- Jan 28, 2003
- 9,970
- 2,521
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Humanist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
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.
Ah you believe in three gods that form a strong union.The unity of divinity is much greater than the unity of humanity. I am not saying the analogy is perfect.
as I said before, you state that "good" and "God" are synonyms.
Sorta like a mortician?
as I said before, you state that "good" and "God" are synonyms.
if God wanted rape you would want rape.
if God wanted a child to be abused, you would want that child to be abused.
good loses its meaning with you. Whatever your book says God wants, you say that is good.
if God told you to give me everything you have, would you do it?
How do you know that God is good? We have no way of knowing what God is like if he exists. How would you know he is good?No, good is not what God says, the good is what God is. Good is the nature of God.
ed: 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.
ia: 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
ed: 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.
ed: 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?
No, it has to be eternal because your sin can affect others negatively for eternity. And you are rebelling against the eternal good.ed: 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.
ia: 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.
True it does not go into a great deal of detail and reference to fire is plainly Hebrew rabbinic hyperbole but it plainly teaches there are different levels of treatment in hell as I demonstrated above.ed: 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.
ia; 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.
No, it is not unbiblical, maybe a slightly unorthodox interpretation, but nowhere in the bible is the concept disproven.ed: Well I think some people would choose the former given the information I provided above, but each to his own.
ia: 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.
Adolf Hitler had a strong affection for the Aryan race out of kinship and personal ties and felt that the jews would destroy them so he tried to destroy the jews before they could destroy his people. So since that fits your definition of love, do you agree that Hitler was engaging in loving behavior when he started the holocaust?
do you agree that Hitler was engaging in loving behavior when he started the holocaust?
Have you examined though more critically the premise in that question?We have no way of knowing what God is like if he exists. How would you know he is good?
Have you?Have you examined though more critically the premise in that question?
I think you're missing the point. This is a discussion about whether or not a Christian who says that God is the source of morality, the justification for their being able to say what right and wrong is, is able to logically justify that statement.Is that "good" -- to be both Just and Merciful?
Is it "good" to refuse to accept evil, yet to forgive abundantly any who would reform?
What you you think?
Analogies cannot and need not be perfect, of course. But this one is just simply not applicable, as you have shown yourself. Try again, if you like. Maybe God is like conjoined triplets?Divinity is much more unified than humanity. I am not saying the analogy is perfect. Just that it demonstrates that there is nothing contradictory about the Trinity.
No, I'm afraid you didn't demonstrate that earlier, nor will you. And while I'm sure politicians are quite capable of lying, in this case they told the simple truth. The Constitution is in no sense based on the Christian religion. It doesn't mention Jesus, God or the Bible at all, whether openly or in any other way.Those things also violate the teachings of Christianity because the Constitution is based on many Christian principles as I demonstrated earlier. The Treaty of Tripoli was an appeasement measure to stop the Muslims from attacking our ships. Politicians stretched the truth even back then in order prevent international interference and military attack. IOW they lied.
Again, the Declaration of Independence is not the law of the land. It is simply a statement that the Colonies are declaring independence from the English crown. Once they had declared independence and won it, the Founders had decisions to make about what sort of place they wanted their new country to be, and they decided that it should be a secular state.No secular state would claim that our rights come from the Creator and based on the laws of Natures God.
In so stating, you're just shooting yourself in the foot. You want to argue that heterosexuals have no right to get married? Be my guest. But you're arguing with a strawman. The question is, do two people who love each other and wish to get married have the right to do so? Of course they do.Nowhere in the Constitution does it even deal with marriage. The founders believed marriage was a state issue. In addition, even heterosexuals don't have a RIGHT to marriage as I demonstrated earlier.
You're still stuck on the dilemma. You claim that God provides a standard against which we can measure goodness? Okay, fine. Prove it logically. So far, you've said nothing but "He just is." You said you weren't going to give us circular reasoning, then you did.No, good is not what God says, the good is what God is. Good is the nature of God.
That you need a man and a woman to have a baby? Of course that's true. The question is, why should that prevent two homosexual people from marrying? All you're doing is asserting that this inability should disqualify them, without any grounds. You're trying to give yourself grounds by making up some pretext about marriage being a mystical union that can only take place along with insemination, but that's nonsense. The mystical union is simply called love, and homosexuals are just as capable of it as heterosexuals - no matter what your religion claims.I did not make it up, it is a biological fact, look it up.
Take a look at what you next said:How do you that?
How do you do that?The state has a right to protect the health of the people of the society.
In fact, "You say gay people can't have children. Well, so what?" is very much the main theme of this argument, and far from having dealt with it you still have yet to make a reasonable point about it. do you mean to invalidate every marriage that can't produce children? The infertile, the disabled, the marriages of people too old, marriages between people who have firmly stated that they do not wish to ever have children? No? Then, once again, you are guilty of the fallacy of special pleading.Dealt with earlier.
Nonsense. Two homosexual people expressing their love for each other through physical intimacy, a personalizing experience? What on earth are you talking about?Because it cannot unite persons, it is a depersonalizing behavior.
Of course they have. Black people suffer from racism, Jewish people suffer from anti-semitism, and it is well-documented how gay people suffer from homophobia.No, other oppressed peoples have not had these issues.
Of course not. He loved the Aryan people (a thoroughly misleading simplification, but let's go with it for now) and his love led him to do hateful things to people he perceived as his enemies. Simple.Adolf Hitler had a strong affection for the Aryan race out of kinship and personal ties and felt that the jews would destroy them so he tried to destroy the jews before they could destroy his people. So since that fits your definition of love, do you agree that Hitler was engaging in loving behavior when he started the holocaust?
"You evil people! Boy, you've really got it coming."
New heavens and a new earth, it says. You told me you had proof that God was going to create a parallel universe for people to suffer in.
So, because I stole a pencil when I was five years old, I deserve to be roasted over a barbecue for umpteen trillion years? That's what your logic leads to. It's a good thing we have a superior human sense of justice that sees such punishments as abhorrent. Punishment should fit the crime. Christian punishment doesn't - cannot, by definition. No crime can be so terrible that it must be punished forever. That would be answering wrong with an infinitely greater wrong.No, it has to be eternal because your sin can affect others negatively for eternity. And you are rebelling against the eternal good.
No, it doesn't go into a great deal of detail, does it? In fact, hardly any at all. All that you're demonstrating is that you're happy to make your own religion up.True it does not go into a great deal of detail and reference to fire is plainly Hebrew rabbinic hyperbole but it plainly teaches there are different levels of treatment in hell as I demonstrated above.
You could say that about an awful lot of things.No, it is not unbiblical, maybe a slightly unorthodox interpretation, but nowhere in the bible is the concept disproven.
No, I would assume that even most atheists would not approve of very selfish people and people that only live for their own pleasure. Am I wrong?You're trying to frame the issue in Christian terms, and engaging in a false dichotomy. Either you are so selfless that you give your devotion to an allegedly good God, or you are some kind of horrible selfish monster. Well, I am not playing that game.
There are plenty of other reasons not to be selfish, other than what is encapsulated in your religion. There is a world of explanations and ideas beyond the doors of the Christian Church.
So you have no problem with people that only care about themselves and live only for their own pleasure?
Where did I say that? If I did it was a mistake. Being born and living as a human did not separate him from the Trinity. Even normal human Christians have the holy spirit living within them. He only became separated from the Trinity on the cross, why do you think He said "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" on the cross?ed: Huh? The agony in the Garden was His premonition of what it was going to be like to be separated from the other members of the Trinity, it disturbed and worried Him so much He asked the Father to remove the experience. But of course, the Father would not.
ia: That's not what you said. You said that it must have caused Jesus enormous, indescribably agony to be separated from divinity when He incarnated. And you should have been right, because of course being born and living as a human was Jesus' separation from the Trinity.
No, see above.ia: But, of course, the Bible contradicts you. Its story shows us that Jesus did not suffer at all from being separated from the Trinity. Instead, His only real episode of pain was - surprise, surprise - his worrying that He was going to be killed the next day. Quite understandable in a human, but perplexing in a divine being who was just about to ascend to Heaven.
Hitler believed that gays were an abomination.
Christians believe that gays are an abomination.
Homosexuality is a Sin an Abomination in the Eyes of God
"Men having sex with each other is an abomination and condemned by God. Women having sex with each other is also an abomination and condemned by God. This isn’t new news, it’s not like all of sudden Christians have come on the scene proclaiming sodomy is a immoral act and a sin in eyes of God."
You say you love gay people. But gay people probably wouldn't call what they feel coming from you "love".
Where did I say that? If I did it was a mistake. Being born and living as a human did not separate him from the Trinity. Even normal human Christians have the holy spirit living within them. He only became separated from the Trinity on the cross, why do you think He said "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" on the cross?.
Because he was in intense physical pain? Come on, he was being tortured to death. Wouldn't it be strange for him not to cry out in anguish?Where did I say that? If I did it was a mistake. Being born and living as a human did not separate him from the Trinity. Even normal human Christians have the holy spirit living within them. He only became separated from the Trinity on the cross, why do you think He said "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" on the cross?
No, see above.
Have you?
I think you're missing the point. This is a discussion about whether or not a Christian who says that God is the source of morality, the justification for their being able to say what right and wrong is, is able to logically justify that statement.
Tell me, Halbhh: do you believe that God says things because they are good, or that they are good because God says them?
A little familiarity with the Euthyphro Dilemma before you answer would be appreciated.
I am not there. Why do you ask?Ok.
Question......
Which one of those people is you?
Your life is short also. What will you say when you stand before A!!ah or Thor or Buddah or whoever it is that is in charge?What use are all your rhetorical tricks and sleights of hand when you are only mortal, and life is short? What use is it if you think you won a battle, even?
Where are you going, and is it better than yesterday?
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?