Where's God?

[mmksparbud]

Instead of playing Where's Waldo, let's play Where's God. In the picture below, where's God?

Didn't you get the memo? This country has done away with Him. They took Him off our money, they do not want His laws displayed anywhere, they do not want Him mentioned in public speeches, taught to children in school, ---just as the French did. What happened there? Same thing that is happening here now. Why are you looking for something everybody voted out of their lives? He is accessed by individuals in their search for Him. By groups who want Him, and countries who want Him.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Didn't you get the memo? This country has done away with Him. They took Him off our money, they do not want His laws displayed anywhere, they do not want Him mentioned in public speeches, taught to children in school, ---just as the French did. What happened there? Same thing that is happening here now. Why are you looking for something everybody voted out of their lives? He is accessed by individuals in their search for Him. By groups who want Him, and countries who want Him.

You've heard of the ninth commandment?

 

[mmksparbud]

You've heard of the ninth commandment?

OK---I'll bite---what is it?

 

[Tinker Grey]

OK---I'll bite---what is it?

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

 

[mmksparbud]

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

I thought yuu were going to come up with something clever.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I thought yuu were going to come up with something clever.

I think he did.

 

[mmksparbud]

I think he did.

I don't.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

These come from Christ's example He never forced anyone to convert and neither did His disciples. He said if someone rejects your message then just shake the dirt off you shoes and walk away. Paul debated Greek philosophers at Mars Hill. So he recognized Free speech. He didnt try to stop them from speaking.

cw: Freedom of the press. It says nothing.

I agree.

cw: Freedom to petition the government. It says nothing.

I agree.

cw: Not to have soldiers quartered in my house. It says nothing.

This is covered by You shall not steal, because they are basically confiscating your house.

cw: Right to a Grand Jury. It says nothing.

I agree.

cw: Right to not be owned by another person. Bible says the opposite.

No, see my earlier posts where I demonstrated only voluntary servitude is allowed except for POWs and criminals.

cw: Right to vote without a tax. The bible says nothing.

I agree. Though you might could make an argument that when the church elders and deacons were elected, they were freely chosen. The founders may have used that idea.

cw: 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.

The Founders believed they did because they knew that other wise they did not have a rational and objective foundation and therefore could be more easily taken away by debate. But if they could show that it was rational that they came from the Creator the government would be less likely to take them away. I never said that ALL of the rights in the Bill of Rights come from the bible but the most important and foundational ones do.

 

[Ed1wolf]

↑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.

ia: "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.

See my post to Clizby above. Christ and His disciples never forced anyone to convert.
↑

ed: 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.

ia: 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.

Yes, it does. Atheists generally prefer political theories that are materialistic like communism, secular humanism, and fascism.
↑

ed: 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.

ia: 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.

No, Christ said render unto Caesar what is Caesars and unto God what is Gods. In this He was talking about religious duty, not moral law. As seen in Pauls letter to the Romans governments were still required to follow His moral laws and enforce them.

 

[Ed1wolf]

"
ia: 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.

Apparently, in order to destroy evil forever which is Gods goal, it has to be accomplished thru a free will and primarily natural law universe like ours, which cannot last trillions of years and continue to support free will personal beings. So the decision must be made in your lifetime, afterwards it is too late. A decision made in the next realm will not destroy evil forever.

ia: 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.

↑No, I provided mostly scientific arguments that you have yet to refute and then I demonstrated that our founding documents are not secular. So I am afraid so far none of my arguments against it have been refuted.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

​

No, Christ's death took away the death penalty for all crimes except murder. This was only under the Old Covenant because Israel was held to a higher standard. After the coming of Christ He put us under greater mercy and grace. Christ and His disciples never forced anyone to convert, they were free to believe and preach whatever they want. Also, Paul debated the Greeks at Mars Hill and never told them they had no right to speak about their beliefs. And he tried to persuade them with words not force.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

It says in the first paragraph our station in life is determined by the Laws of Nature and (Laws) of Natures God. Station includes everything about us including our behavior. This comes from Locke when he said human laws should be judged by two rules, the laws of Nature and the Law of God. This is found in Book 11 page 136.

dm: 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.

Not exactly, it says choose a government that will secure the rights given to us by God. And when a government starts going against Gods principles then it is the right of the people to abolish it and start new government back on the laws and principles that God has given us.

dm: 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.

Christ never said kill unbelievers, that was Muhammad. He said if they reject the gospel just shake the dirt off your feet and walk on.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

Not exactly, He is the personification of good.

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

Yes, but only Christians have a rational objective standard for goodness, you dont. Your morality is based on what makes you feel good.

dm: 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?

See above where I refuted this interpretation.

dm: Actually, I know of two ways to make persons:

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

Yes, except no. 1 has been empirically observed for 2 million years. No. 2 has never been empirically observed.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I don't.

I think it was the way we have a Christian on the internet saying he doesn't know what the Ninth Commandment was.

 

[mmksparbud]

I think it was the way we have a Christian on the internet saying he doesn't know what the Ninth Commandment was.

You misunderstood---and I misunderstood. I know what it is---being an atheist, I really thought he was going to come up with some clever little twist or something far more creative than what it actually says! Silly me.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

You misunderstood---and I misunderstood. I know what it is---being an atheist, I really thought he was going to come up with some clever little twist or something far more creative than what it actually says! Silly me.

Oh well,it wouldn't be kind to take this further.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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?

From a human perspective all we know is that we should stop the abuse of all children, that is what we are commanded to do and what we should do. Everything else is up to God.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

How do you know this? Especially given that you dont even think the spiritual world exists.

dm: 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?

Uhh if there is a nuclear war, there is a high probability that child and all his relatives will die. Which is worse sexual abuse or death? I think the child and his family would choose the abuse, although horrific, at least he will live and he can with God's help overcome any issues associated with the abuse.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Notice you say “apparently”. You don’t know.

We dont know for certain, but given that is the kind of universe we live in and that is the kind of God that probably exists, then it is the most rational answer.

cw: 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.

Many people think that because it is ultimately meaningless then why care about others, why not just have as much pleasure as you can until you die? Since it is meaningless you have no rational basis for condemning or trying to change someone that thinks like that.

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

How do you know?

cw: Also, you did not respond to my post 270.

I did, unless it got deleted by the moderator. He deleted several of my posts. Not sure exactly why.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

No not a libertarian. The ideal government is freedom within form, not complete freedom to do immoral things that have an impact on the health of others and damage society. The DOI actually says that the best government is a government whose principles are based on the Laws of Nature and the laws of Natures God. A Judeo-Christian government is freedom with form.