No, it would be literally impossible for God to say that anything was good. He cannot go against His own moral character. And He has revealed to us what is good. Just as it is impossible for Him to violate logic, He cannot violate His own character.
In fact that very act of saying anything can be good would violate logic and His moral character because He would be lying.
And supposing God announced that lying was morally good? Or that raping children, torturing puppies and being unkind
was bad before, but is now good? You said that goodness is based upon God's character. Fine. But if so, anything He decides is good, is good. How would you contradict Him? Your saying, "He'd never do such a thing" or "it would contradict his message in the Bible" is not a logical argument, but a mere opinion. And saying God would not tell us to do evil because He is good is a flawed argument, because it's circular - and because, following what you say about God, as soon as God says something is good, it is.
You can't just say "it's not like that" or that you don't believe God would do such a thing. You have to provide a logical argument - or point out the flaw in mine.
Of course not, those would all violate the Constitution.
Yes. They would. And so would Christianity doing such things. Indeed, it does, as has been shown a number of times. While some violations in the early days of the USA (such as those you pointed out) may have been overlooked, the US constitution is quite clear that is the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion (as was explicitly stated in the Treaty of Tripoli).
You say that the USA is not a secular nation. But you're wrong. Do a search for "is the USA a secular nation" and you'll find the answer quickly enough, from sound and impartial sources:
What is a Secular State?
Read it, and you'll see that the USA is not even one of those countries which claim to be secular but are in fact partly religious (like the UK, or Armenia). The USA is a wholly secular state that includes a high proportion of religious citizens. It's as simple as that.
Not allowing women to vote, racism, and gay marriage are all actually violations of the DOIs principles even at the time, some of the founders racism just blinded them to it. The DOIs principles are founded on universal eternal principles that have never changed.
Can I point out, the Declaration of Independence us not the law of the United States. All it is is an announcement that the colonies of America have the right to be independent of Britain. The law of the United States is based on the Constitution. and that law is quite clear that women should be allowed to vote, that racism is wrong, and that gay people have the constitutional right to marry.
How do you know it is good that they have? You have no objective standard for what is good.
No, it looks like it's you who has no objective standard for good. Because your idea of what good is is based on a logical fallacy: "Good is what God says. Whatever he says is good, is." Therefore, if God were to say that evil is good, it would be. Therefore, good has no meaning.
I notice you didn't answer my question of where that right comes from, that is evidence that you did make it up.
Not at all. All people have the right to act as they see fit, unless there is good reason to prohibit that act in the overriding interests of society. If gay people wish to marry, then you need to show that there is an urgent need to override their rights. So far, you have failed to do so.
You say we've never done it before. Well, so what?
You say gay sex is harmful. Well, so what?
You say gay people can't have children. Well, so what?
You say gay people cannot become some mystical single unit of reproductive something-or-other. Well, first, you just made that up. Second, so what? As with all the rest of your arguments, why should they mean anything.
You say your arguments are based on biology. It's true, they are. It's not the biology I take issue with , it's the assertion that
because two gay people can't unite sexually to produce a child,
therefore they should not be allowed to marry.
It does harm people as I demonstrated earlier with scientific studies. It primarily hurts the ones engaged in the behavior.
No, I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated that. All you've done is shown that there is a correlation between homosexual behaviour and mental helath issues, not a causation. It seems much more likely that the
tendency of homosexuals to suffer from mental illnesses is due to the bigotry they experience from society.
But I also showed how society is harmed by allowing them to do this thing as well. Society has the right try to produce the ideal situation for the production and raising of children to maintain its future.
First, can you please tell me the post number where you showed how society is harmed by allowing gay people to marry? Because I don't recall you proving any such thing.
Secondly, while society certainly does have the right to
try to produce a better world - the right and the duty - it certainly does not have the right to infringe on the liberties of the individual, unless there is a pressing need to do so. There are certainly many people who make very poor parents, but society does not have the right to take their children away or forbid them to marry except in extreme circumstances.
We've covered all this before, really. You keep saying gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because of this or that reason, and in each case you're quite happy to let straight people marry. It sure looks like your opposition to gay marriage is based on nothing more than religious convictions, because you have nothing against straight infertile people marrying, or straight people with mental or physical health issues marrying, or straight people who would make very bad parents marrying. It looks like you just don't want gay people to marry for religious reasons, since your social, moral and scientific arguments are all flawed.
No, see my previous post above.
I did.
No, it goes beyond just surviving, it also produces flourishing and ultimately greater technologies. Only societies that place marriage on the high standard of biology have produced all the best things about Western Civilization including superior technologies. Western society as we know it would not exist if not for the judeo-christian understanding of marriage.
Sorry. That's just loose and specious reasoning. The successes of modern civilisation are due to men marrying women? I think historians might disagree with you, and have something to say about the Renaissance, the Enlightenmnent, the Industrial Revolution and other such factors.
How do you know it is unkind? You have no objective standard for what is kind or unkind.
Where do you get these ideas? Of course I do!
Definition of KIND
of a sympathetic or helpful nature
Kindness is when you see someone else in trouble and you wish to help them. And you are seeing people in trouble and not wishing to help them. God is quite clear. It doesn't matter how good your arguments are (even if they were logical and sensible). Without kindness, you are just like the man walking past the body in the ditch. If Jesus were alive today, he would probably retell that parable with a priest walking past a man who'd been beaten for being gay.
No, because children not raised by their biological parents are generally not as mentally and physically stable and cause many of our societal problems.
But children raised by a kind and loving homosexual couple have a much better chance of living happy, healthy lives than children raised by single parents. Therefore, homosexual couples adopting children with no parents is a boon to society, and to the children.
Because the heterosexual couples problems are generally not due to their heterosexuality, but for homosexuals it generally is the result of their behavior and orientation.
First, you haven't yet proved that. All you've shown is correlation, not causation. Second - and again - so what? It doesn't matter where the problems stem from. If we don't bar heterosexual people with mental issues from marrying and having children, there is no reason for us to bar homosexuals from doing so.
I know that is the argument but it is far from proven especially given what has happened with other oppressed groups.
What is love? As an atheist you dont have any real definition of what love is. You just have your opinion of what it is.
Again, of course I have a definition of what love is.
Definition of LOVE
: strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties maternal love for a child
(2)
: attraction based on sexual desire
: affection and tenderness felt by lovers After all these years, they are still very much in love.
(3)
: affection based on admiration,
benevolence, or common interests love for his old schoolmates
Well we know Christ taught there are different levels of hell depending on how serious the sins you committed.
Do we? Quotes, please?
I think you might be getting the Bible mixed up with Dante, a common misconception.
And we also know that God is going to create a new universe and world for those that die as believers, so it is likely that for unbelievers and the fallen angels he will create another parallel universe as an eternal punishment.
Do we know this? Again, references, please?
And given God's perfect justice some people that were morally very good people on earth will only have a relatively mild punishment and be able to interact with fellow hell sufferers if they are in the same level, as compared to evil dictators and murderers.
I congratulate you on your morality. Yes, it certainly would be just if people were to receive punishment in proportion to their sins. But in that case, punishment could never be eternal, since nobody has committed such a sin that they must be punished for it forever.
I admit the bible does not explicitly teach this and some Christian scholars would disagree, it is a rational assumption given what the bible does teach and our experience of knowing God personally.
It's good of you to admit that. In fact, the Bible says almost nothing about hell, and what little it does say is so poetic and figurative that it would be unwise in the extreme to treat it as some kind of information text.
Well I think some people would choose the former given the information I provided above, but each to his own.
You think that some people, with full and clear knowledge of the alternatives, would choose eternal punishment? Well, there are people in some very unsound states of mind, of course. But your idea of hell as having certain areas which are just mildly unpleasant, where we can stay with our loved ones sounds quite unBiblical, and I doubt many Christians would agree with you.
