False labels

[Temujin]

No, not acceptance, influence. Go back and read the bold text cited from the definition that YOU are concerned about, think about it and tell me how my personal feelings influence the Bible.

Come back when all Christians agree that the Bible says the same thing. The message YOU take from the Bible is different from the message that other Christians take, a difference influenced by YOUR personal opinions and feelings about the text. Good grief, there are multiple threads on this site where Christians describe their favourite version of the Bible. To call it a fixed objective standard is a joke. Are you really trying to say that Martin Luther and Martin Luther King had the same objective moral standard?

 

[BMS]

Come back when all Christians agree that the Bible says the same thing. The message YOU take from the Bible is different from the message that other Christians take, a difference influenced by YOUR personal opinions and feelings about the text. Good grief, there are multiple threads on this site where Christians describe their favourite version of the Bible. To call it a fixed objective standard is a joke. Are you really trying to say that Martin Luther and Martin Luther King had the same objective moral standard?

No not all Christians, tell me how my personal feelings influence what the Bible says. That is the issue, not you imagining that because some people dont believe what the Bible says means it doesnt say what it says.

 

[Temujin]

No not all Christians, tell me how my personal feelings influence what the Bible says. That is the issue, not you imagining that because some people dont believe what the Bible says means it doesnt say what it says.

The whole point of an objective standard is that everyone agrees what it is. Whether or not they agree with the sentiment they can all agree that it is what it is. Everyone agrees what a metre is, whether they use metric or imperial measures. This does not apply to the Bible. There are multiple versions, none of which is agreed as standard. There are multiple interpretations of how it's message should be enacted. You choose one particular version, which is no different to me choosing no version at all.

You failed to address my point about the Law of the Jungle. Is this too a valid objective moral standard?

 

[BMS]

The whole point of an objective standard is that everyone agrees what it is. Whether or not they agree with the sentiment they can all agree that it is what it is. Everyone agrees what a metre is, whether they use metric or imperial measures. This does not apply to the Bible. There are multiple versions, none of which is agreed as standard. There are multiple interpretations of how it's message should be enacted. You choose one particular version, which is no different to me choosing no version at all.

You failed to address my point about the Law of the Jungle. Is this too a valid objective moral standard?

That isnt what the definition says. Thats you off on your own crusade again.
The part of the definition said objective was not influenced by personal feelings and the Biblical testimony isnt influenced by personal feelings

 

[Temujin]

That isnt what the definition says. Thats you off on your own crusade again.
The part of the definition said objective was not influenced by personal feelings and the Biblical testimony isnt influenced by personal feelings

A red car is defined as a car, which is red. You can't claim that a red lego brick is a red car because it matches part of the definition.

Once again you avoid the question on the Law of the Jungle. Is this an objective moral standard in your view?

 

[Whateverman]

Biblical testimony isnt influenced by personal feelings

Understanding it certainly is.

ps. Given that the "biblical testimony" you're familiar with has been translated several times, it's fairly easy to argue that you're completely wrong.

 

[Temujin]

Understanding it certainly is.

ps. Given that the "biblical testimony" you're familiar with has been translated several times, it's fairly easy to argue that you're completely wrong.

It's easy to argue this. Sadly it seems to be much harder for him to understand the argument.

 

[BMS]

A red car is defined as a car, which is red. You can't claim that a red lego brick is a red car because it matches part of the definition.

Once again you avoid the question on the Law of the Jungle. Is this an objective moral standard in your view?

A man is defined as having XY chromosomes and male reproductive anatomy. You cant claim a man is a woman because you feel they should be.

 

[Temujin]

A man is defined as having XY chromosomes and male reproductive anatomy. You cant claim a man is a woman because you feel they should be.

Nice try to dodge the issue. And you are wrong of course on this as well, since you confuse sex and gender, biology and sociology. But why change the subject when you are doing so well?

Once again you avoid the question on the Law of the Jungle. Is this an objective moral standard in your view?

 

[BMS]

Nice try to dodge the issue.

Not dodging the issue, its exactly the same as your red car claim. A red car is only as much a red car as a man is a man. Painting a red car green doesn't make it a lorry any more than man calling himself a woman make him a woman.

Interesting though that I made reference only to the biological sex of man and woman, and made no reference to the mentally retarded imaginary gender which you included thinking it had confused me. Your woke has blinded you and made you unable to communicate.

As I said the dictionary definition of objective includes "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions but a common set of criteria." which means that one could claim the Biblical testimony is a common set of criteria, and its certainly not influence by my personal feelings.

Whether you can make something out of that, other than a red car, with your lego set, is another matter

 

[Temujin]

Not dodging the issue, its exactly the same as your red car claim. A red car is only as much a red car as a man is a man. Painting a red car green doesn't make it a lorry any more than man calling himself a woman make him a woman.

Interesting though that I made reference only to the biological sex of man and woman, and made no reference to the mentally retarded imaginary gender which you included thinking it had confused me. Your woke has blinded you and made you unable to communicate.

As I said the dictionary definition of objective includes "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions but a common set of criteria." which means that one could claim the Biblical testimony is a common set of criteria, and its certainly not influence by my personal feelings.

Whether you can make something out of that, other than a red car, with your lego set, is another matter

Once again you avoid the question on the Law of the Jungle. Is this an objective moral standard in your view?

 

[BMS]

Once again you avoid the question on the Law of the Jungle. Is this an objective moral standard in your view?

So do see the point I have been making for several posts. As I said the dictionary definition of objective includes "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions but a common set of criteria." which means that one could claim the Biblical testimony is a common set of criteria, and its certainly not influence by my personal feelings.

 

[Temujin]

So do see the point I have been making for several posts. As I said the dictionary definition of objective includes "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions but a common set of criteria." which means that one could claim the Biblical testimony is a common set of criteria, and its certainly not influence by my personal feelings.

I have already shown this" point" to be in fact, pointless. I also see you running away.

Once again you avoid the question on the Law of the Jungle. Is this an objective moral standard in your view?

 

[BMS]

I have already shown this" point" to be in fact, pointless. I also see you running away.

Once again you avoid the question on the Law of the Jungle. Is this an objective moral standard in your view?

No you haven't and you never do. You have been told to repeat the answer if the other poster has been mistaken and you never do.
edit

 

[Temujin]

No you haven't and you never do. You have been told to repeat the answer if the other poster has been mistaken and you never do.
edit

Once again you avoid the question on the Law of the Jungle. Is this an objective moral standard in your view?

This is the fourth or fifth time you have avoided this question. Why is that?

 

[BMS]

Once again you avoid the question on the Law of the Jungle. Is this an objective moral standard in your view?

This is the fourth or fifth time you have avoided this question. Why is that?

So do see the point I have been making for several posts. As I said the dictionary definition of objective includes "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions but a common set of criteria." which means that one could claim the Biblical testimony is a common set of criteria, and its certainly not influence by my personal feelings.

 

[Temujin]

So do see the point I have been making for several posts. As I said the dictionary definition of objective includes "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions but a common set of criteria." which means that one could claim the Biblical testimony is a common set of criteria, and its certainly not influence by my personal feelings.

If the point you were making was valid, you would be able to answer my question without looking foolish. The fact is that you can't.

Once again you avoid the question on the Law of the Jungle. Is this an objective moral standard in your view?

 

[BMS]

No. As always, your description is faulty. Your acceptance of Biblical testimony is influenced by your personal feelings and opinions,

No that isn't necessarily correct. The Bible influenced me to believe Jesus is the truth, the way and the life and thus it changing my views and opinions.

as is my rejection of Biblical testimony.

O what grounds, your personal opinions and feelings.

Biblical testimony has no truth independent of personal feelings or opinion.

Clearly from my testimony alone and of millions of others it does.

It is no more an objective moral code than Rudyard Kipling's Law of the Jungle.It does share this idea however:-
"Now these are the laws of the jungle, and many and mighty are they;
But the head and the hoof of the law and the haunch and the hump is—Obey!"

Well the Bible is an objective moral code in respect of the definition that for those of us who believe it, it is the truth and not our personal feelings

 

[Temujin]

No that isn't necessarily correct. The Bible influenced me to believe Jesus is the truth, the way and the life and thus it changing my views and opinions.
O what grounds, your personal opinions and feelings.
Clearly from my testimony alone and of millions of others it does.

Well the Bible is an objective moral code in respect of the definition that for those of us who believe it, it is the truth and not our personal feelings

Lol! What exactly is the difference between your beliefs and your personal feelings and opinions?

It seems that you believe the Bible to be an objective source of morality, while the Law of the Jungle is not, based on your personal feelings and opinions.

Thank you for confirming my point. Incidentally, it doesn't matter how many people believe something. That doesn't make it true. Or objective.

 

[BMS]

Lol! What exactly is the difference between your beliefs and your personal feelings and opinions?

Irrelevant to the issue because it was the Biblical testimony that influenced my beliefs and personal feelings and and opinions, whatever the differences you see or dont see.

It seems that you believe the Bible to be an objective source of morality,

absolutely, whilst it seems you have you own ideas of morality.

while the Law of the Jungle is not, based on your personal feelings and opinions.

I have never studied the law of the jungle.

Thank you for confirming my point. Incidentally, it doesn't matter how many people believe something. That doesn't make it true. Or objective.

The Bible is objective in that it isnt influenced by my personal feelings.