Origin of God's Morality.

[Nihilist Virus]

Root of Jesse,

You made an error in your use of the quote function and you also don't seem to address much of what I had to say, so I'll just address this part of what you said:

Show me where I made a personal attack.

I already made this quite clear from how I replied in post #396 *edit* post #347. Again your skimming habit shines through blindingly. You did so by saying that I am friends with barbarians, obviously implying that I am deficient in morals no doubt because I am an atheist.

Ah, now the attack on Catholics. I was waiting for it...but first you have to distinguish between Tradition and tradition.
Actually, we do know who wrote it. Why? Because we have ancient documentation. The documentation is slim, granted, thanks to your friends the Huns, Vandals and Goths, who destroyed much of whatever documentation we did have. Thankfully, there are vaults that hold.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Actually, no. The vast majority of their victims are muslims.
And they themselves have so much "faith", that they even use their own bodies as weapons. They are so confident in their beliefs, they happily sacrifice their lives in battle.

By numbers, probably, but not by percentage of the population...yeah, so much faith in a God who demands that they kill themselves...

Who are these people?
I don't recall having made such critisism.

Really? You said "Only the deeds that are to your pleasing are evidence of your religion"... I don't claim that my 'religion' is perfect. It's a human institution, and people have done horrible things. But those who do those things aren't the ones we look up to, as you seem to be trying to suggest. Being Christian and acting Christian is the norm. Those who don't act Christian have something to answer for. Of course, if you're not Christian, the standard is quite lower...

Yep, just like the Quran demonstrates islam.

OK.

 

[Root of Jesse]

"Stories" are just stories.

"Stories" require evidence. They are not evidence themselves.

By definition, "stories" are claims.

Baloney. The stories have evidence, the problem is you, who don't accept the evidence.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Root of Jesse,

You made an error in your use of the quote function and you also don't seem to address much of what I had to say, so I'll just address this part of what you said:




I already made this quite clear from how I replied in post #396. Again your skimming habit shines through blindingly. You did so by saying that I am friends with barbarians, obviously implying that I am deficient in morals no doubt because I am an atheist.

I hit the reply button too quickly. I didn't say you were friends with barbarians. I didn't imply anything. That's your problem...

I finished my reply, by the way...

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I hit the reply button too quickly. I didn't say you were friends with barbarians. I didn't imply anything. That's your problem...

I finished my reply, by the way...

I'm not inclined to care about what the rest of your reply is if you deny what is plainly true. Sure, implications are subjective, but you unequivocally said that the Goths and Vandals are my friends. I'm not crying in a corner over this, it's just that you are identifying yourself as a waste of time for someone like me who is in pursuit of the truth.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm not inclined to care about what the rest of your reply is if you deny what is plainly true. Sure, implications are subjective, but you unequivocally said that the Goths and Vandals are my friends. I'm not crying in a corner over this, it's just that you are identifying yourself as a waste of time for someone like me who is in pursuit of the truth.

Why would you take that the way you took it, if not seeking to obfuscate the argument? At any rate, I hope someone will get educated by the truth that most documentation of the early Church were burned by the Vandals, Huns, Goths, etc. It's why we use an Arabic numbering system today. Thankfully, what documentation we do have is preserved in the Vatican, slim as it is.
I also proved that scholarship is flawed regarding Markian priority. Again, from ancient documentation preserved by the Catholic Church.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why would you take that the way you took it, if not seeking to obfuscate the argument? At any rate, I hope someone will get educated by the truth that most documentation of the early Church were burned by the Vandals, Huns, Goths, etc. It's why we use an Arabic numbering system today. Thankfully, what documentation we do have is preserved in the Vatican, slim as it is.
I also proved that scholarship is flawed regarding Markian priority. Again, from ancient documentation preserved by the Catholic Church.

Saying it's on me eh? The passive aggressive tactic. OK, we're done.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Saying it's on me eh? The passive aggressive tactic. OK, we're done.

We were done a long time ago. I was speaking to someone who might care to see real evidence. When I provided it, you didn't even look.

 

[civilwarbuff]

We were done a long time ago. I was speaking to someone who might care to see real evidence. When I provided it, you didn't even look.

Wow, that's a first....(heavy sarcasm in case it did not show)

 

[Root of Jesse]

Wow, that's a first....(heavy sarcasm in case it did not show)

I've been reading the autobiography of the nun who started EWTN on $100 and a prayer. At one time she was discussing a prominent Cardinal's letter to the faithful about the Eucharist, in effect diminishing the fact that the Church teaches that it is the Real Presence of Jesus in the appearance of bread and wine. She thought he was doing that, anyway. She said on international television that if she were subject to that cardinal, she wouldn't have an ounce of respect and wouldn't obey him. He made an international scene over that, and she almost lost the network. She misinterpreted what he said, or maybe not, it might have been what he meant. Anyway, she questioned his authority, and he over reacted. Just like NV. I stand my ground...

 

[civilwarbuff]

As I posted somewhere else his tactic is to say "gimme evidence, not good enuff, gimme evidence, not good enuff" ad nauseam in the hopes of wearing people down. He does not like that same tactic when used on him.....I guess as a non-believer he does not understand when you discuss theology you use theological info and statements.

 

[Davian]

The citation you quoted.....it simply referred back to the same article.....so much for your research capabilities....
Appelle, 1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_abduction
citation 3

lol.

No, what you have done is to mistake the link back to where the citation was referenced as the link to the citation, which is what is supposed to happen when you click on it, or see when you hover over the link and the text "Go to #cite_ref-Appelle.2C_1996_3-1 on this page" is shown (your browser may not have this feature). So much for your understanding of how footnotes on Wikipedia work.

If you are looking for the actual article, a quick search will provide you with this:

http://ufocasebook.com/pdf/abductionexperience.pdf

 

[juvenissun]

It says in Genesis that man became like God in the sense we both know good and evil. My question is how did God determine what is "good" and what is "evil."

You need to get the definition right FIRST.
God is God because everything He does is good. It does not have to be "determined".

As far as evil, it even simpler. Anything goes against God is evil.

Implication: No God, no evil. Everything an atheist does CAN be justified.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You need to get the definition right FIRST.
God is God because everything He does is good. It does not have to be "determined".

As far as evil, it even simpler. Anything goes against God is evil.

Implication: No God, no evil. Everything an atheist does CAN be justified.

Obvious tautology is obvious.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have lots of justification, all of which is very rational. In fact, I believe it's IRrational not to believe it.

What is your definition of "rational" and "irrational"?

Because as you say, none of your "justifications" are actually verifiable.
So when is it "irrational" to accept something as true, if not "when it is not verifiable that it actually IS true"?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not at all what I was suggesting. There is evidence of Christ and Christianity. It's your choice to disbelieve it.

In my assessment, the case presented thus far is poor and unconvincing.

What religions? What stories? I don't know of any supernatural claims of other religions. I've read a lot of books with Shintoism, none of which have anything supernatural. I've read books involving Buddhism, never seen any supernatural claims, either. Islam claims that death by jihad will get you 72 virgins, I don't see that as supernatural.

To be charitable, I'll simply assume that you're playing dumb and that you aren't in fact oblivious to the nature of religions other than your own.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You find this to be a threat?

Off course.

You're flat out telling me that I must "believe or else..."

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have lots of justification, all of which is very rational. In fact, I believe it's IRrational not to believe it.

Then you should have no problem presenting a rationally justifiable case. This is an apologetics forum after all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, because there's no proof of Thor.

But what about the stories?

 

[DogmaHunter]

You know, the Church didn't invent Santa. That's a secular invention. I have CHOSEN not to teach fairy tales about some fat guy living at the North Pole. When my children asked about Santa, because they were told about him in school or somewhere, I did teach them about St. Nicholas, and where the legend of Santa Claus came from.

Still all besides the point.

You seem to have problems with focussing on the point.

You're the one who took it off course with your unicorns and Santa, in a thread about God's morality...

No. I gave an example to illustrate that one cannot simply "choose" to believe things of which one is not convinced.

It's actually then you that took it off course. WAAAAY off course.

I'm still trying to get back to the point, but your defense mechanisms seem to not allow it.

If so, then what is your purpose on this board? Entertainment? Are you really that bored?

I don't need to explain myself to you.
If you only wish to talk to christians, then I invite you to visit the 80% of this forum where I am not allowed to post.