have discounted: the validity of proper scriptural exegesis.
Rex -
28
romans 6 vs 9
by stillajwexelder in(romans 6:8-11) 8 moreover, if we have died with christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
9 for we know that christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more.
10 for [the death] that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time; but [the life] that he lives, he lives with reference to god.
-
-
Shining One
>(Romans 6:8-11) Moreover, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. For we know that Christ, now that he has been raised up from the dead, dies no more; death is master over him no more. For [the death] that he died, he died with reference to sin once for all time; but [the life] that he lives, he lives with reference to God. Likewise also YOU: reckon yourselves to be dead indeed with reference to sin but living with reference to God by Christ Jesus.
If Christ is God - how could death have had mastery at anytime over the sovereign of the universe?
When are you guys (JW) gonna get the point on Jesus nature and Paul's use of metaphors? There is also this supreme point related to His dual/divine nature: Jesus endured the wrath of God for ALL SIN, past, present and future. God died for our sins, he allowed for the potential for evil and HE TOOK THE HIT! He was dead, he was resurrected: that is the gospel.
Rex