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.
This is the second time you've compared us to Hitler.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: These come from Christ's example He never forced anyone to convert and neither did His disciples.
cw: 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.
You are right, not exactly. The reason was written is because it is stealing to forcibly occupy a house. This is also covered under the biblical teaching regarding owning private property.ed: This is covered by You shall not steal, because they are basically confiscating your house.
cw: This is not the reason the 3rd amendment was written. This is ridiculous.
No, I responded to all your quotes and demonstrated how you were taking them out of context.ed: No, see my earlier posts where I demonstrated only voluntary servitude is allowed except for POWs and criminals.
cw: No, I provided ALL the verse about slavery you only cherry pick the ones that support this position. You are demonstrably wrong here.
Well we do know for a fact that the most referenced book in the Founders letters while forming this nation was the Bible. And even the non biblical sources were mostly Christian scholars like John Locke to name one.ed: 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; Until you can remove the word "may" from your statement, I do not believe this is the case.
ed: 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.
Where?cw: You actually did say they all came form God but no matter.
Yes, because Jefferson was a philosopher. He said "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"ed: You make a lot of assertions without backing them up with any evidence. Can you back this assertion up?
Yes, the DOI is considered part of the US Legal Code as I referenced earlier.cw: 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.
No, because most Muslim ideas are evil.cw: Would you like to live in a country where all the laws were based on Muslim ideas?
But many people dont believe what He says. If an evangelist implied that you could pretend to worship and love Jesus and avoid hell, he would be lying. But nevertheless, the disciples never threatened anyone to convert using worldly weapons and force. In fact, Jesus showed love and respect to those who rejected His message like Pontius Pilate. This is all obviously a free choice. Just because someone tells you that if you make the wrong choice you could face serious consequences does not take away your free choice to reject the the advice.
You are right, not exactly. The reason was written is because it is stealing to forcibly occupy a house. This is also covered under the biblical teaching regarding owning private property.
No, I responded to all your quotes and demonstrated how you were taking them out of context.
Well we do know for a fact that the most referenced book in the Founders letters while forming this nation was the Bible. And even the non biblical sources were mostly Christian scholars like John Locke to name one.
This is the second time you've compared us to Hitler.
Perhaps you weren't aware of this, but...well, if this argument were presented to him, you'd find Hitler was firmly on your side, not ours.
Or, to put it another way: strictly with regards to homosexuality, you're agreeing with Hitler.
Most of the evidence points to the universe having a beginning, ie the BB theory, which means it is an effect. Therefore it needs a cause. Since the universe contains personal beings and purposes, we know that only persons can produce the personal. Therefore, the cause must be a person. in addition, according to the law of logic the cause must be "outside" or transcendent to the effect, just like the Christian God.ed: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: You need to support your assertion that a God probably exists.
That is because most atheists do not live consistent with their worldview especially in nations influenced by Chrstianity. But leaders of some nations have, like the Soviet Union and some nonChristian nations have like Communist China. But that is why they are hell holes.ed: 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: I know of almost no one that does not care about anyone else.
I doubt you have an objectively rational justification. What is your rational justification?cw: Also, I do have a rational justification for thinking that way of living is wrong. But thanks for telling me what I believe again.
That God is immoral.ed: How do you know?
cw: How do I know what? If suffering is part of Gods plan or that God is immoral?
Ok.ed: I did, unless it got deleted by the moderator. He deleted several of my posts. Not sure exactly why.
cw: You did after I reminded you. I am not accusing you of anything. It was just a reminder.
Something like quantum mechanics or a larger multiverse that creates universes? Have you considered those possibilities?Most of the evidence points to the universe having a beginning, ie the BB theory, which means it is an effect. Therefore it needs a cause.
You made this claim before. I refuted it. Remember? To reiterate, I explained to you that there is another possible causes for the existence of persons, that is, evolution. You said evolution was impossible. I asked you how you knew that. You said that nobody physically saw all of human evolution happen. That was the only reason you came up with for denying evolution. I explained the obvious to you, that nobody has lived 2 million years, so therefore it was impossible for any one person to have seen it all. Somehow you equate "no one person has seen it all" to "therefore it is impossible". That is a silly argument. Take away that silly argument, and so far you have offered nothing to validate your claim.Since the universe contains personal beings and purposes, we know that only persons can produce the personal. Therefore, the cause must be a person.
Do the effects of quantum mechanics count as "outside"? Does a multiverse count as "outside"?in addition, according to the law of logic the cause must be "outside" or transcendent to the effect, just like the Christian God.
@doubtingmerle has already addressed this, but I'd just like to add: simple and/or small forces create complex and/or great effects all the time. Pebbles falling create avalanches. Trickles of water carve mighty valleys. And evolution turns simple life forms into very complex ones. Your assertion that personal beings can only be produced by personal beings is completely unsubstantiated.Since the universe contains personal beings and purposes, we know that only persons can produce the personal.
First, what does it mean for something to be "outside" of the universe? Have we any evidence that such a thing is possible?Therefore, the cause must be a person. in addition, according to the law of logic the cause must be "outside" or transcendent to the effect, just like the Christian God.
I live in Communist China. It's not a hell hole. The people here generally do not believe in gods, and I have usually found them to be friendly and kind. If you are now going to respond to this by attacking the Chinese government's record of human rights abuses, which I will certainly admit exists, may I point out that (1) this has nothing to do with the character of the common people in general, and (2) many other countries, including the USA, also have such records.That is because most atheists do not live consistent with their worldview especially in nations influenced by Chrstianity. But leaders of some nations have, like the Soviet Union and some nonChristian nations have like Communist China. But that is why they are hell holes.
This is confirmed by Paul not recommending the death penalty for incest that occurred in the early Church. Just excommunication. Also, Christ and the woman caught in adultery.↑ed: No, Christ's death took away the death penalty for all crimes except murder.
dm: That's a stretch from what the NT says.
No, the ancient nation of Israel had to be pure with no other religions and gods so there was generally no mercy for a sin like that. Though not all capital crimes were punished with death if a judge ruled otherwise, read Numbers 35:31. This changed with the coming of Christ, He brought forgiveness and mercy.dm: 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.
ed: This was only under the Old Covenant because Israel was held to a higher standard.
dm: How can commanding people to kill those who recommend a different religion be a higher standard? That sounds like a lower standard to me.
My primary point is that the founders acknowledged there is a law above human laws that human laws must conform to.↑ed: It says in the first paragraph our station in life is determined by the Laws of Nature and (Laws) of Natures God.
dm: 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.
We know what the laws of nature refers to and since Jefferson was a unitarian he believed the moral laws of the bible but not the miracles contained in it. That is what the part of the phrase refers to as the laws of Natures God.dm: Where does it say we need to follow a particular book that some say was written by God?
He was just being a little more generic in this paragraph but it doesnt negate that the higher laws of Nature and God are the principles that are most likely to effect their safety and happiness especially since he knew that all the state constitutions at the time were based on Christian principles.ed: Not exactly.
dm: 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.
ed: 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 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.
See my previous post how Israel was held to a higher standard.ed: Christ never said kill unbelievers, that was Muhammad.
dm: Ah, but "Moses" did command killing those who teach another religion. I quoted the verses to you.
No, the ancient nation of Israel had to be pure with no other religions and gods so there was generally no mercy for a sin like that. Though not all capital crimes were punished with death if a judge ruled otherwise, read Numbers 35:31. This changed with the coming of Christ, He brought forgiveness and mercy.
My primary point is that the founders acknowledged there is a law above human laws that human laws must conform to.
We know what the laws of nature refers to and since Jefferson was a unitarian he believed the moral laws of the bible but not the miracles contained in it. That is what the part of the phrase refers to as the laws of Natures God.
He was just being a little more generic in this paragraph but it doesnt negate that the higher laws of Nature and God are the principles that are most likely to effect their safety and happiness especially since he knew that all the state constitutions at the time were based on Christian principles.
See above.
See my previous post how Israel was held to a higher standard.
No, you misunderstood. Humans have existed for about 2 million years and ever since then they have seen that persons produce the personal. No one has empirically observed persons coming into existence by impersonal processes or an impersonal origin.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.
I am not saying it is impossible for humans to evolve. Evolution could just be the process for God to create humans, but ultimately in order to produce personal beings the ultimate cause of the process most likely was a person due to all the empirical observations of that occurring. It is the most rational conclusion. How can the impersonal produce the personal?dm: So how does the fact that nobody has lived 2 million years prove that it is impossible for humans to evolve?
How is it a circle? I said God is the good. Goodness stops at the objectively existing character of God. There is no turtles all the way down. He gets His moral ideas from His own character.ed: Not exactly, He is the personification of good.
dm: 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.
ed: Yes, but only Christians have a rational objective standard for goodness, you dont. Your morality is based on what makes you feel good.
dm: 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?
I explained how that no longer applies under the new Covenant.dm: Deuteronomy 13:6-11 is commanding the killing of people who say something the author does not like.
Actually right outcome is not the best term to use, it is better understood to be the necessary outcome for some children in order to accomplish Gods purposes to bring about a greater good.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.
See above about the term right outcome. It is better understood as the necessary outcome.dm: 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?
The "humans" that were alive 2 million years ago would not qualify as modern humans. They were more like apemen.Humans have existed for about 2 million years and ever since then they have seen that persons produce the personal. No one has empirically observed persons coming into existence by impersonal processes or an impersonal origin.
I am not saying it is impossible for humans to evolve. Evolution could just be the process for God to create humans, but ultimately in order to produce personal beings the ultimate cause of the process most likely was a person due to all the empirical observations of that occurring. It is the most rational conclusion. How can the impersonal produce the personal?
Your God stands back while children suffer sexual abuse. Why? You reply that sexual abuse is "the necessary outcome for some children in order to accomplish Gods purposes to bring about a greater good." [emphasis yours]Actually right outcome is not the best term to use, it is better understood to be the necessary outcome for some children in order to accomplish Gods purposes to bring about a greater good.
Because you have not provided an objective basis for your moral decisions, it appears that your morality is just based on feelings for humans. If I am wrong, please explain why.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.
No not necessarily. The biblical definition of omnipotent does not mean that He can do absolutely anything. He cannot go against logic for one thing. And He cannot go against His moral character. And He cannot remove the penalty of death for sin except on Judgement Day. And apparently He cannot destroy evil forever without creating a primarily natural law universe with free will personal beings experiencing spiritual growth. So there may be some limiting factors about avoiding some catastrophic event, that God must allow this abuse to happen to bring about a greater good.dm: 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?
Well as I stated above there has to be free will personal beings in this universe in order to destroy evil forever. So there are going to be evil things perpetuated by evil people in this universe. It was inevitable after our ancestors rebelled against God. But their suffering will ultimately bring about the destruction of evil forever and may prevent possibly other things like a nuclear war or other horrific events.dm: 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?
Actually, the thing that you have described is exactly what circular logic means. What is goodness? The things that God tells us to do. How does we know these are good? Because God told us to do them. "He gets His moral ideas from His own character" simply means that He gets His moral ideas from His moral ideas. Turtles all the way down is exactly what it is.How is it a circle? I said God is the good. Goodness stops at the objectively existing character of God. There is no turtles all the way down. He gets His moral ideas from His own character.
I agree that the universe must have had a beginning and there must be a cause. But you must give evidence to justify your claim that only persons can be the cause. Something that cannot demonstrated to exist cannot the the cause for something.Most of the evidence points to the universe having a beginning, ie the BB theory, which means it is an effect. Therefore it needs a cause. Since the universe contains personal beings and purposes, we know that only persons can produce the personal. Therefore, the cause must be a person. in addition, according to the law of logic the cause must be "outside" or transcendent to the effect, just like the Christian God.
Atheism is not a worldview anymore than lack of belief in Big Foot is a worldview. Communism is a political worldview. These hell holes as you say are not that because they are atheistic, it is because of their ideology. Tell me how a lack of belief in a deity leads to suffering.That is because most atheists do not live consistent with their worldview especially in nations influenced by Chrstianity. But leaders of some nations have, like the Soviet Union and some nonChristian nations have like Communist China. But that is why they are hell holes.
You said:I doubt you have an objectively rational justification. What is your rational justification?
I know this because I read the bible. If the God as described in the bible exists I believe he is immoral. For starters:That God is immoral.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?