The Moral Argument (revamped)

[createdtoworship]

I posted plenty of references.

You know what? Posting a bunch of links and expecting us to sort it out is not debate. Do your own research. And another thing is worrying me about this tactic of yours. At first this thread was all about proving premises with citations and quotes. Now it's just believing what the majority believe. A very dangerous and troubling turn I think.

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[gaara4158]

You know what? Posting a bunch of links and expecting us to sort it out is not debate. Do your own research. And another thing is worrying me about this tactic of yours. At first this thread was all about proving premises with citations and quotes. Now it's just believing what the majority believe. A very dangerous and troubling turn I think.

I did my research, I paid attention in class, I graduated. I’m pointing you to the resources so that you can understand too. I’m sorry I can’t also understand it on your behalf, that is unfortunately left to you. But until you can accomplish that, you’re always going to be wrong and wondering why no one’s on your side.

 

[createdtoworship]

I did my research, I paid attention in class, I graduated. I’m pointing you to the resources so that you can understand too. I’m sorry I can’t also understand it on your behalf, that is unfortunately left to you. But until you can accomplish that, you’re always going to be wrong and wondering why no one’s on your side.

but apparently you can offer no evidence yourself for macro evolution. So something is wrong here, agree?

 

[createdtoworship]

Does he wonder why no theists are helping him in these threads? Some are even arguing against him now. If it were me I’d take it as a sign I was doing something wrong. But not this guy...

I’ve seen it over and over through the years.

Sometimes I’ll get the “It’s the Holy Spirit that convicts people, not my words. So I can’t be doing anything wrong.” line. Sometimes it’s the “I’ve actually convinced you, you’re just scared to admit it.” line.

At the end of it, they just keep shooting the ball into their own baskets, and claiming they’re helping their team.

I am normally alone in debate. I don't look at it as something I am doing wrong but rather something I am doing right, that no one is doing. I used to teach evangelism, and in a church of thousands, only half a dozen would show up to witness. I felt the exact same way back then. I never once thought because the majority of christians don't evangelize that it was wrong for me to do so. So I think your comment is somewhat inaccurate. As far as my gospel style, I don't know of any well known evangelists that do it the way I do. I preach somewhere between ray comfort and greg laurie. Ray uses apostasy doctrines, but claims they are false converts. The Bible says they could have been previously saved. Greg laurie believes that version of apostacy but does not preach it during gospel messages or crusades. So my particular version of the gospel is abrasive. But the abrasiveness is not to attract, but to detract. So that in hearing it, they would reject the message and not be converted. As to further God's will on this thread and others. I specifically word the message of the gospel in a way, that makes it repulsive to you. So that in hearing it you won't be saved. Your rejection of it, is exactly what I planned. It is God's will that those who are not at a right state of mind, would not be called. And those who are of a humble disposition, those who's minds are ready to hear and to obey His voice, it is only those who will come. So yes, by all means keep doing what you are doing. You guys are doing exactly what is expected. In your rejection of the Gospel, God too is glorified.

 

[Moral Orel]

actually math is one of the few things that does have solid proof, in fact they are actually called mathematical proofs.

That's not actually true either. Math is built on unfounded assumptions too.

Regardless of that, a number isn't math. You can't count to a billion, so there's no observational evidence of it, so it doesn't exist. If you infer that a billion exists, even though no one ever has counted to a billion, your argument against evolution explodes.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So my particular version of the gospel is abrasive. But the abrasiveness is not to attract, but to detract. So that in hearing it, they would reject the message and not be converted.

Well, this is a new one on me. I’ve never heard of any Christian intentionally trying to dissuade people from becoming Christians, or deconvert other Christians.

Carry on then. You’re doing an excellent job...

 

[gaara4158]

but apparently you can offer no evidence yourself for macro evolution. So something is wrong here, agree?

I pointed you to it. I googled it for you and posted five of the top results. The only thing wrong here is you didn’t click any of them.

 

[gaara4158]

I am normally alone in debate. I don't look at it as something I am doing wrong but rather something I am doing right, that no one is doing. I used to teach evangelism, and in a church of thousands, only half a dozen would show up to witness. I felt the exact same way back then. I never once thought because the majority of christians don't evangelize that it was wrong for me to do so. So I think your comment is somewhat inaccurate. As far as my gospel style, I don't know of any well known evangelists that do it the way I do. I preach somewhere between ray comfort and greg laurie. Ray uses apostasy doctrines, but claims they are false converts. The Bible says they could have been previously saved. Greg laurie believes that version of apostacy but does not preach it during gospel messages or crusades. So my particular version of the gospel is abrasive. But the abrasiveness is not to attract, but to detract. So that in hearing it, they would reject the message and not be converted. As to further God's will on this thread and others. I specifically word the message of the gospel in a way, that makes it repulsive to you. So that in hearing it you won't be saved. Your rejection of it, is exactly what I planned. It is God's will that those who are not at a right state of mind, would not be called. And those who are of a humble disposition, those who's minds are ready to hear and to obey His voice, it is only those who will come. So yes, by all means keep doing what you are doing. You guys are doing exactly what is expected. In your rejection of the Gospel, God too is glorified.

View attachment 256536

We had already rejected it before you arrived. Are you saying you hope to repel fellow Christians and people who are undecided, too? Because that’s the opposite of apologetics. You might not be allowed to do that here. It’s almost like trolling.

 

[createdtoworship]

Adultery is wrong even to the athiest. But how can nature evolve a law like that. Adultery in nature can be a good thing for the pack. Sure some animals are into monogamy, but many are not. But why is it a universal law in mankind but not in nature?

 

[createdtoworship]

Well, this is a new one on me. I’ve never heard of any Christian intentionally trying to dissuade people from becoming Christians, or deconvert other Christians.

Carry on then. You’re doing an excellent job...

I know, it's for God's glory. I do this on purpose. As I have said. After all do you think God would accept a sinner that hates what he stands for? No, they are here to test the true believers, that is their only purpose. But I don't look at this debate as very difficult.

 

[createdtoworship]

That's not actually true either. Math is built on unfounded assumptions too.

Regardless of that, a number isn't math. You can't count to a billion, so there's no observational evidence of it, so it doesn't exist. If you infer that a billion exists, even though no one ever has counted to a billion, your argument against evolution explodes.

2+2=4. Is an assumption?

 

[createdtoworship]

We had already rejected it before you arrived. Are you saying you hope to repel fellow Christians and people who are undecided, too? Because that’s the opposite of apologetics. You might not be allowed to do that here. It’s almost like trolling.

No, that's not happening I can assure you. This debate is simpler than simple to me. It's a walk in the park. Christians love it.

 

[gaara4158]

I know, it's for God's glory. I do this on purpose. As I have said. After all do you think God would accept a sinner that hates what he stands for? No, they are here to test the true believers, that is their only purpose. But I don't look at this debate as very difficult.

So you’re losing on purpose to free up space in Heaven? Ok then.

 

[gaara4158]

No, that's not happening I can assure you. This debate is simpler than simple to me. It's a walk in the park. Christians love it.

You should look up the Dunning-Krueger effect. Your persona here embodies it perfectly.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, that's not happening I can assure you. This debate is simpler than simple to me. It's a walk in the park. Christians love it.

Demonstrably false, as I’ve already described..,

 

[TBDude65]

so can you provide examples of self sacrificial love in animals? Not in the family, but in the pack in general? Mothers will be self sacrificial, but not toward animals that are not their children, and not toward their enemies. Christianity is a unique morality extending love and forgiveness even to those who hate you and try to kill you. You won't see this in the animal world, because love, true love is divine, not earthly.

Vampire bats will regurgitate blood for unsuccessful members of their brood (whether directly related or not) after an unsuccessful night's hunt. Reciprocal altruism is not uncommon in social species

 

[gaara4158]

Adultery is wrong even to the athiest. But how can nature evolve a law like that. Adultery in nature can be a good thing for the pack. Sure some animals are into monogamy, but many are not. But why is it a universal law in mankind but not in nature?

Many animals are monogamous, and many people are not. There is no reason to expect all animals to have the exact same mating habits.

 

[Moral Orel]

2+2=4. Is an assumption?

No, it's built on assumptions of axioms that you can't prove. The difficulty comes from defining '2' and '+' and '='.

 

[Moral Orel]

Adultery is wrong even to the athiest.

No, that's not true. Cheating behind someone's back is commonly considered wrong by almost all folks because dishonesty is commonly considered wrong. However, "Adultery" encompasses more than just that. "Key Parties" are an example of people being completely fine with "Adultery".