Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Status
Not open for further replies.

cheeezywheeezy

New member
Aussie,

You say

"God IS subject and susceptible to change"

What I am saying is that Bob does not believe that God is immutable.

Can you agree that the Bible teaches that God became a man and that God was not always a man? If so, can you agree that in becoming a man, God changed?
 

cheeezywheeezy

New member
Aussie,

You say:

"just be aware that us other animals who don’t like the crime are gunna punish you for it !"

I don't care about punishment...is it wrong?

What is the difference in a fish eating another fish because it is hungry and a human eating another human because she is hungry? Is it ONLY the fear of punishment? If a human eats another human because she is hungry...does she deserve to be punished just because other people don't think we have the same rights as fish?
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Cheezy,

Bob basically says that the fundamental laws and absolute morals are immutable.

These absolutes are Gods own righteous nature.

Therefore it is a normal assumption to make that God’s nature is immutable. As your nature is you it follows that God is immutable.

Zakath made this logical assumption. If God is not immutable then these absolutes are subject to change. As it is their immutability that makes up part of Bob’s case for there being a God isn’t it imperative that they remain immutable.

Is Bob providing ammunition against his own argument ?
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
If the humans in your society decide it is wrong .. IT IS WRONG.

Even if it isn’t to you that won’t save you from the others if they catch you.

We invented the concept so we can decide what is or isn’t right or wrong.. and we do !

The irony of it is that your “absolute” morals come from your God which was an invention of man as well. I find it amusing that you are using the exact same reasoning as me .. you just don’t know it.

Man is the only “creator” I know of.. he even created God ! (Well the concept anyway)
 

cheeezywheeezy

New member
Zakath also writes:

"Contrary to Pastor Enyart's assertion, random events can produce an ordered result. Anyone who has ever won at a game of poker can verify that randomly shuffled cards can produce, on occasion, ordered groupings when dealt to the players. If' you've ever held a pair, three of a kind, four of a kind, or a straight, or flush you've experienced this phenomenon. "

The ultimate question is the creation/evolution issue is"

"where did the cards come from?" "How did the cards come into existance?" "Did the cards come from nothing?" "Were the cards created by someone/thing greater than they?"

If the cards came into existance on their own...where is the scientific, laboratory evidence that a deck of cards can come from nothing?
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Cheezy

did the cards come from?" "How did the cards come into existance?" "Did the cards come from nothing?" "Were the cards created by someone/thing greater than they?" If the cards came into existance on their own...where is the scientific, laboratory evidence that a deck of cards can come from nothing?

But that is what can be said. for your God.

Either God always was or Matter always was.

The reasons matter always was makes more sense are simple

1. We can actually see, touch and feel matter.
2. If everything ever known has a natural origin it is logical to assume everything unknown will too.

For a God you have to

1. Assume that something exists that you cannot see touch or feel
2. Assume that the supernatural can happen (with no evidence for it)

You would never apply the same logic to your assumption of God for anything else.. like Ghosts, UFO’s, Crop circles, Aliens, Zodiac, Crossing Over !!! etc.
 

cheeezywheeezy

New member
Aussie,

you state:

"Therefore it is a normal assumption ..." and "Zakath made this logical assumption."

Thank you for agreeing that Zakath made an assumption. I was just trying to clear up any misrepresentations. I didn't want Zakath to spend any more posts assuming that Bob believed that God was immutable when in fact Bob teaches otherwise.
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
But Cheezy if God is subject to change then are not his “absolute morals” also ?

Which means they are not absolute and Bob’s argument that they exist and prove God is completely flawed !
 

cheeezywheeezy

New member
Aussie,

You say:

"Either God always was or Matter always was."

EXACTLY!!!

IF Matter always was...then matter is eternal. If matter always was...then there was no begining. No big bang to create everything. IF matter has existed into eternity past...then matter is supernatural.
 

cheeezywheeezy

New member
Aussie,

you say:

"But Cheezy if God is subject to change then are not his “absolute morals” also ?"

No.

According to many stories in the Bible...people pray to God. God even changed His mind at times in regards to prayers.

Because God changed His mind and answered someones prayers doesn't mean He stops existing or stops being God. He changed in accoradance to His own righteous attributes.
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Cheezy that is just a huge out.

Absolute laws and morals exist .. that proves that a God must exist to have formulated them.

But God can change his mind so if you got the first round of absolute morals, please check updated version Absolute Moral 1.01.

You highlight how silly the whole argument about a God is. When cornered or shown to have a fallacious argument the theist can just say “well that is so because God can do anything” .. or change his mind !
 

cheeezywheeezy

New member
Aussie,

You say:

"well that is so because God can do anything..."

I never claimed that God could do anything.

I stated that God is not immutable but has shown that He changes in some respects. However, those changes are always in accord with His righteousness.

There existed a time when God was not flesh. And then there was a time when God was flesh. This constitutes a change...therefore GOd is not immutable.

God does not change in his righteousness and moral attributes. Any changes, i.e., becoming man or answering prayers, are always within His righteousness.
 

Spartin

New member
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I seriously doubt that.



Well at least you are not trying to justify being a donkey anymore. I also see that the fish has taken the bait. Good to see you stroke your ego :thumb:


Spartin
 

cheeezywheeezy

New member
Aussie,

You state:

"If the humans in your society decide it is wrong .. IT IS WRONG"

What if the humans in my society decided that something wasn't wrong. Does that make it not wrong?

Is right and wrong a majority rules concept?

At one time abortion was considered wrong by my society. Was it wrong? Now my society says it isn't wrong? Does that mean it isn't wrong?

What if tomorrow my society says that it is wrong again...will you agree with my society and claim that abortion is wrong?
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Cheezy,

It seems you have trouble with the concept of right and wrong.

They are just that a human concept.

What if the humans in my society decided that something wasn't wrong. Does that make it not wrong?

Yes to most people.. if it is enforced by popular vote or rule. If you still think it is wrong that is just what YOU think ! Things will always remain right and wrong to you (or me) as an individual as we conceive them to be regardless of what the majority of society says.

Is right and wrong a majority rules concept?

No it always remains an individual concept it is just if most people believe something is wrong it is generally legislated against and punishments enacted for transgression. However , often in history those with power could perpetuate what most believe is wrong.

At one time abortion was considered wrong by my society. Was it wrong?

Yes I think it is wrong. I have a concept that the taking of human life is wrong. I cannot decide when a human life begins therefore I have a concept that abortion is wrong (mind you from early conception when a human is a puddle of cells I don’t find aborting that wrong).. That me though.. others believe it is not a human until it is recognisably human or it is born. That is their concept of human.

Now my society says it isn't wrong? Does that mean it isn't wrong?

To me it still is. But society generally accepts it and will not punish you for it. But it is completely subjective as to what YOU believe is right and wrong. There are NO absolutes except in human minds.

What if tomorrow my society says that it is wrong again...will you agree with my society and claim that abortion is wrong?

It will be right for most people in society but will always remains right or wrong to you (and me) based on your own conception !
 

cheeezywheeezy

New member
Now hold on Aussie. You seemed so DOGMATIC in stating that:

"If the humans in your society decide it is wrong .. IT IS WRONG"

You even capitalized to stress your point. Your previous post seemed to indicate otherwise. Something can be wrong for you...but not for me. Or society can say that some is wrong....but you can still say it is right and ignore society.

"But it is completely subjective as to what YOU believe is right and wrong. There are NO absolutes except in human minds"

Is that absolutely true?

You seemed to stress earlier that if society says it is wrong then it is. But now you say it is subjective and a personal decision.

you keep talking about doing something and then having someone punish me for it. Who cares about punishment.

If humans decide it is legal...therefore not wrong...to eat another human as a fish eats another fish...and you see someone about to eat another human (let's say your child) would you try and stop them...just because you thought it was wrong...even though society says it isn't?
 

Aussie Thinker

BANNED
Banned
Cheezy,

Perhaps I should have said CONSIDERED wrong.. by most people. Not is WRONG.

It is always a personal and subjective decision about what is right and wrong.. but

you keep talking about doing something and then having someone punish me for it. Who cares about punishment.

Because if your personal decision does not match the majority of most people you may find that society will punish you. So even if you think something is right (like for example some paedophiles believe they do no wrong) but KNOW society will condemn you for it you know you will be punished if caught. You may still think your were right but society will say .. so what !.. who cares what you think !

If humans decide it is legal...therefore not wrong...to eat another human as a fish eats another fish...and you see someone about to eat another human (let's say your child) would you try and stop them...just because you thought it was wrong...even though society says it isn't?

In the unlikely event that society approves something like that it will not make it right for me personally. I would still use my own personal ideas of what is right and wrong and live by them.

Ancient Phoenicians apparently sacrificed their own children in state sanctioned religious ceremonies. This gave the parents of such sacrifices great Kudos in their society. We would find this abhorrent today (and in fact the Romans did even then) but they managed to justify it !

There are no absolutes except in our own brains.
 

bmyers

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
Originally posted by cheeezywheeezy
Zakath also says that:

"God encourages human slavery"

Which type of slavery Zakath? It wouldn't be the same type of slavery that is encouraged and allowed by the 13th Amendment to the constitution would it?

Is there a good and bad type of slavery? Well, both the Bible and the constitution seem to think so. "Owning" someone as a slave because of their ethnicity is evil. But what about for restitution purposes?

The Bible doesn't seem to promote the notion that slavery based on ethnicity is "evil"; quite the opposite, in fact. A quick check of the Old Testament shows quite plainly that the Bible recognizes the institution of slavery, NOT merely as a punishment or means of restitution, but rather in the same form that we find so "evil" from our modern perspective. This form, in which the slave is not only merely the property of his or her master, but in which the condition of slavery is passed to the offspring of slaves, appears to be not only noted in the OT, but recognized as the normal state of affairs and even encouraged. Consider the following passages:

Exodus 12:44, which clearly refers to slaves being purchased by Hebrews (since it refers to the slaves being circumcised after such purchase), and also clearly looks upon the slave as property.

Exodus 21:20, again explicitly recognizing the slave as property (and not simply someone who is being punished), and especially:

Exodus 21:32, in which the value of a slave (in this case, setting the compensation to the slave's owner should the slave be accidentally killed) is set at 30 shekels.

Leviticus 25:46, which contains the following: "Your...slaves are to come from the nations around you." - which not only shows that the Hebrews themselves were holding slaves (and that this was seen as an acceptable practice), but that ethnicity was, in fact, a determining factor in establishing who could and could not be slaves of the Hebrews.

There are numerous other examples.



Slavery....involuntary servitude....whatever you want to refer to it as was an acceptable punishment in Biblical times as restitution must be paid for a crime, and only for a ceratin length of time, and is still legal in the United States.


It certainly was a form of punishment, but the Bible also very clearly promotes the same form of slavery that the U.S. saw fit to outlaw over 100 years ago. It's not too surprising that this should be the case - slavery was a common and accepted practice among the cultures of the time and the region, and the nation or society which did not practice it would be at a significant economic disadvantage relative to their neighbors. The Hebrews of Old Testament times quite clearly practiced slavery, far beyond using it merely as a punishment, and viewed this as a very acceptable and normal state of affairs, and further had the full support of their religious leadership in this.
 

bmyers

BANNED BY MOD
Banned by Mod
Originally posted by cheeezywheeezy
God does not change in his righteousness and moral attributes. Any changes, i.e., becoming man or answering prayers, are always within His righteousness.

A more interesting question, though, would be: "Is it POSSIBLE for God to change in his righteousness and moral attributes?" (whether or not such a change has ever occurred).

If this is not possible, then this would imply that there is a standard of morality separate from, and independent of, God (since God would be contrained by it, rather than the other way around). This, though, raises the questions of the origin and nature of that standard, and God's role in formulating and/or promoting that standard.

If it IS possible for God to change, then it's very hard to see how the standard for morality/righteousness could be considered "absolute", since it is at least possible that it could be changed at any time.

So which is it? Or is there a third option?
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Was Hitler an atheist?

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
I seriously doubt that.
So you are bragging about being able to insult people? Jesus would be proud.

--ZK
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top