The Golden Rule for sites should be "Keep Thy Faith to Thy Self" In fact this works also for politics.

lola la la la la lola

Even I will admit that we are straining the limits of forum protocol here, and I thank Splodge for his graciousness in tearing himself away from the ‘lock’ button.

Apparently not
Pretty good thanks, busy, but good, yourself?

Thanks for your post. It clearly exhibits the contradictions in your worldview. You point out what you consider to be a logical fallacy, a ‘strawman argument,’ which shows a pre-commitment to the absolute laws of logic, but have not (read cannot) account for these absolute laws according to your worldview.

Also, if you disagree with absolute moral laws, then you can have no absolute objection to child molestation, or anything which, in your misunderstanding of the Bible, you find disagreeable – yet apparently you do.

The Bible is a funny thing... but also can be fascinating.
Biblical stories are symbolic texts and have certain similarities with fables.
The goal of majority of those biblical stories was to educate (the population was a lot more ignorant than today), and not to reconstitute the events of the past. It's just surprising that today, 2000 years later, some can still believe in everything in that book.

boe

Canuck, I don't claim to be a theologian, so I admit I may have misinterpreted the portion that I quoted. It's possible that by "cut off her hand and show her no pity", god actually meant, "Give her flowers and show her a good time". I just figured that since your source of absolute moral laws comes from god, you have no right to re-interpret his literal word based on what's acceptable in your own current time and society.

Once you start reinterpreting and making your own judgments, you're getting away from absolute moral laws and more into "situational ethics".
Situational ethics is what I believe in. It implies that the morality of an act depends on the consequences and the context of an act.
So while lying can be morally wrong, it can also be right if you lie to save a life.

Conveniently, you chose the one act that is impossible to argue with - child molestation. This also allows you to label someone who disagrees with you a supporter of child abuse.

I just want it to be known that I'm not arguing against religion here. Just the absurd claims and methods of your website.
If you want to lead someone into a religious life, claiming "proof of god" is not the way to do it.

I don’t. I do Biblical exegesis to discover which laws were cultural, which were cermonial, and which were absolutely moral.

However, the consequences of an act in any given situation are judged by an absolute moral standard, outside of that situation. A moral standard which you simply do not have.
You might say that it is okay to kill in the situation of war, but not okay to kill in the situation of peace, but it is something outside of those situations which determines the ultimate ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of the act. You see, under your system, you may not ascribe to absolute moral laws, but then there can be no such thing as ‘right,’ or ‘wrong,’ just whatever the people at the time happen to prefer. And if man is the measure of all things, which man? Who determines the morality of the act, the majority, the strongest, the best looking, and how could you possibly know?

Alright, who says that lying can be morally wrong, and who says that it can be right to save a life? Absent an absolute standard, there can be no ‘wrong,’ or ‘right’ just personal preference,yet you obviously ascribe to a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong,’ further exposing the inconsistency of your worldview.

Is it absolutely morally wrong to molest children for kicks? If so, how do you know this?

Again, you bring up what you consider to be a logical absurdity, which shows a precommitment to absolute laws of logic, but you have yet to tell us how such laws make sense according to your worldview (because you can’t).

Thanks, but I hope you don’t mind if I don’t take my apologetic/evangelism advice from you. It is the Christian view that those who reject God are ‘supressing the truth in unrighteousness,’ I cannot convince someone who is lying to themselves, to stop doing that, but I can expose the fallacy of their professed worldviews.

Claf, do a google search on ‘begging the question.’ You are making judgements based on your precommitment to the Bible not being the infallible, inspired Word of God, but you have given exactly zero foundation for that assumption. Your claim is based upon your a priori rejection of it, nothing else.

No. You're wrong.

I believe in people like Israel Finkelstein, an Israeli archaeologist who's making concrete researches about the subject. Some archaeologists are working to find concrete proofs. You can google if you never heard his name.

There has been an important revolution in biblical history in the last decades. Some archaeologists are now uncovering the difference between myth and history, and between reality and ideology of the ancient authors. This is their role to unearth the real historical reality to find out why and how the biblical records were written.

I don't know if it can help you... you're Canadian, so maybe bilingual... there was interesting French articles about it. Of course, some readers were shocked...
http://www.lactualite.com/monde/article.jsp?content=20090204_153402_46776
http://www.lactualite.com/culture/article.jsp?content=20081201_153335_11868

Claf, your PRESUPPOSITION is that the Bible is NOT the inspired, infallible Word of God, my presupposition is that it IS. ANY evidence either of us present will be interpreted subject to our presuppositons.

In order to get anywhere in this discussion, what we must do is determine whose presuppostions can account for the very concept of 'evidence.' Evidence presupposes universal logical laws by which we interpret it (not to mention the assumption that our senses and reasoning are valid). Universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic, make sense in my worldview, as they reflect the very nature of God, but do not makes sense in ANY worldview without God. Sure, you are free to criticize the authenticity of the Bible, but I simply ask, how do you account for the laws of logic by which you do this?

Conversations like these make me glad that my parents allowed me to create my own path.

My mom is Jewish and my dad is a WASP (white anglo-saxon protestant). In all technicality, I am Jewish by blood (in the Jewish religion you take the faith of your mother). Neither one of my parents actively practices their religion, though they both did to a limited extent in their childhood. They allowed me to experience as many cultures as possible (I've extensively traveled throughout Europe, parts of SE Asia, and been to ~35 States) and form my own opinions about ethics, morality, and religion with their full support.

Having experienced all of these cultures, the one that I was most impressed with were the Buddhists in Thailand. They were some of the most genuine, caring people I have ever encountered. Technically Buddhism is a religion without a God. The religion is based upon several concepts of ethics and morality (i.e. Karma, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the Four Noble Truths).

Given the opportunity to choose my own system of belief, I have chosen to lean away from religion. I am agnostic. The stories in the Bible are excellent stories to teach lessons and a basic moral code, but it goes too far to say that the Bible should be the crux of everyone's belief system. Buddhism is an excellent example showing that belief in God is not necessary in forming moral codes and in making ethical decisions. Not believing in an absolute moral code does not similarly imply that a person is a child molester.

Moral codes and ethics are greatly influenced by social structures and pressures of individual regions, yet the same key concepts appear repeatedly. Every individual should be free to choose the belief system that is best for them. Proving the existence of God is counter to the idea of religion being based around faith. Faith does not require absolute proof, just a powerful belief in an idea.

Of course the problem with choosing one's own path, is that is exactly what child molesters do too. It is not sufficient to choose an arbitrary path, and Buddhism also fails in that there is exactly zero authority behind its definition of 'wrong' or 'right' conduct.