Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

[bob b]

Zakath is either playing games or is being sloppy by implying that Bob never clearly indicated the source of the standard for absolute right and wrong.

Here are some exerpts from Bob's posts:

“If God created the universe and life and instilled humans with a conscience which reflects His own righteous standard,”

“I pointed out in post 1 the common theistic belief that “a conscience… reflects [God’s] own righteous standard.”

Your severe misstatement of my position confused conscience with God’s righteous standard.

: I pointed out in post 1 the common theistic belief that “a conscience… reflects [God’s] own righteous standard.” In post 2, I wrote that “absolute right and wrong would require a standard that transcends every man and every society.” In post 3: “Absolute morality can only exist if a moral authority above mankind exists. …and the collective conscience of mankind, though damaged, still provides strong evidence of these absolutes.”

I have previously answered that the absolute moral standard is God’s righteous nature, which is “God’s own righteous standard,”

I follow God, and He is the standard you ask for. Of course I had indicated this in my first post, and repeated it later, that the absolute standard is “God’s nature,” which is “His own righteous standard,” and I stated in 4b that our “conscience… reflects God’s ‘own righteous standard.’”

------------

Technically, Zakath may have an argument that the words in quotation were never precisely used as stated. This is called "nit picking". But one would have to be stupid or blind (or disingenuous) to say that the point had not been made.

 

[Flake]

I think its the standard itself, not its origin, that is being asked for. It is Bob who is claiming that the source is in fact the standard, which doesnt address the question at all.

 

[August]

Zakath wrote:
<

I did demonstrate that your scriptures indicate that the Christian God appears to be vitally
interested in such things. Did you read that far?

Yes, but it wasn't stated as part of the syllogism.



< Some Christians, even on this board, believe in predestination. Isn't that a de facto use of the
deity's power to impose his will on human life?>

<There are some Christians who believe he does...>

There you go again. You are assuming that God's mind is what some element of mankind thinks it is. Naturally, if we agree to that hypothesis, you can prove all kinds of absurd things to us.


quote:

He would, at least, reach into our minds and state them. endquote.


<That would be reasonable. Of course, no one ever accused your deity of being reasonable...>

It doesn't seem reasonable to me. He has made them available to anyone who desires them. It seems reasonable to me that, if you heard an inner voice state that God is real, it would just increase your disbelief.

<I read the end of the book... In Revelation there is quite a bit of "ramming" things down
people's throats.>

Are you telling us that you, an atheist, are the only person in the world that understands the book of Revelation? At one time my Sunday School teacher was teaching that book, while 4 radio evangelists and 3 TV evangelists were covering the same material; and no two of them agreed. It was a vision, and visions are usually symbolic in nature. I was referring, of course, to the Jesus of the gospels, who often said, "If you can accept it."

<Therefore, if one human does not know, my statement stands.>

No, it doesn't, and that still demonstrates that you (& Flake)don't understand logic. You made a statement about what ALL humans do not know. Therefore, if there is just one human who does know it, then you are wrong. There may or not be such a human, but you can't state categorically that there is not. Please go to your logic - or math - professor and get this straightened out. In brief: Describe the class of humans who do not understand God's ethics. Answer: All humans. Conclusion: No human stands outside that class; i.e., no human understands God's ethics.
You just can't say that.

<Theistically, the only difference between a fundy Christian or fundy Muslim and an atheist is
the atheist believes in one less god...>

Good, we agree! Atheists are closed-minded, and are hypocritical when they accuse others of being closed-minded.
BTW, Why don't you try debating later on the subject:"Is the God of the Bible less moral or more moral than man?" As the Bible is interpreted by most Christians, you could win that one easily. Enyart was wise not to let you get into that here. But I am just as surprised as you that he set the playing field entirely in you territory.

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by ddevonb God provided th opportunity, but Pharoah ultimately hardened his own heart.

Exodus:
4:21 And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, see that you do before Pharaoh all the miracles which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart, so that he will not let the people go.
7:3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt,
9:12 But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them; as the LORD had spoken to Moses.
10:1 Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go in to Pharaoh; for I have hardened his heart and the heart of his servants, that I may show these signs of mine among them,
10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go.
10:27 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he would not let them go.
11:10 Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh; and the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, and he did not let the people of Israel go out of his land.
14:4 And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and he will pursue them and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host; and the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD." And they did so.
14:8 And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh king of Egypt and he pursued the people of Israel as they went forth defiantly.
14:17 And I will harden the hearts of the Egyptians so that they shall go in after them, and I will get glory over Pharaoh and all his host, his chariots, and his horsemen.

This table compares the verses and shows who was doing the hardening:

http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/CH3/CH3_TBG.HTM


The following passage shows that Paul interpreted these scriptures as God doing the hardening:

Romans 9
16| It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17| For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18| Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.


This passage in Proverbs has a general declaration that God controls the hearts of kings:

Proverbs 21:1
The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD ; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.

I understand that people will and do interpret this in various ways, but the fact is that a lot of Christians say and believe that the truth is that God does and did harden hearts. He is sovereign.

--ZK

 

[Flake]

The Moral Knowledge Argument for Atheism:

1. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, then he is a being who is powerful, loving, and just.

2. If Pastor Enyart's God exists, it would be in his interest (loving and just) and within
his capacity (powerful) for all human beings to know his absolute standards perfectly.

3. All humans do not know God's ethics perfectly, as is demonstrated by his followers
disagreeing about many moral values.

I see confusion. August is right to criticise point 3 for the sake of clarity. It should read:
3. Not all humans know God's ethics perfectly, as is demonstrated by his followers disagreeing about many moral values.
Rather pedantic.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by August
There you go again. You are assuming that God's mind is what some element of mankind thinks it is. Naturally, if we agree to that hypothesis, you can prove all kinds of absurd things to us.

So you are telling us that you do not believe that humans reflect what is in the mind of your deity? If that is true, then how was the bible written?

It doesn't seem reasonable to me. He has made them available to anyone who desires them.

Do you desire them? If so, then perhaps you could write down the first ten or so for us...

It seems reasonable to me that, if you heard an inner voice state that God is real, it would just increase your disbelief.

Because I'm a mental health professional, I have a strong bias against believing "inner voices". Where I work, they're most usually delusions...

Are you telling us that you, an atheist, are the only person in the world that understands the book of Revelation? At one time my Sunday School teacher was teaching that book, while 4 radio evangelists and 3 TV evangelists were covering the same material; and no two of them agreed. It was a vision, and visions are usually symbolic in nature.

Of course I'm not claiming sole understanding. Many other people read it the way I do. They're usually called atheists. The fact that you Christians cannot even consistently interpret your own holy writings is less than impressive.

I was referring, of course, to the Jesus of the gospels, who often said, "If you can accept it."

Then perhaps, a bit of clarification next time would have avoided the misunderstanding of what you meant.

No, it doesn't, and that still demonstrates that you (& Flake)don't understand logic. You made a statement about what ALL humans do not know. Therefore, if there is just one human who does know it, then you are wrong. There may or not be such a human, but you can't state categorically that there is not. Please go to your logic - or math - professor and get this straightened out.

OK. Point taken, the wording can be read ambiguously. I intended to indicate the inconsistence of reporting and belief about the "ethics of god". Thank you for pointing that out.

Good, we agree! Atheists are closed-minded, and are hypocritical when they accuse others of being closed-minded.

No we do not agree. Read what I wrote. I wrote "theistically..." as in, of or relating to beliefs about gods.

BTW, Why don't you try debating later on the subject:"Is the God of the Bible less moral or more moral than man?" As the Bible is interpreted by most Christians, you could win that one easily. Enyart was wise not to let you get into that here.

St. Bob the Broadcaster has hinted in some of his posts the he has an agenda for this debate that goes far beyond this website. Don't forget how the man makes his living... :think:

 

[DEVO]

Zakath, are you going to acknowledge that you were in error when you wrote in your 6th post:

If you guessed once, you'd be wrong. The answer is not at all. Pastor Enyart has manufactured the alleged quotation from thin air (or since this is the Internet, perhaps we should say "thin ether"). Why? Only Pastor Enyart knows why he would do such a thing.

?

 

[ddevonb]

Originally posted by ZroKewl

This table compares the verses and shows who was doing the hardening:

So why did you omit the verses that made my point?

Exodus 8:15
But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.

Exodus 8:32
But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart and would not let the people go.

Exodus 9:34
When Pharaoh saw that the rain and hail and thunder had stopped, he sinned again: He and his officials hardened their hearts.


Notice in 8:15 that Pharaoh not only hardened his own heart but he did it just as the Lord said he would. But God never said those words. He said he would harden Pharaoh's heart... but Moses is telling us that God meant Pharaoh would harden his own heart.

Exodus clearly says both... that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Both of these statements could be figures of speech, but both can't be literal statements.

While Paul does talk about "God hardening a heart", it would be totally inconsistant with Paul's teaching to say that Pharoah didn't clearly act on his own free will.

 

[ddevonb]

Originally posted by Zakath
St. Bob the Broadcaster has hinted in some of his posts the he has an agenda for this debate that goes far beyond this website. Don't forget how the man makes his living... :think:

Apparently you didn't get the point tha Bob was making about winning the debate.
When two politicians have a televised debate and one of them totally destroys the others arguments... only the winner will want to call public attention to the debate by publishing the transcript or reproducing the video and audio. The loser will try to avoid any reference to the debate.
The only exception would be a loser who deludes himself into thinking he won!

 

[novice]

its a whole NEW day....

its a whole NEW day....

And I don't want this to get lost in the shuffle....

Is Zakath on crack-eth?

Zakath said in his 6th post:

If you guessed once, you'd be wrong. The answer is not at all. Pastor Enyart has manufactured the alleged quotation from thin air (or since this is the Internet, perhaps we should say "thin ether"). Why? Only Pastor Enyart knows why he would do such a thing.

Zakath was referring to when Bob quoted himself...."… I have previously answered that the absolute moral standard is God’s righteous nature, which is “God’s own righteous standard, "

So Zakath claims Bob never said that! Yet Bob DID in fact say just that and just where Bob said he said it in his 4th post. Don't believe me? Look for yourself in Bob's 4th post in the paragraph titled "Old Business".

I guess, when your failing as bad as Zakath is, all you can do is come up with false assertions.

 

[RogerB]

That would be reasonable. Of course, no one ever accused your deity of being reasonable...

Wrong AGAIN! Bet you get tired of being wrong, eh?

 

[RogerB]

The Argument from Confusion (AC)

What a great title for an argument from someone who is CLEARLY confused. Premises containing lies and a conclusion without proof. Bravo, :zakath: !

 

[Flake]

Re: its a whole NEW day....

Re: its a whole NEW day....

Originally posted by novice
And I don't want this to get lost in the shuffle....

Is Zakath on crack-eth?

Zakath said in his 6th post:Zakath was referring to when Bob quoted himself...."… I have previously answered that the absolute moral standard is God’s righteous nature, which is “God’s own righteous standard, "

So Zakath claims Bob never said that! Yet Bob DID in fact say just that and just where Bob said he said it in his 4th post. Don't believe me? Look for yourself in Bob's 4th post in the paragraph titled "Old Business".

I guess, when your failing as bad as Zakath is, all you can do is come up with false assertions.

Novice, calm down lol . I have not even verified what you say but I totally believe you, but, its not very significant to the debate and is just a symptom of the niggling discord between these guys. We have to try to steer through the oneupmanship, rhetorical wranglings and squabbling and get at the meat, the arguments for and against the topic, which if read properly and understood are very illuminating.

 

[Flipper]

But if the audience agrees to the hypotheses

Sorry, no. I'm not sure you understand syllogistic logic.

All the audience can do is assess the premises and draw a conclusion from what they tell us. The conclusion may be utterly bogus and wrong, but still logical.

Here are some premises, courtesy of the Rev. Dodgson himself.

1. No fossil can be crossed in love;
2. An Oyster may be crossed in love.

Therefore: Oysters are not fossils.

I believe most reasonable people would take serious issue with premise number 2, yet the conclusion is perfectly valid and logical.

I see what you're saying though. The complexity of the premises and the tentative nature of evidence makes it an interesting but futile debate.

 

[ZroKewl]

Originally posted by ddevonb
So why did you omit the verses that made my point?

Because I was responding to what you had said. You had said:

The account of Pharoah also says at one point that Pharoah hardened his own heart. So how was God involved in the hardening process?
He did miracles in such an "in your face" manner the Pharoah was forced to choose to ackowledge God or reject him. It was Pharoah's choice to reject God, which resulted in his heart getting hardened. God provided th opportunity, but Pharoah ultimately hardened his own heart.

To which I responded with that posting showing 10 verses in the Exodus account stating that God was the one doing the hardening. I gave a link to a page that had the 3 verses that say Pharaoh hardened his own heart, and 6 verses that don't say who was doing the hardening.

Notice in 8:15 that Pharaoh not only hardened his own heart but he did it just as the Lord said he would. But God never said those words. He said he would harden Pharaoh's heart... but Moses is telling us that God meant Pharaoh would harden his own heart.

Exodus clearly says both... that God hardened Pharaoh's heart and that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. Both of these statements could be figures of speech, but both can't be literal statements.

You think the 3 are literal, and the 10 are figurative. Other people (Christians) think the other way around.

These verses seem to contradict. If they do not contradict, then either God made Pharaoh harden his own heart (that would allow for all the verses to be true), or else you have to do some linguistic gymnastics to say that some of the verses are literal and some are figurative.

While Paul does talk about "God hardening a heart", it would be totally inconsistant with Paul's teaching to say that Pharoah didn't clearly act on his own free will.

Many Christians disagree with you (and many agree). Paul is a very logical writer. He seems to be very careful with his words. Yet, he said:

Romans 9
16| It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. 17| For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I [God] raised you [Pharaoh] up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18| Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Who is the one deciding to do the raising up? Who is the one deciding to harden the heart? God. God decides. He is sovereign. The entire chapter will show other examples (ie: Jacob & Esau).

--ZK

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Flipper
Here are some premises, courtesy of the Rev. Dodgson himself.

1. No fossil can be crossed in love;
2. An Oyster may be crossed in love.

Therefore: Oysters are not fossils.

I believe most reasonable people would take serious issue with premise number 2, yet the conclusion is perfectly valid and logical.

Why would someone take issue with #2? Maybe I don't understand.....

 

[BlueChild]

I would like to see another poll on who's winning.

 

[novice]

Re: Re: its a whole NEW day....

Re: Re: its a whole NEW day....

Originally posted by Flake
Novice, calm down lol . I have not even verified what you say but I totally believe you, but, its not very significant to the debate and is just a symptom of the niggling discord between these guys. We have to try to steer through the oneupmanship, rhetorical wranglings and squabbling and get at the meat, the arguments for and against the topic, which if read properly and understood are very illuminating.

I agree and yet I disagree.

A. Your right its not that important.

However....

B. Since Zakath made such a big deal of it... it sort of makes it a big deal.

Know what I mean?

I mean Zakath in no uncertain terms basically called Bob a liar! He should retract and apologize since Zakath was obviously in error.

Do you agree?

If not, why?

 

[Flipper]

RogerB:

Why would someone take issue with #2? Maybe I don't understand.....

Unless you think oysters have the capacity to feel love and be loved, then you might have an issue with it. It's a poetic expression that's used to express the vagracies of romantic love I believe. But it doesn't really matter. Substitute "compute quadratic equations" for "crossed in love" or "argue with creationists", doesn't matter. The statement remains logical.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by DEVO
Zakath, are you going to acknowledge that you were in error when you wrote in your 6th post:?

No. Because I was not in error. If Enyart wants to discuss it, fine. But I'm certainly not going to hash that out with the peanut gallery. :nono: