Where's God?

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf, let me make one thing absolutely clear. It is never the right outcome for a child to suffer sexual and physical abuse.

Period.

I agree completely. Only God can bring good out of evil.

dm; I cannot believe I need to explain this to you.

Well, you need to explain this to many of your atheist friends who are admirers of Alfred Kinsey.

dm: You wrote this in response to, "And thousands of children are sexually abused by adults. And God know that this is the right outcome for that particular person?"

And your response is that God knows that this is best for the child, because it will lead to the child's spiritual growth? You think he does things like allow abuse of children as a means of spiritual growth?

(Shaking my head in sorrow).

Yes, and possibly unimaginable good for others that we presently know nothing about. It is possible that by allowing that child to be abused would stop a nuclear holocaust or a genocide.

 

[Ed1wolf]

When I referred to "the right outcome for people" I was using your words, not mine. I would not usually use those words when discussing morality. What I was referring to was that outcome that is best for people (being free of crippling diseases, being free of sexual abuse, etc.) I should have put "the right outcome for people" in quotes.

You say that evolution involves suffering. Yes, I understand that. And it is precisely because of that suffering that morality is so important. Evolution is about the survival of the fittest. And a solitary human being without any benefits of society is not very fit. Even with the best of training in favorable conditions, few could live a prosperous life in complete isolation. Add an infant or two, and the task of keeping self and babies alive in the wild becomes almost impossible.

Other animals are much better at this. For instance, I just saw two baby deer and their mother out in the woods, easily maintaining their existence. That would be nearly impossible for a human.

Humans have huge brains that require great quantities of protein and energy. On their own, they are not very good at getting it. But when working in cooperation, oh what a difference that makes.

So as I explained to you before, the natural forces of evolution are against humans, causing suffering and death. But when humans help each other--we call this morality--it makes all the difference in the world.

Some evolutionists like the founder of Planned Parenthood feel that too much helping of unfit members of society weakens our chances for evolution to improve us to an even higher plane of existence. On what basis can you condemn such people? How do you know that you are not stifling natural selection by helping the unfit in society?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf, I wrote to you asking, "If God wants that person to suffer, can you give us a compelling reason why humans should work to stop the suffering that God wants?" In response you wrote:


Uh, when it comes to things like sexual abuse of children, we do know if it is good or not. The sexual abuse of children should never be allowed because it could bring about a greater good in a child. Surely your God would know that.

No it goes far beyond greater good in the child, theoretically it could have ramifications for nuclear holocausts, genocides or other horrific evils and even the ending of evil forever in the universe which is God's ultimate goal. Only God knows all the ramifications. Also, He has to let evil people have free will to choose to do evil. So in a universe with free will beings evil things will happen. It would be similar to a woman being raped by a man with a nuclear bomb and hair trigger switch attached to his back on a street in NY. A cop would have to let the man rape the woman in order to save millions of lives.

dm: But let's suppose that what you say is true, that God sees the abuse and stands back, because he knows the abuse is leading to ultimate good. Then, in spite of the fact that God steps back, you recommend people should work to stop it. If it turns out God has no purpose in the abuse, then good, they were on the right side. If God was allowing the abuse in order to create a greater good, well in that case, they are working against God's purpose--in the view you express here--but somehow that is still good.

No, God's purpose is for us to have spiritual growth so by trying to stop the abuse you are growing spiritually, God will take care of the rest. He will make sure the outcome is always the right one.

dm: If being abused is in the child's best interest, how can it be good to work against the child's best interest? (I find it very difficult to even write that question. But that is the kind of question one must ask when talking to someone who believes children have suffered abuse because that was ultimately in their best interest.)

It is not just in the child's best interest see above. It is also in the person who is helping the child's best interest to help the child as I stated above.

dm: "Because we are commanded" to do so. That is what it keeps coming down to with you. We are commanded to do things. Therefore we should do them. The thing we are commanded to do may be ultimately best for people or it may be for their eventual harm. It does not matter. We should just be quiet and do what we are told. That is the morality you express in this post, and in several previous posts.

No, you are free to question what God does, remember what Abraham did? He would enjoy the conversation. But as I stated earlier, a mature true Christian obeys God out of love for people and God not out of a pure sense of duty.

dm: I say to do good because it is good for people. We should try to stop sexual abuse, because it is good to stop it. We should try to cure people with COVID, because it is good to cure them.

Do we always understand perfectly what is best for people? No, of course not. For instance, is it better to protect a child from allergens, or expose him to things to build up his immunity? Our knowledge may be imperfect, but we do the best we can with what we know. And we always try to understand things better.

So again, my morality says do good because it is best for people when we do good. You say do good, because we are commanded to do so. That is the difference.

No, see above.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I agree completely.

Rewind.

I wrote to you and asked: And thousands of children are sexually abused by adults. And God know that this is the right outcome for that particular person? And you said yes. You specifically stated that sexual abuse was the best outcome for that child. Now You say no. Why did you say yes when you meant no?

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes, and possibly unimaginable good for others that we presently know nothing about. It is possible that by allowing that child to be abused would stop a nuclear holocaust or a genocide.

You wrote this in response to my question, "And your response is that God knows that this is best for the child, because it will lead to the child's spiritual growth? You think he does things like allow abuse of children as a means of spiritual growth?"

So when you say yes, you are saying that God thinks sexual abuse is a means of spiritual growth for that child.

No. No. No. No. No.

Sexual abuse is not good for children.

Sexual abuse does not being spiritual growth.

Sexual abuse is not good for that particular child as you stated earlier.

Thousands of children suffer sexual abuse. And now you say maybe it is ok sometimes because it would stop a nuclear war?

How can that possibly be a justification for sexual abuse?

 

[Ed1wolf]

In the meantime millions of people have suffered abuse while god just looks on. No bother, he will just fix it later. These people still suffered abuse. Sick!

In order to destroy evil forever, apparently He had to create a primarily natural law universe, with free will beings. In such a universe, such things will happen. But at least their suffering is not meaningless as it is in an atheistic universe.

 

[Ed1wolf]

'
ed: Fraid not
.
ia: 'Fraid so.

He purposely ignored all the verses I quoted that demonstrated that non hebrews were to be treated just like Hebrews. So he was guilty of taking verses out of context.
↑

ed: 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.

ia: 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 rational objective foundation for morality for atheists and secular humanists. In order to make a good law that will stand the test of time and reasoning, then you need to have an objective foundation for it. I have already read about some women going thru the legal processes of marrying their dog in other countries, so it has already started. Somebody could claim they are a dog whisperer and claim that they did get consent. If a man can claim to be a woman just because he feels like he is one, someone can certainly make this claim and probably get a serious hearing.
↑

ed: 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.

ia: 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.

See above.
↑

ed: Almost all laws are based on a religion or philosophy.

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

Nevertheless a true statement and why Christians have just as much a right to get laws passed that concur with their religious beliefs as secular humanists do to have laws that concur with their philosophies.
↑

ed: 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.

ia: 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.

No, we are a theistic nation, Unitarian to be precise. Jefferson wrote that our laws are based on the two sets of law referenced in the DOI. And that our rights come from that God.
↑

ia: 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.

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

As I demonstrated earlier, no one has the RIGHT to marry. If that were true, the government would have to provide a spouse for everyone that wants to marry. It requires consent from another person. So it cannot be a right. It is privilege that you earn from another person of the opposite sex. But biological marriage should be encouraged by the government because only it can produce and raise children in an optimum manner which the society needs to maintain its existence and survival.
↑

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

In order to destroy evil forever, apparently He had to create a primarily natural law universe, with free will beings. In such a universe, such things will happen. But at least their suffering is not meaningless as it is in an atheistic universe.

Notice you say “apparently”. You don’t know. And yes suffering is ultimately meaningless that is why I do what I can in this life to reduce suffering. It is not meaningless to people who suffer or people that love them however. You seem to think that since my car will ultimately not exist it is meaningless to me now. That is false. I don’t care what is ultimately meaningless I care what is meaningful now.

You think suffering is all part of God’s plan. If so, your god is immoral.

Also, you did not respond to my post 270.

 

[Ed1wolf]

'
ed: ↑and why society is concerned with that function because otherwise the society may not endure.

ia: 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.

Who said continuation of the species? A society is concerned about the continuation of itself because it is considers itself special and in the case of the US it is very special. Many Western societies are barely reproducing at replacement level. And also a society wants the best production of children. They want the biological parents to raise the child, science has shown this to be the best. Having gays marry results in taking children from their biological parents if the gays want to have children. And then of course, there is the problem of homosexual behavior being connected to mental and physical illnesses as I demonstrated with my study from JAMA.

ia: 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?

Again see above.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Having gays marry results in taking children from their biological parents if the gays want to have children. And then of course, there is the problem of homosexual behavior being connected to mental and physical illnesses as I demonstrated with my study from JAMA.

Ah, so you are not a Libertarian? You appear to be in favor of Big Brother determining who we can marry, who can raise children, what activities we must do to maintain our health, etc.

I personally prefer to do what is in the Declaration of Independence. It says we are free to choose whatever government we feel best effects our safety and happiness.

And sorry, living under the totalitarian government you describe is not what I feel would be best for my happiness. Others may like Big Brother intruding into personal decisions, but that is not for me.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

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

All people are different.

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?

The USA is a secular nation for the simple reason that it does not endorse any one sect. The minor instances you point out are simple that: minor errors.
Turn the question back on you: if the USA is a Christian state, then why do we still worship the Norse and Roman gods in our calendar?
And what is "why are human beings anatomically heterosexual" mean?

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.

I'm afraid that's just your opinion. Any reasonable person can see that homosexual relationships are quite capable of reinforcing each other personally without being depersonalising acts.
Again, what a horrible thing to say for heterosexual couples incapable of having babies. They are unable to become a "single reproductive unit" (awww! How romantically you put it!) and so their sex is a depersonalizing act.

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

Your arguments certainly are based on biology, and that is why they are nonsense.

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

The survival of humanity is not in any danger.

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

You are free to believe that if you wish. Fortunately, we live in a secular society where neither your religious views nor your irrational arguments matter.

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.

That's plainly not true, since - as I've pointed out a number of times now - the government takes no interest at all in whether or not a couple can have babies.
It is an appalling idea that the government would be able to forbid a couple of consenting adults to marry each other based on whether or not they were capable of having babies, but that's what you're advocating. If, and only if, the two people concerned are heterosexual.

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.

Ever heard of Euthyphro's Dilemma?
It goes something like this:
How does God know what good is?
Is it innate to His moral character?
Or is there a source of morality outside Him that He simple informs us of.

He purposely ignored all the verses I quoted that demonstrated that non hebrews were to be treated just like Hebrews. So he was guilty of taking verses out of context.

No, he didn't and wasn't. It's just that you took unwarranted conclusions from those verses.

Nevertheless a true statement and why Christians have just as much a right to get laws passed that concur with their religious beliefs as secular humanists do to have laws that concur with their philosophies.

Cool. Do Muslims get the same right to have laws passed according to their religion? Do Satanists?

No, we are a theistic nation, Unitarian to be precise. Jefferson wrote that our laws are based on the two sets of law referenced in the DOI. And that our rights come from that God.

Do they? How nice for you. But completely irrelevant.

As I demonstrated earlier, no one has the RIGHT to marry. If that were true, the government would have to provide a spouse for everyone that wants to marry. It requires consent from another person. So it cannot be a right. It is privilege that you earn from another person of the opposite sex. But biological marriage should be encouraged by the government because only it can produce and raise children in an optimum manner which the society needs to maintain its existence and survival.

I'm glad to hear you admit that a marriage requires consent. And no, it is not a right for every person to be married. But it is the right for any two consenting adults to be married if they wish to. And that is the right that you would deny them.
There's a huge difference between a government encouraging families to produce babies and forbidding people to get married because they are incapable of having babies. We've gone round this a number of times before, and you're still where you were before: stuck, trying to claim that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't produce children, while maintaining that this doesn't apply to heterosexual couples that can't produce children.

Who said continuation of the species?

You did.

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

A society is concerned about the continuation of itself because it is considers itself special and in the case of the US it is very special.

Well, apparently society isn't concerned about it. It's rather more concerned with the idea that it's a horrible ethical wrong to prevent two consenting adults who love each other from getting married. Good for it.

Many Western societies are barely reproducing at replacement level. And also a society wants the best production of children. They want the biological parents to raise the child, science has shown this to be the best. Having gays marry results in taking children from their biological parents if the gays want to have children. And then of course, there is the problem of homosexual behavior being connected to mental and physical illnesses as I demonstrated with my study from JAMA.

None of that makes the least sense. Nobody is taking children away from their biological parents to give to gay couples, except for the normal principles of adoption, in which a child is placed with foster parents because their own are dead or in some way unable to care for them. And even if we grant your extremely dubious premise that homosexuality is linked to mental and physical illness, so what? Mental and physical illness does not prevent heterosexual couples from getting married.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Ah, so you are not a Libertarian? You appear to be in favor of Big Brother determining who we can marry, who can raise children, what activities we must do to maintain our health, etc.

I personally prefer to do what is in the Declaration of Independence. It says we are free to choose whatever government we feel best effects our safety and happiness.

And sorry, living under the totalitarian government you describe is not what I feel would be best for my happiness. Others may like Big Brother intruding into personal decisions, but that is not for me.

Ah, but it's not really totalitarianism, is it?
All of these appalling human rights violations would only apply to gay people. Ed's not a monster, after all.

 

[BigV]

The objective moral character of God. And He has told us what is right and wrong in most situations.

Well, and what we do find, is that it's better not to have an objective moral standard when the one given by God, requires death penalty for petty offenses! Old Testament moral standard was so bad, Jesus himself ended up not relying on it!

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

I am not so sure it would be that easy for you. It would be similar to being on a life raft from the Titanic and you get separated from your friends and family. At first you think they might be on another raft, then you see them still on the deck as the ship sinks into the sea. Are you saying you would have no desire to jump in the water and swim toward the ship to join your friends and family? The raft and its journey to rescue represents heaven, while the sinking Titanic represents hell.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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

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

Most people that commit suicide are only thinking about themselves, he probably did it out of self pity. I dont think he thought about Jesus at all. If he truly repented, he would have ran to authorities and told them he made mistake and that Jesus was a good man and should not be arrested and executed. I dont know for certain what happened to him after death. But I do know that God is just and whatever happened to him after death was done justly by God.

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

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

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

3 days of eternal like suffering.

 

[doubtingmerle]

3 days of eternal like suffering.

so he had a really bad weekend. That's equivalent?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I am not so sure it would be that easy for you. It would be similar to being on a life raft from the Titanic and you get separated from your friends and family. At first you think they might be on another raft, then you see them still on the deck as the ship sinks into the sea. Are you saying you would have no desire to jump in the water and swim toward the ship to join your friends and family? The raft and its journey to rescue represents heaven, while the sinking Titanic represents hell.

Let's change the scenario, to make it a better analogy for being given a choice, in full knowledge, between heaven and hell. Imagine you're on the edge of a volcano. You see your friends and family jump into the volcano to be burned alive, and you also see a path leading down the mountain towards where other people are living in safety.
Do you seriously think I would jump over the edge of the volcano?
I have to tell you: I wouldn't.
And if I knew that heaven and hell were real, and if I were given a choice between them, of course I'd go to heaven.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Most people that commit suicide are only thinking about themselves,

How could you possibly claim to know such a thing? The arrogance takes my breath away.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑ed: 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.

cw: 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.

I would hardly call having sex a fundamental part of who a person is. There is much more to life than sex. Many people go thru their whole lives without having sex with anyone and live a perfectly fulfilling and happy life. I have known many of such people.

cw: 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.

That is partially correct it does state the principles on which our government and our identity is based including on the laws of Nature and the (laws) of Natures God. But it is also part of our legal code. The United States Code Annotated includes it under the heading "The Organic Laws of the United States of America". It has also been referenced many times in many cases by SCOTUS as part of the law of the US as well.

ed: 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.

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

The government provides you with the right it is up to you to act on it. But marriage requires consent from another person. Buying a gun does not. Marriage is a privilege that you earn from another person, you dont have a right to require them to marry you.

ed: 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.

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

It is not a right as I have shown above. And also it is historical fact that the founders wanted the states to handle marriage not the federal government. So at the very least the SCOTUS overstepped its bounds, it should have left the decision up to the states.

ed: 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.

cw: 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..."

No, they would have never signed the documents if they had been incompatible with Christianity. Actually freedom of religion and conscience is a Christian principle. The first five commandments dealt with religious practice, the second five deal with our relationship to men. We learn in the NT religious practice is not part of the duties of government. Christ and the disciples are our examples and they never forced anyone to convert. Christ said if someone rejects your message then just shake the dirt off your shoes and move on. The second five are still in effect, because they are part of Gods moral law and all humans are still accountable to those.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I would hardly call having sex a fundamental part of who a person is. There is much more to life than sex. Many people go thru their whole lives without having sex with anyone and live a perfectly fulfilling and happy life. I have known many of such people.

I never said this at all. I said that your sexual orientation and gender are a fundamental part of who you are.

That is partially correct it does state the principles on which our government and our identity is based including on the laws of Nature and the (laws) of Natures God. But it is also part of our legal code. The United States Code Annotated includes it under the heading "The Organic Laws of the United States of America". It has also been referenced many times in many cases by SCOTUS as part of the law of the US as well.

Citations please.

The government provides you with the right it is up to you to act on it. But marriage requires consent from another person. Buying a gun does not. Marriage is a privilege that you earn from another person, you don't have a right to require them to marry you.

This is not what you said. Now you are changing your stance. You said that because marriage is a right the government needs to provide you with a spouse if you want one. Go back and read what you wrote.

It is not a right as I have shown above. And also it is historical fact that the founders wanted the states to handle marriage not the federal government. So at the very least the SCOTUS overstepped its bounds, it should have left the decision up to the states.

The SCOTUS has said it is a right and affirmed that at least 14 times as I showed. I gave all the cases. Go look for yourself. You don't seem to understand that the what the founders thought does not matter if the SCOTUS ruled differently. They wrote into the constitution our ability to change it as we go.

No, they would have never signed the documents if they had been incompatible with Christianity.

I never said it was incomparable with Christianity. You are a straw-man machine and it is getting tiring.

Actually freedom of religion and conscience is a Christian principle.

Nope. God says you shall have no other gods before you, Jesus says you must believe in him or else.

The first five commandments dealt with religious practice, the second five deal with our relationship to men. We learn in the NT religious practice is not part of the duties of government. Christ and the disciples are our examples and they never forced anyone to convert. Christ said if someone rejects your message then just shake the dirt off your shoes and move on. The second five are still in effect, because they are part of Gods moral law and all humans are still accountable to those.

Give me good reason to believe any of this.