• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Where's God?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
893
56
Texas
✟124,923.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
These come from Christ's example He never forced anyone to convert and neither did His disciples.
If you believe what Jesus says that is not a free choice. I would pretend to worship and love Jesus if I knew if I did not I would be eternally tortured.

This is covered by You shall not steal, because they are basically confiscating your house.
This is not the reason the 3rd amendment was written. This is ridiculous.

No, see my earlier posts where I demonstrated only voluntary servitude is allowed except for POWs and criminals.
No, I provided ALL the verse about slavery you only cherry pick the ones that support this position. You are demonstrably wrong here.

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.
Until you can remove the word "may" from your statement, I do not believe this is the case.

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.
You actually did say they all came form God but no matter. You make a lot of assertions without backing them up with any evidence. Can you back this assertion up?

Also, I want to point out that our current law is not based solely on what the founders thought. It is based on what they wrote down. The DOI as I have provided evidence for is not binding law and we base our current law on precedent as well. Would you like to live in a country where all the laws were based on Muslim ideas?
 
Upvote 0

Clizby WampusCat

Well-Known Member
Jul 8, 2019
3,657
893
56
Texas
✟124,923.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
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.
You need to support your assertion that a God probably exists.

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.
I know of almost no one that does not care about anyone else. Also, I do have a rational justification for thinking that way of living is wrong. But thanks for telling me what I believe again.

How do you know?
How do I know what? If suffering is part of Gods plan or that God is immoral?

I did, unless it got deleted by the moderator. He deleted several of my posts. Not sure exactly why.
You did after I reminded you. I am not accusing you of anything. It was just a reminder.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No, Christ's death took away the death penalty for all crimes except murder.
That's a stretch from what the NT says.

Even if true, how does this eliminate the free speech issue raised by the command in Deuteronomy to kill people who say things the author did not like? When you tell me that Jesus reduced the punishment from "kill them" to something less, that does not negate that the verse is clearly against free speech.


This was only under the Old Covenant because Israel was held to a higher standard.
How can commanding people to kill those who recommend a different religion be a higher standard? That sounds like a lower standard to me.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It says in the first paragraph our station in life is determined by the Laws of Nature and (Laws) of Natures God.
The first paragraph of the DOI says countries are entitled "to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them". It is talking about countries setting themselves up as equal countries to other countries.

Where does it say we need to follow a particular book that some say was written by God?
Not exactly.
Uh, actually what I gave you was exact. It was an exact quote of the DOI. It was the pure, unadulterated words of Jefferson. Why do you say it is not exactly?

The DOI says "the people" are entitled 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] Now you want to change the words "to them" into "to God" but that is simply not what Jefferson wrote.




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.
If it seems best to the people to have theocracy, then yes, the DOI encourages them to choose theocracy. But if they want something different, the DOI says they may choose whatever government to them seems best.
Christ never said kill unbelievers, that was Muhammad.
Ah, but "Moses" did command killing those who teach another religion. I quoted the verses to you.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yes, except no. 1 has been empirically observed for 2 million years. No. 2 has never been empirically observed.

You are moving the goal posts.

You had said

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. [emphasis added]

This was your claim, that it was impossible for humans to come into existence without God. When I pointed out to you that there actually is a possible path to create humans without God (evolution), all you can come up with is that nobody personally observed all 2 million years of human evolution. Of course not! Nobody has lived 2 million years.

So how does the fact that nobody has lived 2 million years prove that it is impossible for humans to evolve?
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Not exactly, He is the personification of good.
Do you have an answer that does not involve arguing in a circle?

If I ask you what is good, will you tell us it is that which God says? When I ask you where God gets his ideas, will you say he chooses what is good? Is it all one big circle?

What does your morality sit on? It looks to me that it is like a planet that is built on turtles, all the way down.
Yes, but only Christians have a rational objective standard for goodness, you dont. Your morality is based on what makes you feel good.
No, my morality is not based on what makes me feel good. I have wrote extensively about morality in this thread. Care to quote back what I have actually told you?


See above where I refuted this interpretation.
All I see is the post where you ignored the obvious, that Deuteronomy 13:6-11 is commanding the killing of people who say something the author does not like.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
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.

You are writing this in response to a repeat of a specific question. You had written that sexual abuse is the right outcome for some particular children. That is a horrible, horrible thing to say. It is never the "right outcome" for children that they are in a state of sexual abuse. I wrote and asked for clarification. You hedged. So I replied with:

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?
Which seems to me like this is a very important question for you to answer. Why, when I asked you if you think sexual abuse was the right outcome for some children, did you say yes?

And yet again, when I ask for your clarification, all you can do is say we are commanded not to abuse children.

Again, not only is sexual abuse illegal, it is a horrible thing to happen to children. So why did you write and say that sexual abuse is the right outcome for some children?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
How do you know this? Especially given that you dont even think the spiritual world exists.
You write this in response to my assertion, "Sexual abuse is not good for children."

Everybody knows that sexual abuse is not good for children. It leaves permanent emotional and physical scars. It is demeaning and hurtful. It can lead to death and disease. It is wrong.

So I find it really odd that you think you need to ask me how I know that sexual abuse is not good for children.

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.

Sir, there are thousands of cases of sexual abuse. Saying that maybe God allows it in a certain case because it was the only way to avoid a nuclear war is a very, very odd answer.

First, wouldn't an all powerful God be able to come up with a solution that avoided both the abuse and the nuclear war?

Second, even if allowing the abuse to occur was the only way to avoid nuclear war for one particular case, what about all the other cases of abuse?
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
ed: 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?

ia: 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.
Thomas Jefferson the author of the DOI and major contributor to the Founding would make an error like that? If the nation was completely secular and he knew it, those would be MAJOR errors.

ia: 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?
Who worships them? No significant number of people worship them but millions including most of the founders worshipped the Lord. And it is far more than just the naming of days, His birthday is hinge of history.

ia: And what is "why are human beings anatomically heterosexual" mean?
Our anatomy is part of our nature, homosexual behavior goes against human nature.

ed: 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: 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.
How? It cannot unify two persons like sexual intercourse can.

ia: 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.
No, I said nothing about the product, I am referring to the act itself. According to biologists they are still a unified reproductive unit irrespective of fertility.
.
ed; Most of my arguments have been based on biology, see above.

ia: Your arguments certainly are based on biology, and that is why they are nonsense.
So you consider biology nonsense?

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

ia: The survival of humanity is not in any danger.
Well it is very relevant to certain nations and societies. Most of Europe is not reproducing at replacement levels. Their leaders are requesting their people to have more babies.

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

ia: 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.

You have yet to demonstrate my arguments are irrational. Things may change in the future, nobody thought Trump would get elected president of the US and nobody thought Brexit would pass.

ed: 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.

ia: 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.
Many nations like Germany are encouraging couples to have babies because they are having them at less than replacement level.

ia: 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.
That is not the only reason, as I have demonstrated above, it is also concern for the health of the people engaging in the behavior. Gay couples have higher rates of domestic violence and mental and physical illnesses.

ed: 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.

ia: 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 is the Good itself, upon which morality is based, thereby making it objective.

ed: 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.

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

ed: 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.

ia: Cool. Do Muslims get the same right to have laws passed according to their religion? Do Satanists?
Yes, as long as they dont violate the Constitution and the DOI.

ed: 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: Do they? How nice for you. But completely irrelevant.
No, the DOI is part of the American legal code and the philosophical foundation of the Constitution as I demonstrated to Clizby. So any law passed that violates those principles contained in the DOI should be ruled unConstitutional by SCOTUS. Such as gay marriage.

ed: 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.

ia: 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.
Where does that right come from? You cannot just make up rights, that is what Hitler did.

ia: 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.

No, I said they cannot unify two persons to reinforce personhood. I also said that the behavior causes many health problems and domestic abuse.

ed: Who said continuation of the species?

ia: You did.
Well Scientific American said if it were not for heterosexual monogamous couples (biological marriage) our ancestors would not have survived.

ed: 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.
See above.

ed: 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: 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.
Yes they are with surrogacy and other artificial techniques.

ia: 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.
Heterosexual rates are much lower.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟102,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Thomas Jefferson the author of the DOI and major contributor to the Founding would make an error like that? If the nation was completely secular and he knew it, those would be MAJOR errors.
In the first secular nation in the world? One composed almost entirely of people of the Christian faith? In which the idea of secularism was still developing? Nonsense. Of course these were minor issues.

Who worships them? No significant number of people worship them but millions including most of the founders worshipped the Lord. And it is far more than just the naming of days, His birthday is hinge of history.
You're the one who said that a secular society would have eradicated all mention of Christianity in the calendar. Does the retention of the Norse gods prove that they were pagans at heart? These were - and are - simply cultural associations that they had no mind to do away with.
Our anatomy is part of our nature, homosexual behavior goes against human nature.
How? In what way is homosexuality against human nature?
How? It cannot unify two persons like sexual intercourse can.
I said: Any reasonable person can see that homosexual relationships are quite capable of reinforcing each other personally without being depersonalising acts.
And this is obviously true. We all know homosexual couples who love each other deeply. Saying that their sexual love for each other is "depersonalising" is nothing more than your objective, and rather objectionable, personal opinion.
No, I said nothing about the product, I am referring to the act itself. According to biologists they are still a unified reproductive unit irrespective of fertility.

So you consider biology nonsense?
No, I consider your arguments to be nonsense because of the mistaken way you invoke biology to justify them.
Well it is very relevant to certain nations and societies. Most of Europe is not reproducing at replacement levels. Their leaders are requesting their people to have more babies.
But are their leaders forbidding couples from having babies if they have low chances of doing so, no chance of doing so or a stated intention against doing so? Are they even investigating these things?
Of course not. And so your argument falls to the ground. Not being able to have babies - or, if you prefer, "be unified into a single personal reproductive unit, thereby reinforcing each other personally" is no grounds for fobidding heterosexual people from marrying, and nor should it be for homosexuals.
You have yet to demonstrate my arguments are irrational. Things may change in the future, nobody thought Trump would get elected president of the US and nobody thought Brexit would pass.
As you often say: see above. And above that too, because I've frequently shown your arguments to be irrational.
Many nations like Germany are encouraging couples to have babies because they are having them at less than replacement level.
See above.
That is not the only reason, as I have demonstrated above, it is also concern for the health of the people engaging in the behavior. Gay couples have higher rates of domestic violence and mental and physical illnesses.
And - even granting this rather shaky premise - why should that be grounds for not letting them marry?
He is the Good itself, upon which morality is based, thereby making it objective.
But that just moves the dilemma one step backward. It hasn't removed it or resolved it. Okay, so God is Goodness itself. In that case, the same question can be posed. What does it mean to say that God's character is intrinsically good? Does it measure up against some external standard, or (as I believe you are saying) is goodness itself defined by God's character? If the latter, then I'm afraid goodness is meaningless, because God could say that anything was good - including acts that we would today consider to be evil - and, under your system of logic, they would be. How could we say any action of God was not good, if you define goodness as "whatever God does or says should be done?" Has God declared it to be good to be loving, merciful and kind? Well, what if tomorrow He changed his mind and declared it to be good to be cruel, unjust and malicious? On what grounds could you possibly object or disagree?
You might say that God would never do such a thing. But why not, if there's no external standard against which goodness can be measured?
And so we see that saying "God is goodness" means that goodness has no meaning at all.
Already answered.
Yes, as long as they don't violate the Constitution and the DOI.
And supposing that Satanists decide to pass a law making Christianity illegal because they claim its presence infringes their religious freedoms? Supposing that Satanists pass a law saying that the Satanic writings must be taught in every school? Supposing Muslims passed a law that said that all American must become Muslims because it is the wish of Allah? Would that be okay with you?
No, the DOI is part of the American legal code and the philosophical foundation of the Constitution as I demonstrated to Clizby. So any law passed that violates those principles contained in the DOI should be ruled unConstitutional by SCOTUS. Such as gay marriage.
I'm afraid not. Remember, when the Declaration of Independence was written, women could not vote, and blacks were considered property and less than human. The rules have changed a lot over time, and it's good that they have. Gay marriage is just another example of this.
Where does that right come from? You cannot just make up rights, that is what Hitler did.
It's you who is making up rights. By what right do you prevent two people from having the thing they desire - a legally recognised marriage - when it harms nobody? By what right do you tell them they cannot do this thing?
No, I said they cannot unify two persons to reinforce personhood. I also said that the behavior causes many health problems and domestic abuse.
As I said: 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. Essentially, you're saying exactly that, just trying to put it in less offensive words.
Well Scientific American said if it were not for heterosexual monogamous couples (biological marriage) our ancestors would not have survived.
Sure they would have. They just wouldn't have reproduced.
But that's just nitpicking. I see what you mean, of course. Yes, if our forebears had not had children, our species would have come to an end. So what? Does this mean it's a requirement for every person to have one child? How about two, or three, just to be on the safe side? Now there's a slippery slope for you.
Your argument is not just faulty, it's unkind. Again: why should a couple not be allowed to marry just because they cannot produce children? You seem to have some strange idea that forbidding gay marriage will result in more babies. Do you imagine that, if not allowed to marry each other, gay's will immediately decide to go out and have heterosexual marriages and bear children?
Yes they are with surrogacy and other artificial techniques.
That works for my argument, not yours. They're not stealing children from heterosexual couples, who are still free to marry and breed as much as they wish. Indeed, if you're worried about the future of society, gay people adopting and having babies by various scientific means would seem to be a good thing.
Heterosexual rates are much lower.
As usual - so what? As I said, mental and physical illness does not prevent heterosexual couples from getting married, so why should they stop homosexual couples?
Also, have you considered that rates of homosexual mental and physical illnesses might be a good deal lower if it wasn't for a society that tells them they are unnatural and should never be allowed to have loving relationships?

Can I suggest that you listen to the Bible:

1 Corinthians 13:2 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

Your argument is not a loving one. It's an unkind one. Though you fathom all mysteries, yet your arguments mean nothing, for they are not spoken in love.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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!
Actually even in the OT not all capital crimes were automatically death. The judge could reduce the punishment to a fine in all cases except murder. Read Numbers 35:31. And under the New Covenant all death penalties were removed except murder. How do you know it was bad? As an atheist you dont really have a real objective definition of bad.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
so he had a really bad weekend. That's equivalent?
In addition, He was separated from the other members of the Trinity. A triunified being separated from the other members probably causes torturous experiences beyond our imagination.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
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.
No, your analogy fails, in an atheist world jumping in a volcano would mean no relationship with your family and friends at all in the future. Hell still may provide a future relationship with your family and friends and in addition, depending on what level of hell you all end up in, possibly a level that may not be much worse than present earth conditions.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
How could you possibly claim to know such a thing? The arrogance takes my breath away.
Knowing a few people that have committed suicide and finding out what their suicide notes said, they mostly talked about themselves and how things in life were affecting them not others. I know that is anecdotal but I think I read an article by a psychiatrist who also said that same thing. They become fixated on how things are affecting them and rarely think how their suicide will affect others like their children and spouse.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Site Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,969
2,521
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟532,270.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
In addition, He was separated from the other members of the Trinity. A triunified being separated from the other members probably causes torturous experiences beyond our imagination.
Sure sounds to me like you have three Gods.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,401
20,704
Orlando, Florida
✟1,503,127.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
How can a loving God watch what is going on in the ICUs, have the power to intervene, but instead just choose watching and comforting? That does not make sense to me.

I think the Christian viewpoint isn't that God is absent from such situations, but is radically present.

I can appreciate that things like compassion as displayed by the doctors and nurses sure seems to be divine, especially in a world that too often has ugliness and cruelty as the norm. But I don't necessarily see that as a closed case for Abrahamic religion.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
33,401
20,704
Orlando, Florida
✟1,503,127.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
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.

This really amounts to projection, in the end, and says more about Christians psyches than unbelievers.

Also, why should condemnation be the only basis for human motivation? Again, projection...
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟102,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, your analogy fails, in an atheist world jumping in a volcano would mean no relationship with your family and friends at all in the future. Hell still may provide a future relationship with your family and friends and in addition, depending on what level of hell you all end up in, possibly a level that may not be much worse than present earth conditions.
Gosh. You seem to know an awful lot about what goes on in hell. Where does all this knowledge come from?
And no, my analogy works just fine. First, because an analogy does not have to be identical to the situation it is being compared with - indeed, cannot be - and second because one would imagine that in hell you would not have much of a meaningful relationship with anyone except your torturers. Indeed, you'd probably spend the whole of your time there locked in a cell.

Again: what kind of person, offered a choice, in free and full knowledge, between infinite damnation and infinite salvation, would choose the former? Take my word for it: I wouldn't.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 4, 2006
3,868
1,065
.
✟102,547.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
In addition, He was separated from the other members of the Trinity. A triunified being separated from the other members probably causes torturous experiences beyond our imagination.
Really? Didn't seem to be that way. Jesus seemed to be handling it fine in the New Testament. No prolonged weeping spells or fits of depression. No "torturous experiences" that made it into the Bible. Indeed, the one time I can think of that He was upset was because He knew He was about to be killed. If He'd know that His "rough weekend" would end up being reunified as a triunified being, you'd think He'd been feeling happy about it - since his life up to then, according to you, had been a living hell.
 
Upvote 0

Ed1wolf

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2002
2,928
178
South Carolina
✟132,765.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
ed: 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: I never said this at all. I said that your sexual orientation and gender are a fundamental part of who you are.
Who you want to have sex with is not a fundamental part of who you are either for the same reasons I stated above. I agree that gender is, but we weren't talking about that.

ed: 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.
cw: Citations please.
United States Code Annotated Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc..

ed: 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.

cw: 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.
No, I said IF marriage is a right then the government would need to provide you with a spouse if you want one. But of course, they will not because it is not a right.

ed: 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.

cw: 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.
SCOTUS makes mistakes, like Dred Scott and Roe vs Wade. They can be wrong you know. There is absolutely no evidence in the Constitution and the DOI that gay or heterosexual marriage is a right. You cannot make up rights out of thin air, that is what Hitler did. I would hope you dont want to go down that road.

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

cw: I never said it was incomparable with Christianity. You are a straw-man machine and it is getting tiring.
Well if they had thought that the plain reading of the documents would allow gay marriage and abortion, they never would have signed it.

ed: Actually freedom of religion and conscience is a Christian principle.

cw: Nope. God says you shall have no other gods before you, Jesus says you must believe in him or else.
Yes, but Jesus said nothing about that belief being enforced by law. He said if you reject His message then He will just walk away. Christ and His disciples never pulled knife on someone to force them to accept the Christian faith. Yes, they taught that there would be consequences for rejecting the message in the next life but no consequences meted out by the government or themselves in this life. That is what freedom of religion is.

ed: 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.

cw: Give me good reason to believe any of this.
Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11, and Luke 9:5. Though if you dont believe the Bible, you probably wont accept these verses. Nevertheless this is Christian teaching.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.