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.
I disagree.
I demonstrated that He likely exists earlier in this thread.
It is irrational.
If you are using logic.
I never said it was simple. But I did demonstrate that the foundational aspect of it is not a contradiction.
Well I think you probably would agree with me on at least some of it.
Because A ---> a, ~A --//-->a.
Fraid so, my relationship and experience with Him has confirmed that He is good. Just like you determine your friends are good.
Thanks for providing a reference to prove my point.
Not only can Christian morality be founded on Gods character, it is founded on His objectively existing character. As I earlier demonstrated His likely existence.
That too.
Only in the sense that His commands are based on His character.
No, he was referring to the original protest that was over the statue of Robert E. Lee. There were good people on both sides of that protest. Then that original protest degraded into a riotous battle between Neo-Nazis and Antifa. He explicitly condemned the white supremacists multiple times. Probably more than any president in history. This was even admitted to by the NY Times.
No, genocide is the destroying of a people group just because of who they are. Moses and the hebrews were destroying groups because of the evil that they had done.
The Bible does not teach that.
Fraid not. As I demonstrated earlier, American slavery violates Biblical teaching.
it is a plain violation of the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment.
And yet you are still unable to give a justification for your definition of what goodness is.
You misunderstood it. Dawkins is complaining that an immoral man misunderstood the theory of evolution. Not unlike some others I can think of.
None of that is true in the slightest. You're confusing "claim" with "demonstrate"
Yes. And that leads us to the question you are unable to answer: how can we tell that God's character is good when you have defined goodness as being based on God's character? It's a circular argument, and you're stuck on it.
Trump's sympathies clearly were and are with the Neo-Nazis and KKK, just as (and because) their sympathies were clearly for him. He waited for days to clarify a statement on them, despite repeatedly being asked to, and then - only when he was forced to do so by public opinion - he tried a mealy-mouthed excuse about how he was speaking about "very fine people" who were demonstrating - in favour of the statue of a pro-slavery Confederate leader.
Yuk.
As I've demonstrated frequently, American slavery was founded on a perfectly correct interpretation of Biblical teachings.
Nonsense.
Well, if you hadn't taken three weeks plus to reply to my comment I could probably have told you directly; now it may take longer. Also, your question suggests to me that you are unaware of how some of your posts come acrss, so I'll find an example and analyse it in detail for you.
What is your foundation of morality that is objective? Since God ultimately created everything that exists, ultimately things circle back to Him by definition.
No, I said humans live according to what they THINK is real. Most people dont live according to reality. And if they are not Christians then they dont have an objective basis for morality. You misconstrued reality with morality.
According to science they do.
Embryos and fetuses have all the characteristics we have just in a different form.
Fraid not, as I demonstrated long ago on this thread.
That was the special case where God used the ancient Hebrews to mete out His judgement on evil nations occupying the Promised Land.
Most secular humanists are socialists, which is what I said above explaining what socialism is.
No, the NTS fallacy does not apply to Christianity because we actually have an objective definition of what a Christian is, it is called the Bible.
If God created everything that existed. Boy, you really like begging the question, don't you?
People all share a common human nature. While we are all different, we all value happiness and love, and we all wish to avoid pain. Therefore, we all have human values in common, upon which it is possible to create a sense of right and wrong. And while we may disagree about what is important, we rarely disagree about whether red is blue or hot is cold.
According to science, there is no such thing as an unborn woman. Nor, according to science, do abortions affect unborn girls or unborn infants, because "woman", "girl" and "infant" are all things that cannot exist until after a baby is born.
What does personhood mean to you, Ed? How would you define a person?
Claimed, not demonstrated. US slavery was based on the Bible.
Including their non-innocent, guilty-of-terrible-crimes little children?
Socialism certainly has good elements, including the idea that people should be provided for if they are in need. But most secular humanists are not socialists. You've already had the description they apply to themselves. If you wish to reject it, fine.
And of course, the vast majority of Christians who would disagree with you about what a Christians should believe - well, they're just mistaken, aren't they?
I dont know, it depends on what kind of god. If it is like the deist god, then no, it just created the universe and then had nothing else to do with it.
See what the god does and use their moral conscience to make that determination.
If you mean, use your conscience then yes. Or they could have a relationship with the god if it wants and then use your conscience and experience with it to make that determination.
I wouldnt exactly say the Christian God demands obedience, but rather strongly recommends it if you want a happy and fulfilling life in this world and the next. But He gives you free will to choose to reject Him if you want to. The Christian God wants a relationship with us, so the way to find out is get in a relationship with Him and use your experience and moral conscience to make that determination.
That only applies to teaching in the church. And it is not degrading. Both genders have different roles but not inferior or superior roles. Just like a woman cannot be a father, so also a man cannot be a mother. Being a father is not superior to a mother, nor a mother superior to a father. They are just different roles with different responsibilities. Being a teacher in the church is not superior to being a deaconess in the church nor vice versa. Just different roles with different responsibilities.
Most I have met, talked to, and read about, tend toward socialism. Like Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris. I am not saying that ALL secular humanists are socialists but they majority tend in that direction.
But some of its teachings are unique such as human equality and uniqueness and concept of intrinsic human rights.
That article claims that Gods characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence came from the Greeks, but that is plainly wrong all those characteristics of God were taught in the OT long before the Greeks even existed.
No, that passage is plainly a prophecy, not a command.
Neither do the mafia demand compliance, they just strongly recommend it.
Remind me again - what exactly happens if you are not obedient to God's commands?
Ah, so you say if I were in another universe with another God, I should let my moral conscience decide.
It's not just in the church. The Bible says, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord." (Colossians 3:18) That is not equal to the husband's position.
That depends on your view. To me it is degrading to tell a person you may not speak in church because you are of the wrong gender.
