Where's God?

[InterestedAtheist]

Fraid not.

'Fraid so.

No, the slippery slope is still there because there is no rationally objective foundation for the consent principle. It is like building your house on sand, when the forces of evil come, there is no basis for refuting them and the house collapses.

Red herring. You could answer any point by saying "you have no rationally objective foundation for it." Indeed, this is a tactic I have seen Christians use in many situations. While there certainly is a rational foundation for morality, and I'd be happy to demonstrate it at another time, that would be off topic. Since I take it that both of us accept that it's wrong to marry someone without their consent - you do accept that, don't you? - then the argument is perfectly sound: you can't have marriage with children, animals or inanimate objects because they can't consent to it.

There is no moral reason to deny marriage to your daughter or son or dog or computer. Because you have no objectively rational basis for denying it. And as I demonstrated earlier there is no right to marriage even for heterosexuals.

A child, animal or inanimate object is unable to fully understand what "entering into marriage" constitutes. Lacking this understanding, any agreement they make would be meaningless; and therefore they are unable to get married.

Almost all laws are based on a religion or philosophy.

A statement so broad it is essentially meaningless. Yes, laws are based on what people think are good ideas.

And according to America's founding documents, ours are based on the laws of Nature and the laws of Natures God (the Unitarian God). The Unitarian God revealed His moral laws in nature and the Bible.

Stay on topic, please. The point is that the USA is a secular nation; that is to say, the opposite of a sectarian nation. The laws of the USA are neutral with regards to religion. So what Christianity says - or what Christians believe that it says - about homosexuality is irrelevant.

You misread my statement. I said only a heterosexual couple can joint together biologically to form a single reproductive unit, irrespective if the unit actually produces children.

Well, that is quite true. But why is it relevant to the question of whether or not gay people have the right to marry?

Only the heterosexual union is actually recognized by biology and only heterosexual sex unites two persons into a single reproductive unit. So even if there are cases where the union does not produce children that is still its primary purpose

What on earth does "actually recognised by biology" mean? And why should it be relevant?
And who told you the primary purpose of marriage was to produce children? You're trying to wriggle out of having to say that marriage is about producing children but sinking yourself even further in.

and why society is concerned with that function because otherwise the society may not endure.

While it's certainly true to say that society would be worried if nobody was having any children and so the human race was becoming extinct, it is not the same thing as saying that society is concerned that marriage be reserved for those who have the possibility of producing children. Society is not concerned with that in the slightest, because it is not a problem. If every single homosexual person in the world paired up and got married, you know what impact it would have on the continuation of the species? None at all.
The plain fact is, you say society reserves marriage for those who have the ability to have babies - but it doesn't. Society is quite happy for gay people to marry.

See above.

I did. Got anything better?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

only a heterosexual couple can joint together biologically to form a single reproductive unit, irrespective if the unit actually produces children.

But that doesn't make sense at all. So you're saying the point of a marriage is to produce children, even if it doesn't? Even if it can't? So a marriage between two people who have solemnly promised they will never have children is okay because they are still capable of doing so? And how about a marriage between two infertile people? That's okay, as long as the have the right private parts, even if they're not functioning? And for the matter of that, are you saying that if some scientific advancement meant that homosexual couples could have children, you'd then be okay with gay marriage? Forgive me for doubting that.

As I've pointed out, what you're saying is obviously not true. Society doesn't care in the slightest whether a marriage produces children or not. If it did, then we would see a very different world. Not the world we live in, in which childless couples suffer no legal disadvantages at all, either before or after getting married.

So again: do you have any rational argument against gay marriage? Because when you say "because it's impossible for them to have children," the obvious response is: so what?

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: No, atheism is an intrinsic component of Communism, read Marx.
Atheism may be an intrinsic component of Communism, but Communism is in no way an intrinsic component of atheism. All atheism means is "does not believe in Gods". Therefore, to say that you have the right to free speech because you were born in a Christian nation not an atheist one makes no sense. And that's ignoring the fact that many Christian nations throughout history took a very dim view of free speech, and that it's the values produced by the Enlightenment and liberal democracy that you have to thank.

Nevertheless, the right to free speech came from Christianity. Read John Locke, Christian theologian and philosopher. Not all so-called Christian nations obeyed Christian teaching, especially prior to the Reformation.
↑

ed: Yes, but they dont have an objective foundation for that belief and that causes a slippery slope. That is what happened in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, among other nations that abandoned their Christian founding principles.

ia: An interesting side debate, but let's stay on topic. Here's the point you refused to answer again:
"Being an atheist says just as much about you as being a theist: it has nothing to do with your morality. An atheist could be an anarchist, a communist or a humanist. A theist could worship God, Allah or Satan. You'll find that humanists have a very active conscience and believe in freedom of speech very strongly."
Do you concede this, and that therefore it makes no sense for you to speak of "atheist countries" that deny rights to free speech?

The philosophical foundation is still atheistic even if the political views vary they generally have certain characteristics in common such as human based moral laws. And generally only Western Christian influenced humanists believe in free speech. Though as seen in Europe they are starting to abandon it as they become more secular.
↑

ed: No the overwhelming majority of thinkers they utilized were Christians and the Bible. While it was not founded as officially a Christian nation, they did deliberately found it on many Christian principles. This can be seen in the DOI and the Bill of Rights.

ia: Thank you for that concession. You're quite right: the United States of America was not founded as a Christian nation. In fact, the Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by deist principles. In a more modern age, many of them would undoubtedly have been atheists and agnostics.
The Encyclopaedia Britannica explains it clearly and briefly: The Founding Fathers, Deism, and Christianity.
"Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time."
Basically, these are the values of humanists. Good for them!

No, the overwhelming majority of the founders were Christians. 100 out the 110 signers of both the DOI and the Constitution were Christians. And actually Jefferson and Franklin were not Deists but rather Unitarians. And the differences are significant. Universal education and separation of Church and State (but not God and State) are Christian principles. So is religious toleration and opposing barriers to moral improvement and social justice. These are all Christian principles.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Why?

I am not certain, but probably because if you hadn't repented by the end of your life, you probably never will. Generally people that dont like hanging out with Christians and hate the Christian God during their life are not going to want to be with millions of more Christians and Him for eternity.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I am not certain, but probably because if you hadn't repented by the end of your life, you probably never will. Generally people that dont like hanging out with Christians and hate the Christian God during their life are not going to want to be with millions of more Christians and Him for eternity.

Really?

G: Here's Heaven
A: Yeah?
G: And, here's Hell? OK?
A: I repent.

Faced with actual evidence that it was all real? Yeah, sure, I'll repent.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Uhm.. Judas never did the deed again. He was so remorseful that he thought he had no chance of getting forgiven. He did admit to commiting a sin too.

Again, you are splitting hairs. Did you actually repent? Have you really honestly and truly repented though?

Evidence Judas thought he had no chance of getting forgiven? Yes, I repent almost everyday.

bv: Jesus was never tortured for more than a few days. But Hell is eternal.

But as an eternal being, it felt like an eternity to Him.

bv: Jesus said that narrow is the path that leads to life and FEW find it. That's pretty clear that majority will not find a path that leads to life, and, by default, they will be tortured to death.

Not all scholars agree with that interpretation. But probably the majority do. They will not be tortured to death, they are already dead. There are different levels of hell though. The better levels may not be much worse than the present earth. The bible is not real clear on this issue.

bv: Remember, Jesus is the one who knows what happens if people don't chose "his love". And he is the one who created the alternative!

Actually the Father created heaven and hell, Jesus created the universe. Remember Jesus said His father has prepared many mansions for believers in heaven and the new universe.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: Exodus 22:21-24, Lev. 19:33-34, and Exodus 23:9 among others.

cw: You are assuming that all Hebrew slaves were voluntary servitude. This is untrue as I pointed out in my other thread on slavery.

A hebrew father can command his daughter to serve a potential husband, but you have to remember getting married was a much more serious need for in the Bronze Age when there was no social security or police force. Where else?

ed: No, but it is an atheist based political philosophy. Most theists that perform terrorism are not Christians, most are Muslims over 90%.

cw: There is no such thing as an atheist based political philosophy. This is your misunderstanding of what the definition of an atheist is. The fact that someone does not believe a god exists has no bearing on their political philosophy. There are atheist humanists, anarchists, communists, socialists etc. Just like there are Christian communists, humanists, socialists etc.

Atheism is intrinsic to true Communism, read Karl Marx. A Christian communist is an oxymoron.

ed; No, because Christian morality is based on the objective existing moral character of the True Creator God. There are no other creator gods.

cw: What is your evidence that there are no other gods? Most atheists don't even say this because there is no way to show this statement is true.

I said no other creator gods. I cannot disprove the existence of all other gods but they can be eliminated as the creator of this universe. Most of the characteristics of this universe show that its creator is most likely the Christian God. No other god proposed by all other human societies has all the characteristics needed to logically produce a universe like this one.

cw: Even if there is only one God, that does not mean that the God is moral.

He is, if He is the Good itself, which the Christian God is.

ed: The goals may be slightly different. But their source for morality is the same, humans. That is what humanism means.

cw: No. This is not what humanism means.

In what way does humanism not consider humans the measure of all things?

ed: Humanity is the measure of all things. But humanists from western nations generally borrow their morality from Christians up to a point but then look to what feels right to them for the rest. While humanists that like communism get their morality primarily from Marx.

cw: There are different type of humanists but their humanism whatever type they are does not come from their atheism. The fact that there are different humanist thought from atheists confirms this.

Yes, but all groups of humanists get their morality from other humans, certainly not from God.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed:↑In order to continue the survival of a society in an optimal way, a good government should encourage it. Look what is happening in Europe. Their culture and survival as free nations are in the balance because they have failed to do so.

cw: The goal of our society is not to survive in an optimal way. If that were so we would not allow smoking, taco bell, energy drinks etc. These are detrimental to an optimal survival of a society. We want to allow maximum freedoms. You want to restrict freedoms unnecessarily due to your religious beliefs. This goes against what the constitution was designed to allow. You are free to have your religious beliefs but you are not free to force those on others unnecessarily through governmental laws and policies.

You obviously dont watch much television or movies or go to restaurants. Every day there are government funded ads discouraging smoking, drinking and driving, smoking is banned in restaurants and most businesses. I didnt say homosexual behavior should be banned only discouraged. Back in the day there were ads about seat belts and using drugs. All of these are necessary for optimal survival of a society. Regarding food, millions of dollars are used to promote the government food pyramid.

ed: No, according to our founding documents our nation is based and founded on the laws of Nature and the (laws) of Natures God.... Both the laws of Nature and the laws of Natures God only allow for real marriage, ie marriage based on biology and anatomy.

cw: You are smuggling in a god into our constitution where it specifically says you cannot do that.

Actually unlike the French constitution which was founded as a truly secular nation the American Constitution uses the Christian dating system, ie Year of Our Lord. If it was truly secular that would have been eliminated like the French one.

cw: You are free to practice your religion as you please as long as it does not infringe on others rights to practice their religion or lack of religion. Which of your rights are violated by two gay men getting married? None. The right to marry for the gay couple is with your view.

The Founders considered the Declaration of Independence the philosophical foundation of the Constitution. They knew that there had to be rational foundation for the Bill of Rights. So they had to have come from God otherwise there would be no rational argument against a future government that would try to take them away. This is how MLK got his message across to make the argument against racial inequality. Engaging in homosexual behavior goes against our founding principles, the laws of Nature and the laws of Natures God. And by allowing gay marriage and forcing Christian businesses to endorse it violates the First Amendment. As I explained earlier in this thread there is no right to marry even for heterosexuals.

ed: The government and SCOTUS was wrong in this case. They cannot make up rights that dont exist. It has made many wrong decisions such as Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade being among the most notorious.

cw: I have disagreed with many SCOTUS rulings as well like Roe v Wade however that does not make the decision a mistake. It is how our government is set up. The ruling says that if a state is going to allow marriage to heterosexuals they have to allow it for homosexuals as well. They cannot discriminate. It is up to the states to allow and regulate it. But it must be regulated in a non discriminatory way. The 2015 ruling did not make marriage a right, it upheld previous decisions that it is a fundamental right. There have been at least 15 major SCOTUS decisions since 1888 that have upheld that marriage is a right in the US, the 2015 decision was not the first.

No, as stated above the laws of our government are based on two higher laws, the Laws of Nature and Natures God. Rulings by SCOTUS must still be made within that framework established by the DOI at our founding. And BTW, the DOI is considered part of the American legal code. If marriage were a right, the government would have to provide spouses for everyone that wanted one. Just as it does with all other rights. So if you are correct about that, they made another mistake in those rulings. Since the founding marriage was primarily handled by the states not the federal government.

ed: Christians have a right work through legitimate processes to correct such erroneous rulings or at least make them less odious out of love for our nation and its founding.

cw: Maybe instead of loving our country and its founding, love the intent and ideals behind the founding and strive to make that a reality.

We are, see above. The overwhelming majority of the founders were Christians at least in worldview if not in actual faith. 100 out of the 110 signers of both documents identified themselves as Christians.

 

[BigV]

Evidence Judas thought he had no chance of getting forgiven? Yes, I repent almost everyday.

How about Judas committing suicide in desperation? Why would he do that if he thought he could be reconciled to Jesus?

Regarding your repentance, how do you know you truly repent and not just feel remorse over your past actions?

ut as an eternal being, it felt like an eternity to Him.

Very convenient for Jesus. Eternal hell for the people, but he gets 3 days and he's done with his sin payments.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You obviously dont watch much television or movies or go to restaurants. Every day there are government funded ads discouraging smoking, drinking and driving, smoking is banned in restaurants and most businesses. I didnt say homosexual behavior should be banned only discouraged. Back in the day there were ads about seat belts and using drugs. All of these are necessary for optimal survival of a society. Regarding food, millions of dollars are used to promote the government food pyramid.

Yet none of those things you describe are a fundamental part of who a person is. It would be like me wanting to discourage left handed people from using their left hand.

Actually unlike the French constitution which was founded as a truly secular nation the American Constitution uses the Christian dating system, ie Year of Our Lord. If it was truly secular that would have been eliminated like the French one.

Is this your argument to go up against mountains of law and supreme court rulings over the last 200 years that say you are wrong?

The Founders considered the Declaration of Independence the philosophical foundation of the Constitution. They knew that there had to be rational foundation for the Bill of Rights. So they had to have come from God otherwise there would be no rational argument against a future government that would try to take them away.

No. Rights are given by people to people and agreed upon by people. So where in the Bible does it say we have a right to:

Freedom of religion. It says the opposite.
Freedom of speech. It says the opposite.
Freedom of the press. It says nothing.
Freedom to petition the government. It says nothing.
Not to have soldiers quartered in my house. It says nothing.
Right to a Grand Jury. It says nothing.
Right to not be owned by another person. Bible says the opposite.
Right to vote without a tax. The bible says nothing.

So no, our rights as US citizens do not come from the Bible or a god they come from the constitution and subsequent laws and supreme court rulings, by people.

This is how MLK got his message across to make the argument against racial inequality. Engaging in homosexual behavior goes against our founding principles, the laws of Nature and the laws of Natures God. And by allowing gay marriage and forcing Christian businesses to endorse it violates the First Amendment. As I explained earlier in this thread there is no right to marry even for heterosexuals.

You have been asked before and I never saw an answer. What are the laws of Nature and the Laws of Natures God?

No, as stated above the laws of our government are based on two higher laws, the Laws of Nature and Natures God. Rulings by SCOTUS must still be made within that framework established by the DOI at our founding. And BTW, the DOI is considered part of the American legal code.

The National Archives disagree. It says this:

The Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence states the principles on which our government, and our identity as Americans, are based. Unlike the other founding documents, the Declaration of Independence is not legally binding, but it is powerful. Abraham Lincoln called it “a rebuke and a stumbling-block to tyranny and oppression.” It continues to inspire people around the world to fight for freedom and equality.

If marriage were a right, the government would have to provide spouses for everyone that wanted one. Just as it does with all other rights.

This is ridiculous and untrue. So where is my gun provided by the government?

So if you are correct about that, they made another mistake in those rulings. Since the founding marriage was primarily handled by the states not the federal government.

You may disagree but that does not make marriage not a right.

We are, see above. The overwhelming majority of the founders were Christians at least in worldview if not in actual faith. 100 out of the 110 signers of both documents identified themselves as Christians.

So what? If they were trying to make a christian nation then they would have not added the first amendment guaranteeing the right to practice religion as you wish. The Bible does not teach that is a right we have. It teaches the opposite. "You shall have no other gods..."

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Nevertheless, the right to free speech came from Christianity. Read John Locke, Christian theologian and philosopher. Not all so-called Christian nations obeyed Christian teaching, especially prior to the Reformation.

"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me," remember? The free speech that is the cornerstone of modern democracy owes its thanks to the Enlightenment ideals that animated the Founding Fathers rather than the Bible. You can't just assert things like that. "God is good, free speech is good, therefore free speech is Christian." Except history and the Bible both show that Christianity has very little say in favour of free speech, and that it's a concept which evolved in spite of the Bible rather than because of it.

The philosophical foundation is still atheistic even if the political views vary they generally have certain characteristics in common such as human based moral laws. And generally only Western Christian influenced humanists believe in free speech. Though as seen in Europe they are starting to abandon it as they become more secular.

You're just missing the point. Atheism has nothing to do with politics. It can't. Because all atheism means is "does not believe in gods."
Again, when you say that atheistic states are against free speech, this is a red herring. Communists may have been atheists, but not all atheists are communists.

No, the overwhelming majority of the founders were Christians. 100 out the 110 signers of both the DOI and the Constitution were Christians. And actually Jefferson and Franklin were not Deists but rather Unitarians. And the differences are significant. Universal education and separation of Church and State (but not God and State) are Christian principles. So is religious toleration and opposing barriers to moral improvement and social justice. These are all Christian principles.

Separation of Church and State a Christian principle? Nonsense. It was born out of an awareness of recent history, at the time, and a strong desire not to see the new united States troubled by the religious wars that had gripped Europe so that people of all faiths could live in peace.
The Founding Fathers may indeed have been mostly Christian (well, in that time and place in history, what else would they be?) but they were strongly influenced by deism, Enlightenment values and an awareness of the dangers of religion revealed by history. So they were very clear that the United States should be a secular state, which is why your religious views on homosexuality are of no consequence when it comes to the laws of the land.

I am not certain, but probably because if you hadn't repented by the end of your life, you probably never will. Generally people that dont like hanging out with Christians and hate the Christian God during their life are not going to want to be with millions of more Christians and Him for eternity.

Oh. So if, by the end of my eighty-year lifespan I have not recognised the truth of Christianity, then I never will in all the trillions of years of my continued existence after death? Absurd.

We seem to be getting further away from the topic, which is about gay marriage. We've seen that there is no reason that a secular constitution should be influenced by Christian views on homosexuality. We've seen that your "the state should not allow gay marriage because it endangers the future of the human race" arguments don't hold water. We've seen that your "gays shouldn't be allowed to get married because it's bad for them" arguments are likewise insupportable.

Do you have any rational argument against the state allowing homosexual marriages? So far the only genuine argument I can see is that you don't like it. And I'm afraid that's not very persuasive.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So what? If they were trying to make a christian nation then they would have not added the first amendment guaranteeing the right to practice religion as you wish. The Bible does not teach that is a right we have. It teaches the opposite. "You shall have no other gods..."

Exactly. Indeed, it seems that most of Ed's arguments in this thread can be answered with "so what?"

 

[doubtingmerle]

Nevertheless, the right to free speech came from Christianity.

And yet your Bible commands the death penalty for nothing other than speaking words that the author does not like. How can you equate this with the right to free speech?

Deuteronomy13:6 “If your brother, the son of your mother, your son or your daughter, the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, secretly entices you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which you have not known, neither you nor your fathers, 7 of the gods of the people which are all around you, near to you or far off from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth, 8 you shall not consent to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him or conceal him; 9 but you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. 10 And you shall stone him with stones until he dies, because he sought to entice you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. 11 So all Israel shall hear and fear, and not again do such wickedness as this among you.

​

 

[doubtingmerle]

the laws of our government are based on two higher laws, the Laws of Nature and Natures God. Rulings by SCOTUS must still be made within that framework established by the DOI at our founding.

Again, please show us where the Declaration says what you are saying. Nowhere does the Declaration of Independence say that we need to have a theocracy, and do what (somebody tells us) God tells us we should do.

The Declaration of Independence makes it very clear that people are entitled to choose whatever government feels best to them. This is what it actually says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. (emphasis added)
​

We get to choose whatever government seems to us will most likely (positively) effect our safety and happiness. That is the exact opposite of what you teach.

If you would like to convince me that my safety will be best effected by choosing to have laws based on a book that says to kill nonbelievers, than be my guest, I am listening, please explain to me how this will best effect my safety and happiness.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I would argue that as a people whose lives are centered upon and grounded in the Gospel, in the grace of God, and the Cross; we should abstain from presuming too much. It seems like something that's very easy with figures like Hitler--of course Hitler goes to the bad place because Hitler was bad, the absolute worst of the worst. It's not difficult for me to indulge my darker side and imagine--even enjoyably so--that Adolf Hitler will receive a limitless amount of agony for the sheer volume and scale of his evil. But, I intentionally mention about indulging my darker side. I don't think I should do that. I don't think, even with Hitler, I should allow myself to be the kind of person that delights in the notion that someone--even an Adolf Hitler--being tormented, or being destroyed, or experiencing the all the weight of pain that he put his millions of victims through. As a believer in the Gospel, as a believer in the Cross, as a believer in the immensity of God's grace and kindness. I don't want to indulge my depraved sense of vengeance. Rather, and instead, allow me to kneel and confess, "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."

I have met very few Christians that are happy that Hitler went to hell, only that it was just that he did so.

vc: To profess Christ as Lord is to profess with boldness that God loves sinners. Even the worst of us. I mean, what does St. Paul say? "Here is a trustworthy saying worthy of full acceptance: That Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and I am the chief of sinners." Throughout the Apostle's letters he makes an important point in not pointing the finger at others, that they are the worst of the worst; but rather always pointing at himself, he speaks of himself and calls himself the worst of the worst. It teaches us not to go around pointing fingers, saying, "Hey, check out that speck in your eye" even as we have this massive 2x4 stuck in our own. It doesn't let us say, "I thank you Lord that I am not like all these sinners here, especially that tax collector" but rather to say, "Lord, have mercy on me a sinner." I am the sinner who needs to repent. I am the sinner who needs grace. I am the sinner who confesses Christ and what Christ has done, and that if God loves me, He loves everyone.

True, but he also did confront sinners when he was an eyewitness to sin, remember he confronted Peter to his face when he was acting hypocritically toward Gentile believers.

vc: Yes, in the depravity of my flesh I absolutely think that not only does Hitler deserve the deepest and darkest parts of any conceivable hell, but the idea of that makes me happy. But rather than justifying that, let me grieve for feeling that way, for thinking that way. Lord, have mercy on me. Christ have mercy on me. Give me a clean heart, O God, and a contrite spirit, O Lord. That is how I should respond here. Again, the sin in my own eye, the hardness of my heart, the ways in which I fall short and need God's grace. To drown myself in repentance, and again give thanks to God who gives Himself to me so freely and kindly through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I agree we should not be happy if someone deserves hell and probably went there.

vc: May the Lord be merciful. May God show kindness. May it never be said that anyone is beyond redemption, that there is anything which the Lord cannot restore. Let it never be said that it is impossible for in that Eternal Day for even the darkest heart, the most staunchest sinner, the most craven traitor, the most heinous of any to be found in the bosom of Christ. And let us never fall into the error in thinking that it depends on us, for it has already been written, that "it is by grace that we have been saved, through faith, and this is not of ourselves, but is the gift of God, and not by works lest anyone should boast." It is Christ and Christ alone who saves. I believe there is far better reason, therefore, for hope than there is for despair.

-CryptoLutheran

Agreed.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Let's try a thought experiment. Say that two universes exist. Universe A has no life. No plants. No people. No god. Universe B has a planet earth with many humans living happy, prosperous, fulfilling lives. Now which universe is better? I prefer B. Can I objective prove that B is better? No. But I prefer B.

Now let's add another universe, Universe C. Universe C has plants, animals, people, and also God. Now let me ask you. Which is better, Universe A or Universe C. No doubt you will pick Universe C. But why? Because God prefers C? On what basis does God prefer C? Because it is best for him? But how can it be best for him? If all that existed was Universe A, there would be no God to say, "You know, I really wish I existed." But somehow your God prefers Universe C. How is that not "subjective"?

And so it is with me. I prefer a universe with life, with trees, with frogs, with whales, with people that are living happy, fulfilling, self-actualizing lives. The only way people can live prosperously in this planet is by cooperating with each other, each doing things for the other. And so, preferring the universe with happy campers, I willingly choose to help the other campers here achieve success. And they help me. We call that morality. I love humans. I love that kind of morality.

But you downplay the desire to help simply because I subjectively love people and want to help. You say that it needs to be based on what God says. But I am seeing nothing better in your morality. It is simply a list of commands, such as when and how a person can get sexual fulfillment, or when and how a person can have slaves. Follow the commands. Do what you are told. That is what I see in your morality.

I prefer my morality.

No, God's morality is not based on what He says, it is based on who He objectively is. He is the Good itself. And God's morality is built into the fabric of the universe itself just as His physical laws are. You see this in how if you deviate from His plan for sexuality there is a much higher probability of getting STDs, destroying your marriage, and etc. In addition, since we are made in His image, a universe without God could not contain personal beings, because only persons can produce the personal. So your analogy is flawed because universe B could not logically exist. There could be a universe B with lower forms of life but no God, but there could not be a universe with persons and no God.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ed: But are the reasons rational and objective especially now that "marriage" means the opposite of what it used to mean?

ia: It doesn't.

Yes, it does, marriage means combining two DIFFERENT people, ideas, objects, into one person, idea, or object.
↑

ed: According to our founding documents, especially the DOI, it is immoral. It says our nation was founded on the laws of Nature and the (laws) of Natures God. Homosexual behavior goes against both.

ia: First, what goes against God is of no concern to a secular society such as in the USA, whether "Nature's God" or any other. Secondly, how is homosexuality against the laws of nature?

We are not a secular society, if we were we would have done like the French did, change the calendar and have no reference to God at all in their founding documents even the date. The DOI is the philosophical rationale and basis for the Constitution which is the legal foundation of our nation. In addition, no secular nation would have as one of its first acts of Congress the printing and distribution of Bibles to the western part of the nation like our Congress did. And Thomas Jefferson had church services in the Capital building. It goes against the laws of human nature, for example why are all humans anatomically heterosexual?
↑

ed: When a man and a woman leave their parents and make a public lifelong commitment to each other, God considers them married.

ia: Well, that sounds reasonable enough. And when a man and a man, or a woman and a woman love each other very much, and want to make a lifelong commitment to each other, that's different because...they can't have babies?

They cannot be unified into a single personal reproductive unit, thereby reinforcing each other personally. Homosexual sex acts cannot do that. Homosexual behavior is a depersonalizing act.

ia: It would be nice if we could see a rational argument from you that wasn't (a) based on religious prejudice, or (b) echoing arguments against interracial marriage.

Most of my arguments have been based on biology, see above.

ia: What exactly is wrong with homosexuals marrying each other?

It's never been done before? So what?
They can't have babies? Irrelevant.

The potentiality of reproduction is very relevant to the survival of humanity.

ia: Gay sex is bad for you? The type of sex you have has nothing to do with whether you're married or not.

Exactly. Gay sex should be discouraged whether you are married or not.

ia: It'll be bad for society? Irrelevant.

It may be somewhat irrelevant for gays in the present and future since most will not have children, but the government needs to be concerned about the future of the society and for people with children it is relevant because the distant future is relevant for their children.

 

[doubtingmerle]

No, God's morality is not based on what He says, it is based on who He objectively is. He is the Good itself.

Ah, so God and Good are synonyms.

So it comes down to an argument about spelling. I think "good" should be spelled with two o's. You think it can be spelled with either one or two.

What we agree on is that we both think we should be good. Well, OK then, I suppose that is progress in reaching understanding.

You see this in how if you deviate from His plan for sexuality there is a much higher probability of getting STDs, destroying your marriage, and etc.

Ah, but if you deviate from the command to kill those of other religions that I read in Deuteronomy 13:6-11, your Hindu neighbor will have a much high chance of surviving, yes?

In addition, since we are made in His image, a universe without God could not contain personal beings, because only persons can produce the personal. So your analogy is flawed because universe B could not logically exist. There could be a universe B with lower forms of life but no God, but there could not be a universe with persons and no God.

Actually, I know of two ways to make persons:

1) Persons make persons.
2) Evolution makes persons.

​

 

[Ed1wolf]

What is your morality based on? How do you know what right and wrong is?

The objective moral character of God. And He has told us what is right and wrong in most situations. More complex moral decisions can be deduced from His moral principles and our God given moral conscience being improved by His Holy Spirit.

 

[Ed1wolf]

First the declaration of independence says nothing about needing to follow nature's God. Rather it says that nature and nature's God entitle us to pursue happiness however we want, and "That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." ( emphasis added) The preamble to the declaration is all about choosing governments that subjectively seem best to us. It is not about establishing governments that force people to obey your views on marriage. Have you ever read it? Declaration of Independence - Text of the Declaration of Independence

Yes, it says our rights come from the laws of Nature and (the laws) of Natures God (read some of their other writings to help understand what Jefferson meant). There is no right to marry from those sources even for heterosexuals. It does not say you can pursue happiness however you want. You are limited by other peoples rights and the laws of Nature and Natures God. Yes I have read the DOI.

dm: Second, lesbian acts are totally natural. I grew up on a dairy farm. I regularly saw female cows pleasuring each other when there was no bull around. Why do you say that is not natural?

No, not for humans. All humans are anatomically heterosexual. And humans are moral beings, animals are not. So there is no one to one match up between animal and human behavior. Unless you are willing to say it is also ok to rape people and kill and eat children as many animals do.