Pete's 1st Post

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Like, woah dude. Turns out that sin is like, totally gnarly dude.

Like, time to like, you know, catch a wave dude.

[Darwinsbulldog]

I like Pie! More Pi!

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

Perhaps he died for our sin cos he wanted to tan his hide.

[wearestardust]

Originally Posted by peterm13

And 20 something pages later I'm in here defending my faith as best I can.

So this has turned out better that I could've planned, not only are you guys helping me see other positions but also challenging me to make a reasoned defence of my own.

I'm generally leaving it to others so as not to spam the thread but just an observation on the above comment.

Basically, what we have from you in 20-something pages is:

- God and the Bible tell us what is right and wrong

- except when I don't think the Bible is right I can disagree with it (with the help of my own prior ethics plus a bit of theology)

- the Bible says gayness is wrong, therefore it is wrong

plus sundry comissions of the arguments from ignorance and incredudulity, plus failing to grasp the Euthyphro dilemma and consequent tossing around of supposed criticisms of secular ethics that are not even remotely near the mark.

So I wouldn't be too self-pleased quite yet.

But let's get back to the point about you believe and assert those bits of the Bible that please you to do so, but manage one way or another not to follow those bits that you feel ought not be obeyed. As I've noted above, one of those matters on which it suits you to follow the Bible is in relation to homosexuality.

As father of a gay son, and as someone who knows numerous LGBTI people and so have seen up close and personal how shitty life is made for them by society and by people like you, can I just drop into the conversation just how offensive and vile I find those views, and how disgusted I am by your faux niceness and pleasantness teamed up with what is - by your own arguments - your own choice to be a peddlar of hate.

That's a statement not a question, I'd prefer you spend your time responding to the others. Just sayin' is all.

[Sir Patrick Crocodile]

peterm13: You still hasn't answered the most earliest of all questions in this thread:

1. What are your doubts and questions?
2. What are your criticisms against Islam?
3. Why did you chose christianity instead of Islam?

[Xeno]

peterm13, I note first that you have skipped over responding in any sensible way to my #180, wherein I showed that Plantinga's arguments fail through inconsistent assumptions over the nature of god, and that neither heaven not earth can be made to fit assumptions surrounding the other. Plantinga also fails on appeal to consequences and via Occam's Razor.

The effect of this is that you currently have no answer to dilbadoon or Inedifix on Epicurus. You say you will be producing the christian response to Epicurus. That is odd. I thought you told us you had thought through these questions yourself, and would be able to present your own convincing responses.

In any event, unless you are able to present logically consistent and sound arguments why Plantinga's argument does not fail, rather than that it seemed good to you at the time, then the christian (or muslim or astrological) argument against Epicurus can not in any respect include Plantinga's or similar unsound arguments.

[Seamus]

Let me explain what the verse really means.

Ah,NOW I get it! He's one of THOSE.IE "The bible is the revealed word of God, and means what is says. Except when it doesn't"

Be wiling to be this little treasure is oblivious to just how irritating such an arrogant,presumptuous ad hominem* is to some people. (well to me,anyway)


Question:Who the fuck are you and why should I care what you say? IF I want biblical exegesis, I will ask somebody who actually knows what he is talking about. Here it would be Mr Black.



*implicit is the sentiment "you are too ignorant or stupid to understand,unlike my good self,who is neither,so I will teach you the TRUTH""

[Dancer]

Originally Posted by peterm13

And 20 something pages later I'm in here defending my faith as best I can.

So this has turned out better that I could've planned, not only are you guys helping me see other positions but also challenging me to make a reasoned defence of my own.

.

Peter don't you find it interesting at how much time and effort you spend defending your faith?

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by peterm13

I really need you to be specific here, otherwise this whole post has been a straw man. ... What you've illustrated here is a fallacy, no disagreement there.

Good, we are agreed. Here is a specific example, again.

Originally Posted by peterm13

I guess your [sic] asking what would the world be like if God didn't exist, from my perspective, there would be no moral objectivity, and quite possibly like all the other planets and stars in the universe, with the odds stacked against us, I'd guess that conscious creatures existing would become most improbable.

I will relate what you have said here to the argument form which you have agreed is fallacious.

1. If god exists, then the world will look like X. <-- I have no basis to dispute this so we may take it as self-evident.
2. If god does not exist, the world will not look like X. --> "if God didn't exist, from my perspective, there would be no moral objectivity, and quite possibly like all the other planets and stars in the universe, with the odds stacked against us, I'd guess that conscious creatures existing would become most improbable." <-- That is a flat statement that the world would not look like X, exactly as premise 2 of the argument form says.
3. The world looks like X. <-- This is self evident.
4. Therefore, god exists <-- The premise you assumed in 1 and 2.

You agreed the form of argument is fallacious, meaning that you do not agree with the conclusion, item 4. You say (next quotation) that is not your argument for god, implying you could never agree with it. Therefore you have agreed the above statement was not a rational answer to Protium's question, and that you do not have an answer to Protium's question without first assuming existence of god. If you have such an answer, provide it.

If you do not so agree then the things you will have refuted will be your reason and any claim to have examined evidence on its merits.

However, that's not how I've argued for God's existence, we've only just started that one.(fine tuning, which I'm about to reply to) ... Based on arguments like the fine tuning, I'm convinced God does exist, please provide arguments for the existence of purple pancakes and your comparison will become a bit more valid.

The argument forms are identical. I agree that the argument is fallacious and that it is absurd to claim without evidence that there are any invisible purple pancakes on your head, or in any other colour. However, your "fine tuning" argument is of the same form. I will say more about that when you reply to post #210.

When talking about DylanV, it would be best to talk to DylanV.

I tried that but DylanV does not answer. He ran away. I thought you might have observed that while he was here, he preached but produced no argument but one that was immediately shot down. Is his preaching convincing to you?

Paul was not removed from his culture when he wrote his spirit inspired instruction on certain issues in ancient society.

You have to show it was spirit-inspired rather than asserting it. As for being of his times, that is rather the point. It explains why no theist has been able to post a question answered by theism in the thread I created for that purpose. Every person supposedly existing in the bible was of their times. Nothing that has happened since has been other than against broad conservatism of the church, and reflective of human endeavour in different cultures.

The slavery in the bible is a vastly different one from the type demonstrated more recently in the western world,

Bullshit. Please try to avoid assertions based on what you would like rather than what is plainly in evidence. Have you compared Jewish treatment of slaves as it was with treatment by Romans? You would want to verify your claims, no doubt.

but since our society has no slavery now and has moved beyond that, (Thanks to William Wilberforce....which God did he believe in again?...) obviously such instruction doesn't apply. In the same way that today spanking of children is on the decline,

What was the religion of slave traders again? Which religions were actively involved in slave trading?

When thanking Wilberforce, no doubt you had in mind at least some of the following facts:

• Slavery was ended in Britain in 1772, when Wilberforce was 12 or 13 years old.
• Slavery was ended in Britain by Lord Mansfield, a judge.
• Active abolitionists such as Clarkson, More and Middleton persuaded Wilberforce to join their cause in 1787, to provide them with another voice in Parliament, joining Sharp who had already been campaigning in Parliament for over twenty years and was instrumental in the Somersett case (1772).
• No-one has produced any evidence that god said or inspired any such action, exactly as god had done nothing on the subject for thousands of years..
• Abolition was opposed actively by churches, or slavery at least condoned.

Spanking of children. Would that be something more favoured by the religious than by the non-religious? Was it church-based schools who most strongly opposed the abolition of the right of teachers to hit children? I think the answer is yes to both.

remember that when talking about slavery God never commanded, "Everyone should have a slave, always".

You are moving into silly straw man arguments. Please try to keep on track. If you had a positive claim to make then why would it not be that god ordered the release of slaves, rather than "allowing" it to persist in christian cultures for another one thousand eight hundred years?

My morality might seem greater than God's to you, BUT If God exists, he transcends both of us and his morality would too. I also assume that Gods morality in the OT seems disgusting to you, but I'm also assuming you havent read any books describing the historical context. I'd start with a bible commentary, then Paul Copans " Is God a moral monster" and maybe David.T.Lamb's - God behaving badly".
The idea is understand before critique right ?

Don't you say somewhere that you have not read those books, at least specifically not Copan's? Is that what you mean by understanding before critique? Are you a simple hypocrite?

As for god's "transcendent morality", you appear to be having some difficulty with both Epicurus and Euthyphro so it may be a little early to assert that, even allowing that you have yet to demonstrate a god.

Romans 1, see above. Also Paul mentions Sexual immorality in almost all his letters, same sex relationships would be included in this.

Paul mentions homosexuality in the same verses as fornicators, masturbators and drunks. How is the wanking going over there, peterm13? It is equivalent to effeminacy and extortion, according to Paul. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

I erred in loosely paraphrasing Inedifix whose actual statement was that Jesus did not say a word about homosexuality, (while cavorting wifeless about the countryside with a dozen friendly men). This, you are unable to deny. Claiming jesus must have said it and told Peter who told Paul is evidentially fatuous.

Sorry, but I just never said Ignored. Please see the above explanation of Christ fulfillment of the law or my explanation of Matthew 5:17-20.
Also Jesus did specifically deal with laws from the ten commandments. ... Also, Christ fulfillment of the law, how does that cancel out the entire writings of the OT?

I read your response to Matthew 5:17-20. You quote-mine Matthew by putting a personal meaning into "fulfil" and ignoring the plain meanings of verses 18-20. Have heaven and earth passed yet? Jesus refers to some of the so-called commandments, those from Exodus 20 rather than the ten commandments in Exodus 34, or others. In fact Jewish law, to which jesus refers, contains 613 commandments. You cherry-pick them. You would like that you can pick and choose god's law according to improving human morality, while pretending the rest of the claptrap makes sense. How many legs does an insect have, by the way? Does a rabbit chew the cud? Did jesus fulfil those?

Please show me the example you gave of genesis not matching scientific findings. I missed that one, honest mistake there's a lot I'm getting through.

Which creation version are you selecting? I asked this in #136.

There is not a single theologian/ bibclical scholar ( beleiver or atheist ) who would read a book of the bible and conclude " I have no idea of what the biblical authors intent is" ... That is a total misunderstanding of what exegesis is. Exegesis Prevents people reading into the text. ... There are some massive misunderstandings on this forum about what counts as rational and when it comes to reading the bible,

You confuse meaning of words with intent of author. You can read the former and speculate on the latter, which you do, furiously, in accord with a book (one you have actually read) by Fee. I am quite aware of what is exegesis, thank you. I deliberately put into my quotation eisegesis, which is Fee's indulgence and yours.

The bible has so many different genres, its not all meant to interpreted the same way. If it was all interpreted literally, that would be incorrect, likewise if it was all interpreted symbolically.

The rational approach, which biblical scholars / theologians everywhere undertake when reading the bible, is that the meaning is grounded in the authors intent.

Which you do not know, but are pleased to speculate on to achieve to your desired outcome of meaning. Why have you not addressed all of Croc's believer list?

[Xeno]

Originally Posted by peterm13

Xeno, I'm not sure if you did this on purpose or not, but the first quote of mine you used had been cut short. Since this last part of my answer was integral to making the point, please try not to edit the post to make my comments appear as a contradiction.

heres what you quoted me as saying:
"I'm honestly unsure of God's reasons for creating us..."

heres what i actually said: "I'm honestly unsure of God's reasons for creating us, given that it was a possibility we would rebel"

These are very different questions. Like I said, It might have been an accident, but I would really appreciate to be fairly represented on here as I try my best to represent all of you when I quote you all. I even regularly repeat your arguments just to be sure I have them correct, before I attempt to refute.

How is it a different question? Are you saying that if there was no possibility we would rebel (I note your authoritarian streak in your phraseology) then you would know what god intended? You already say at one point (as you quote) that you do and another point that you do not. Here is your conflicting statement again, with my emphasis again:

Originally Posted by peterm13

I believe all Gods actions would be for the greater good given his nature, so the consequences would always be the same, more people coming into relationship with him as intended.

When you have finished trying to distract, please explain how your sub-clause makes a difference and what is your rationale for contradicting yourself anyway?

That might be Plantingas position, but no other Christian I've read on the problem of evil would say that "God could've done things differently" and even if they did argue that, they have no way of knowing.

Exactly as Plantinga has no way of knowing. None of them have. I am content that you have agreed that Plantinga's argument, which you earlier claimed to find convincing, must be abandoned. I look forward to your defence against Epicurus without using a Plantingan argument.