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.
Exactly. Indeed, @Edwolf is just confirming it here. He says that my wife and I are two people composed of one substance? Well, if he likes to put it like that. In that case, it means that God is three people, because my wife and I are two people. You can speak to my wife, or you can speak to me, and you can even talk to us both at the same time. But you can't talk to my marriage, because its not a person.Like we keep telling you, it sure looks like you have three Gods that work together in perfect unity.
The Old Testament Father said he was the only God. And yet your words indicate he had two other "persons" with him that were equally God.
I am surprised that he argues for the three persons view. I have debated the trinity here before, and other views were more popular. But all views got vague when questioned. One Christian summed it up: it is impossible to clearly define the trinity without stating heresy.Exactly. Indeed, @Edwolf is just confirming it here. He says that my wife and I are two people composed of one substance? Well, if he likes to put it like that. In that case, it means that God is three people, because my wife and I are two people. You can speak to my wife, or you can speak to me, and you can even talk to us both at the same time. But you can't talk to my marriage, because its not a person.
John 1:1, 14 show they were one in essence. Also, Colossians 1:19 shows this as well. John 6:37-39 shows they are one purpose.ed: You are right, correct interpretation is to use clear verses to interpret the less clear. Other verses show He meant they were both one in purpose and essence.
ia: Which ones?
Except He claims to be equal with God unlike any other prophet in the Bible. He claims to have existed prior to Abraham even though He was only around 30 years old. And I could provide many other examples that show He was very different from a biblical prophet.ed: Withholding your power does not mean that you no longer have those powers or are no longer who you are. Two men climbing a mountain they both have backpacks, one is thin and appears very scrawny but easily defeats the other man who is strong and muscular, built like a linebacker. But then you look in the backpack. The thin man has a bottle water, the strong man has 200 pounds of rocks. Who would have won in the climb without the backpacks?
ed: Look at the Bible. It's quite clear when you read about Jesus that he was just a man who was inspired by God and who loved God. He acts, in the Bible, exactly like any other prophet, such as Noah, Isaiah or Moses. He prays to God, he talks to God, he receives gifts from God.
He said he saw Nathaniel in a different location even before they ever met physically or saw each other physically. That is a characteristic of omniscience.ed: God never gave a human omniscience.
ia: And we haven't seen Jesus demonstrate omniscience either. God could certainly grant knowledge to his favoured humans, however, just as we see happening with Jesus.
I am not saying that that was not also part of His distress but being God also He knew that He would resurrect Himself and reconstitute His body. So that was obviously not all that He dreaded. Since He was also part of the Triune God which the Bible plainly implies it is perfectly reasonable that that experience would also be dreaded greatly if not even potentially more.ed: We do know a little, we know how Christ reacted when He knew He was going to have to experience it. He was not just a human being, so His reaction was a little extreme thereby showing that His suffering was probably going to be beyond anything any human could suffer when He was separated from His divine father.
ia: So: Christ knew that he was going to be killed by crucifixion. And you think his distress was caused by his being "separated from God" rather than having nails driven through his hands and feet and left to die one of the most agonising deaths possible?
Again, all you have is an empty claim. It seems perfectly reasonable that a person, facing death by torture, would be distressed.
Except He claims to be equal with God
Yes, it does, it tells us that their moral code is not the objective moral standard of the universe.ed: They are atheistic in that they do not recognize the existence of any personal god. Some fascists' regimes like Nazi Germany recognized an impersonal pantheistic god but generally they do not. And they certainly do not recognize any moral code from a god, their moral code comes from humans.
ia: We've been over this before. The fact that a person or a government does not believe in God tells you nothing at all about their moral code. They may be good, evil, or anywhere in between, just as a theist may.
Any nation that puts political prisoners in concentration and re-education camps and harvests their organs and forcibly aborts babies so parents cannot have more than one child is a hell hole IMO and in the opinion of most Americans.ed: Confucianism combined with their extremely homogeneous population has helped them to restrain their behavior. However, because of that they persecute religious people who dont go along their government philosophy and culture, such as serious Christians and Muslims. But their nation is a human right hell hole. Very little freedom at all. Plus using humans like they are material commodities. Plus their government has no moral standards at all.
ia: It's obvious you know nothing of China other than what you've heard on right-wing radio. Why not take a tip from someone who actually lives here?
Yes, China has problems. Yes, some of those are human rights problems. Yes, its governments hands are far from clean. But this does not, by any stretch of the imagination, make it a hell hole.
It is taught by the bible and I have seen evidence of it in my own experience of meeting all kinds of people from all over the world. How is that unsubstantiated?ed: No, because all humans are created in the image of the Christian God, when they make up their own religions they have some good qualities because of this inherent image.
ia: Oh. Another unsubstantiated claim. You make things up an awful lot, do you know that?
Those are all atheists that were raised in nations founded on Christian principles. I explained that that can help make them keep those principles for a while. But nevertheless if the entire government becomes and remains atheistic and tries to make the nation secular there is a slide toward tyranny. Sometimes gradual, sometimes rather quickly.ed: No, I said depending on where the atheist was raised they can be evil and generally atheist leaders are evil. But not the ordinary atheist citizen. But over time since there is no moral anchor in God then an atheistic society goes down a slippery slope toward tyranny.
ia: Nonsense. One quick search proves that wrong:
7 World Leaders Prove That America Can Have an Atheist President Too
ed: Hardly. Europe has started banning public speech criticizing homosexuality and Islam among other things. So they are plainly losing free speech.
ia: This is just ridiculous oversimplification and misunderstanding.
While my definition may not be the official definition, it is the natural outcome of a person or society that has an extremely "strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity" and makes humanism their entire philosophy of life and morality.ed: By humanist I mean where their politics and morals come from, other humans. Communists get their ideas from Marx. Fascists get theirs from their leaders. This is as opposed to theists whose politics and morals come from God or gods.
ia: Do you? Well, stop it, please. Humanism has a very specific meaning:
Definition of humanist | Dictionary.com
"a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity."
Please use the actual definition, rather than making them up to suit yourself.
I dont need to, see above.ed: India and Japan were influenced by Christianity and Christian principles that is why they are not. I still stand by China being a high tech hellhole with little or no freedom or basic human rights.
ia: Well, come and live here and you'll see you're wrong.
Yes, primarily run by atheistic evolutionary humanists.ed: Materially maybe but not in the area of human rights. Even blacks though segregated had thousands of their own businesses and made quite good money. They also had religious freedom and free speech neither of which China has today. They also could have as many children as they wanted while in China up until recently could only have one child.
ia: "Made quite good money," eh? How lucky for them.
By the way, ever hear of the American eugenics program?
I am not claiming America is a perfect society, no society is perfect, but relative to China it is 100 times superior to it.ia: Look. I'm not saying that America is a hellhole. Of course, it isn't. In many ways, America is a model of liberalism and democratic ideals, or at least the best this world has to offer. Having said that, it would be silly to ignore the huge mistakes America has made, its history of genocide, racism, class discrimination, warmongering and other evils. So if you're holding up America as a perfect society and China as a hellhole, you're quite simply wrong.
I was raised during the Cold War plus you ought read the Gulag Archipelago and the Black Book of Communism, you might learn something. Communism is built upon a foundation of lies and they have to lie constantly to keep the illusion that it works.ed: Given that Communists lie by definition we have no idea what the infection and death rates are in China.
ia: Who told you Communists lie by definition? Of course they don't.
ia: And while the government of China may not be the most trustworthy source ever, I'd say it's a veritable fountain of truth compared to the current incumbent of the White House.
They did not stop flights to Europe and America, which caused many of the cases to get to Europe and cause huge death tolls.ia: As far as the coronavirus goes, the Chinese government has been at least reasonably competent. Measures were taken to stop the spread of the virus, and they were effective. Again: take it from someone who lives here.
ed: He has done none of those things since becoming president.
ia: First of all, is that an admission that Donald Trump was all of those things before becoming the President? In which case, that's very nearly as bad.
They provided no evidence that he misled the people on anything important.ia: However, since becoming President:
Con man? Check - see the Woodward tapes for confessions in his own voice as to how he misled the American people.
ia: Grifter? Check. See the many times he has been scamming the American taxpayers - nepotism, emoluments, etc. etc.
No evidence he has stolen anything since becoming president.ia: Thief? Probably comes under the two above.
ia: Sexual assaulter? Possibly not, during his time in office, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Hardly, he did everything Fauci said to do. And more, he stopped almost all flights from China saving thousands. The experts said 2 million people were going to die, so he has potentially so far saved 1.8 million people.ia: And let's add manslaughter to that, through negligence and wilful neglect. He knew the coronavirus was a terrible disease, and he just didn't care. All he focused on was the short-term damage if people thought there was a disease on the loose, and so he lied, and lied, and lied, and people died.
I didnt say you cant tell the difference between good and evil, even atheists are created with a moral conscience by God. I am saying that if there is no God then there is no objectively existing foundation for good or evil and therefore the distinction is meaningless. In addition, you dont have a rational basis for condemning someone that engages in evil. It is just their subjective personal preference based on the chemicals in their brain produced by evolution, how can you be condemned for something you had no control over?ed: God being the essence good itself is not circular at all. As an atheist good and evil do not even exist in any real sense.
ia: It's a perfect example of circular logic. I think it's terribly funny how you keep saying I can't tell the difference between good and evil, when the truth is, you're far more vulnerable to the charge yourself.
No, I am just saying that it is human nature (that has not been transformed by Christ) to retaliate evil for evil. Liberals like your self tend to put the natives up on pedestals as if they were early environmental scientists and total pacifists slaughtered by the evil Christian colonists, which is a totally false picture of history.ed: Plenty of whites were killed by war and mass slaughters committed by Indians. What innocents? Native Americans were far from innocents. Not only did they slaughter each other for thousands of years before the colonists arrived they also slaughtered many colonists. One isolated case of a rogue military officer giving small pox infected blankets to Indians is terrible but is practicially negligible compared the unintentional spreading of diseases.
ia: Ah. So two wrongs make a right, do they? Is this Christian morality? "They did it as well, so it wasn't bad" is it? You're doing a great job at painting America as being a morally superior nation.
If the US truly had systemic racism, Obama never would have been elected president TWICE.ed: While it has had its periods of bad behavior, overall it is an exemplar of morality. Americans give more to charity than any other nation and more people have been given freedom and rescued from oppression and death by America than any other nation.
ia: I'm glad to hear you admit that America has had periods of bad behaviour. But if you think you can just brush centuries (up to and including the present day) of systemic racism under the carpet, you're quite mistaken.
No, that was not the only reason we entered the war especially the European theater.ed: I doubt it, though we probably would have gotten in late and therefore the war would have been much tougher and longer.
ia: Again: the US entered the war because they were attacked. Hardly the most high-minded of moral principles.
Yes, but often helping subject peoples was the reason for the US getting into some wars.ed: Wars against Communism are wars to free the oppressed by definition.
ia: Of course they're not. It's quite possible to enter a war against a morally reprehensible power for reasons other than helping their subject peoples.
I will take that as an unable to refute.ed: Thousands of Muslim terrorists have been killed never to kill again. And evil dictators killed. Bush failed to understand that generally Muslim nations don't have the principles that can sustain a democracy. So he should have put benevolent dictators in their place.
ia: I think I've indulged your simplistic political ideas for long enough at this point.
Vox is a major source of fake news, they still believe Trump colluded with the Russians. Even American citizens are separated from their children when they commit a crime this happens every day and can last for years or even a lifetime.ed: Absurd, the so called cages had large screen TVs and video games and the children could play soccer outside pretty much anytime they wanted to. And if they didnt put them in these cages they would have to have let them go to wander the nation and be exposed to pedophiles and sex traffickers or otherwise they would have to have been in prison with their parents.
ia: Yuck. How horrible.
The horrifying conditions facing kids in border detention, explained
"At any given time, for the past several weeks, more than 2,000 children have been held in the custody of US Border Patrol without their parents. Legally, they’re not supposed to be held by border agents for more than 72 hours before being sent to the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for finding their nearest relative in the US to house them while their immigration cases are adjudicated.
In practice, they’re being held for days, sometimes weeks, in facilities without enough food or toothbrushes — going days without showering, overcrowded and undercared for."
It's a curious problem of their own making!I am surprised that he argues for the three persons view. I have debated the trinity here before, and other views were more popular. But all views got vague when questioned. One Christian summed it up: it is impossible to clearly define the trinity without stating heresy.
These are all so vague as to be almost meaningless.John 1:1, 14 show they were one in essence. Also, Colossians 1:19 shows this as well. John 6:37-39 shows they are one purpose.
See? This is what I mean? You take a single, ambiguous line and create a whole story out of it. Was Jesus joking? Misinterpreted? Meaning something else? Who knows? And why didn't he just say, "Yes, actually, I am God" instead of speaking in Zen koans?Except He claims to be equal with God unlike any other prophet in the Bible. He claims to have existed prior to Abraham even though He was only around 30 years old. And I could provide many other examples that show He was very different from a biblical prophet.
Or God gave him a vision.He said he saw Nathaniel in a different location even before they ever met physically or saw each other physically. That is a characteristic of omniscience.
As usual, you're just making all of this up, stringing a whole narrative on the flimsiest of evidence. Look, believe all of this if you want, its your religion. Just don't tell us it's based on the Bible, because it obviously isn't.I am not saying that that was not also part of His distress but being God also He knew that He would resurrect Himself and reconstitute His body. So that was obviously not all that He dreaded. Since He was also part of the Triune God which the Bible plainly implies it is perfectly reasonable that that experience would also be dreaded greatly if not even potentially more.
You mean the one you have failed to demonstrate exists?Yes, it does, it tells us that their moral code is not the objective moral standard of the universe.
I never said that China was perfect, but you seem to be suffering from an extremely large beam in your eye while straining at the motes in other countries'.Any nation that puts political prisoners in concentration and re-education camps and harvests their organs and forcibly aborts babies so parents cannot have more than one child is a hell hole IMO and in the opinion of most Americans.
You've just said it yourself. The Bible and your personal experiences are not evidence of anything.It is taught by the bible and I have seen evidence of it in my own experience of meeting all kinds of people from all over the world. How is that unsubstantiated?
Prove it. So far, this is just baseless claims.Those are all atheists that were raised in nations founded on Christian principles. I explained that that can help make them keep those principles for a while. But nevertheless if the entire government becomes and remains atheistic and tries to make the nation secular there is a slide toward tyranny. Sometimes gradual, sometimes rather quickly.
Yes.Evidence?
Thank you, that will do nicely. In future, please use words according to their actual meanings.While my definition may not be the official definition.
And the Christian country let them get away with it? Not that surprising, really, as it was Christians who ran the slave trade in the USA.Yes, primarily run by atheistic evolutionary humanists.
Yeah. Genocide. Warmongering. The stripping of civil rights. Systemic racism. Class warfare. Electing a criminal of appalling morals. Nothing to worry about at all.I am not claiming America is a perfect society, no society is perfect, but relative to China it is 100 times superior to it.
Funny that you cite your experience as valid while telling me that I can't say China isn't a hellhole just because I happen to live there.I was raised during the Cold War plus you ought read the Gulag Archipelago and the Black Book of Communism, you might learn something. Communism is built upon a foundation of lies and they have to lie constantly to keep the illusion that it works.
Goodness me. It's like saying that black is white.Hardly. The Trump Administration is one of the most transparent administrations in history. No tracking and punishing of journalists like the Obama administration. And most of Trumps lies are about relatively unimportant issues. He rarely ever lies about big issues.
Mistakes were certainly made. Having said that, compared to the way the USA handled the coronavirus, China has been a model.They did not stop flights to Europe and America, which caused many of the cases to get to Europe and cause huge death tolls.
Oh yes. We can all see what a kind, humble, caring person Trump is now. Not at all a spiteful, vindictive, lying con man.I dont deny he was some of those things in the past, but no longer, he changed. People can change.
Of course he did. At the same time he was telling the American people that coronavirus was nothing to worry about, and that it would go away very soon, he was also talking in private about how dangerous it was and what a huge problem it would be.They provided no evidence that he misled the people on anything important.
Which would explain his desperate grifting to try to make as much money as possible.Actually he and his business have lost a huge amount of money since he became president.
But you're happy with him having been a thief before, right? As if breaking the Emoluments Act as much as humanly possible wasn't also theft.No evidence he has stolen anything since becoming president.
Here. Go see this: List of Trump's accusers and their allegations of sexual misconductMany of the claims made about him even before he became president have been refuted. For example the woman that claims she was assaulted on the airplane. A man that sat next to them on the same flight said they were both flirting with each other and she never did anything that implied that she didnt want Trumps attention. The former contestant on the Apprentice that claims he assaulted her. Her own brother said she became angry with Trump when he wouldnt come to her new business she was starting and make an appearance to endorse it. Before that, her brother said she loved Trump. And there are other refutations.
The 2 million people was an estimate of the worst possible outcome. And Donald Trump is working hard to get there. Just look at how he behaves, and how he encourages others to behave. "Wear a mask? That's stupid and unmanly. You don't need to be afraid of COVID-19. Yes, all gather round, come together. Hug and kiss. Don't be afraid of some stupid virus."Hardly, he did everything Fauci said to do. And more, he stopped almost all flights from China saving thousands. The experts said 2 million people were going to die, so he has potentially so far saved 1.8 million people.
I know you're saying this, but you just can't prove it. I have to thank you, actually. It's good to have ideas tested. We can now see that the Euthyphro Dilemma still stands, and that Christians cannot claim God as the foundation of their morality.I didnt say you cant tell the difference between good and evil, even atheists are created with a moral conscience by God. I am saying that if there is no God then there is no objectively existing foundation for good or evil and therefore the distinction is meaningless. In addition, you dont have a rational basis for condemning someone that engages in evil. It is just their subjective personal preference based on the chemicals in their brain produced by evolution, how can you be condemned for something you had no control over?
Remind me again, who came into whose land?No, I am just saying that it is human nature (that has not been transformed by Christ) to retaliate evil for evil. Liberals like your self tend to put the natives up on pedestals as if they were early environmental scientists and total pacifists slaughtered by the evil Christian colonists, which is a totally false picture of history.
And now the racists are having their revenge. Remind me again, exactly what percentage of the people who work for Donald Trump are black?If the US truly had systemic racism, Obama never would have been elected president TWICE.
No, that was not the only reason we entered the war especially the European theater.
As I've said, history is complex. But, unsurprisingly, much of the USA's motive for entering wars was selfishness.Yes, but often helping subject peoples was the reason for the US getting into some wars.
I feel it would be unkind, as well as pointless, to try to correct your views on "benevolent dictators."I will take that as an unable to refute.
I will take that as an unable to refute.Vox is a major source of fake news, they still believe Trump colluded with the Russians. Even American citizens are separated from their children when they commit a crime this happens every day and can last for years or even a lifetime.
ed: Experts predicted initially that America would suffer 2 million deaths, but Trump by closing down travel from China and Europe saved thousands of lives possibly millions. Only having around 200,000 deaths after 7 months is actually quite remarkable for a nation as large and diverse as we are and that values freedom so much.
ia:Here's a tip - don't believe everything Donald Trump says. Hate to break it to you, but it's not always true.
Not according to Dr. Fauci, he said it saved thousands of lives.ia: Donald Trump closing down travel from China and Europe was largely ineffective.
Not if it was originally going to be 2 million.ia: And no, 200, 000 + deaths is not remarkable, it's catastrophic.
ia: Take a look at how other nations around the world are doing. Plenty of them have implemented sensible precautions - masks, tracing, restricting travel - and as a result the coronavirus has been contained. In America, it is rampant. You have politicians, including the President himself, who have spent months telling the American people to go out, go to school, go to parties and shopping and not wear masks.
Because there is evidence that they got them from God, there is no evidence the others did.ed: Communists get their ideas from Marx. Fascists get theirs from their leaders. This is as opposed to theists whose politics and morals come from God or gods.
dm: How do you know that Moses and Jeremiah got their morals from God? Because they told you so? There were a lot of people claiming to be getting their morals from God. Do you agree with all their morals? If not, why do you trust Moses and Jeremiah, but not some of the others?
Because science has shown that by following Gods morals you are much more likely to live longer and have less disease and be happier. And be more courageous.ed: Your responses to this question have been weak. You have claimed historical accuracy for the Bible. So what? Lots of books have accurate history. If I find a book with accurate history, can I know that this book has infallible morals?
Sadly you are wrong. And it has also been shown to be accurate when the few times it touches on science.dm: And sadly, the Bible is often far from historical.
No, it is because only Christianity taught that there is an objective reality that operates according intelligible natural laws. And that God has revealed aspects of Himself in nature. So Christians wanted to learn more about Him thru His creation, this was a major impetous in the formation of modern science.dm: You have also tried to claim that, since science advanced in countries with a Christian background, therefore the Bible has infallible morals. Science developed mostly during the daytime. Does this prove that sunlight is holy? Science developed mostly in the northern hemisphere. Does this prove the North Pole is infallible? Early science was developed predominantly by males. Does this mean that males have perfect morals? Those are the kinds of conclusions one would reach if he used the logic, "Science developed in situation X, therefore situation X is infallible."
No, you cannot take just one verse out of context. Verses must be understood in the context of the entire bible. Jesus also said you must be as wise as serpents but as gentle as doves, IOW you should not allow yourself to be taken advantage of. In addition, we know from history that jewish rabbis used hyperbole to make points this was obviously the case here, he meant you should have an attitude of generosity, He did not mean that you should literally give something to everyone who asks you.dm: What about the commands in the Bible that are not good? Luke 6:30 says to give to every man that asks of you. Do you think this command is infallible? Or is it OK to let common sense limit the application of this verse?
Goodness me, no. I see you've completely misunderstood the situation.Trump didnt say that, scientists did.
Not according to Dr. Fauci, he said it saved thousands of lives.
Not if it was originally going to be 2 million.
Not for the first few months, Trump said do exactly what Fauci said to do and most people have. But it came to the point where more people started dying from the lockdown than dying from the virus. That is when he and some governors started opening things up. And presidents dont have the power to control was states do, it is called the Constitution. The Federal government is limited with what it can do. There is only a 0.03% death rate.
What evidence do you have that Moses and Jeremiah spoke God's words? So far you have given nothing that verifies this.Because there is evidence that they got them from God, there is no evidence the others did.
Sorry, but the Greeks had an advanced science long before the first Christians. They believed there was an objective reality that operates according to intelligible natural laws.No, it is because only Christianity taught that there is an objective reality that operates according intelligible natural laws.
OK, then please take the courageous step to follow Luke 6:30. That verse says to give to every man that asks of you. Please give me every thing you own.Because science has shown that by following Gods morals you are much more likely to live longer and have less disease and be happier. And be more courageous.
Ah, the command to be wise overrules the command to give to every man that asks of you.Jesus also said you must be as wise as serpents but as gentle as doves, IOW you should not allow yourself to be taken advantage of.
you cannot take just one verse out of context. Verses must be understood in the context of the entire bible.
In addition, we know from history that jewish rabbis used hyperbole to make points this was obviously the case here, he meant you should have an attitude of generosity, He did not mean that you should literally give something to everyone who asks you.
While I dont agree with most of what Trump says and tweets and how he says things, I agree with most of his actions and policies. He has been doing basically a good job getting our nation back to its founding principles.I think perhaps that you should be more careful what you post on the Internet. Otherwise, some people might read this, and think that you want the deranged man in the White House to stay.
No, I looked at your links and they basically confirm what I said. Christian businesses will be required to hire people engaging in immoral behavior and he will ban the sale and manufacture of so-called assault weapons, though they really are not assault weapons.dm; I think you mischaracterize Biden's LGBTQ policy and gun policy.
He is re-establishing the existence of America as founded. Biden wants to continue the fundamental transformation of America that Obama started. Who cares what the internation community says about us. He has gotten Germany and other wealthy NATO countries to finally start paying their fair share of their own defense. The Iran agreement was a joke and a funding of terrorism. The climate agreement does nothing to punish the worst offenders like China and India. The American output of carbon has been going down ever since Trump became president.dm: But even if you disagree with Biden's policies, how can that be more important than the continued existence of America? Trump has taken America from the dominant player in the international community to a source of derision. His abandonment of the Iran agreement and the climate agreement have caused immense harm.
He did that to scare Europe into paying their fair share and it worked. He will take care of the deficit in his second term if he gets one. I guarantee Biden wont do anything about it.dm: His downplaying of NATO puts us all at risk. Other countries have lost so much faith in us that they no longer line up to buy U S debt. Now, the number one means of financing our debt is by literally printing the money. This can not go on. If other countries abandon the dollar, abandon our alliances, and go out on their own without us, I fear for America.
See above.dm: When he got elected once, people shook their heads in sorrow. "Wow! That was odd." But if it happens again who would possibly want to trust us?
Yes I have heard of it, but not sure it applies to what I said. Well just answer the first question. Why dont you treat animals as equal to humans?ed: No, how come you dont treat other animals equal to humans? Aren't you guilty of speciesism if you dont treat them the same as humans or treat humans the same as animals? There is no real reason to treat humans as valuable or special. Again this is irrational if atheistic evolution is true.
fd: Do you know what a Gish Gallup is? There are so many unquestioned assumptions hidden in your statements here, I wouldn't know where to begin.
↑ed: Showing that His character is good and is recognized as such is evidence for Him being goodness itself.
ia: Not good enough, I'm afraid. You said that you could logically prove that you had a rational foundation for an objective morality. Saying, "Hey, God has done good things and He tells us He's good" is not nearly enough. You need to have a logical proof.
No, the ends never justify the means. There may be cases where the truth should be withheld or only partially given but not explicit intentional lying.ed: And being truthful is also a characteristic of goodness.
ia: Is it? Is it always? Can you not think of any circumstances in which it would be a moral act to lie?
There is an external standard relative to humans, God's moral character.ed: Personal beings act according to their character they generally do not act against their character so it is unlikely He would command something evil.
ia: "Generally" . "Unlikely." These show that your argument is full of holes. This isn't proof in the slightest.
More than that, you have been offered a logical problem to solve. If you say that your morality is objectively sound because it is based on God, who is goodness itself, then you have to answer the question: what does it mean to say that God is goodness itself? Without any external standard to measure it against, it means absolutely nothing.
Personal relationships are not based on logic. They involve faith and trust. You can never know with absolute certainty whether someone is being honest with you, but rather you learn to have faith and trust in the person. We learn He is goodness itself thru our relationship with Him, just like you learn someone is good or trustworthy in any human relationship. What is the logical proof that your wife loves you or is a good person?ia: You've been asked before, and have failed to give a satisfactory answer: why shouldn't God commit what we call evil? Why shouldn't He lie, cheat, steal, murder, or encourage others to do these things?
If God is goodness itself, and the standard by which goodness is measured, what is to stop Him from doing any of these things? You say that God would not do these things, because they would be evil. But that's the problem - if God did them, they wouldn't be evil, because He is the standard by which you measure goodness. It's moral relativity taken to its logical extreme.
You've also said that God wouldn't do these things because He has previously said that He would not. But that means absolutely nothing. All you're doing is saying that God would not be inconsistent, because that would be wrong. But if God declares that inconsistency is good, then how can you - lacking any external standard - judge God as being anything other than wrong? You say that God wouldn't change His mind, because apparently you think that's something people don't do. First of all, of course they do; people have often been known to act against what we think of as their natures. And secondly, who is to say that God has not been lying to you all this time? You can't say He wouldn't lie because lying is bad, because God is the standard against which you judge good and bad, and so if He declares lying is good, then it is.
These are the questions you have to answer, and you have to answer them with logical arguments. Saying "God would never do such a thing," or "God said He would never do such a thing," or "My moral awareness lets me know when God is being good or bad," are just inadequate answers. You need to provide a logical argument, something you have failed to do so far.
Thanks. I have also enjoyed reading your posts.Merle, may I take this opportunity to say how much I enjoy reading your posts, and how I have learned a lot from them.
It is relatively easy and simple using causality and the BB theory as well as the characteristics of the universe.ed: Personal beings recognize good because they have a moral conscience. Otherwise they are not fully personal beings. Yes, I can demonstrate that the Christian God most likely exists, therefore His objective moral character exists providing us with an objective foundation for morality.
ia: First, I very much doubt that you can demonstrate that the Christian God most likely exists. This is based on my not unextensive experience of Christian apologists, the Christian Forums website, and of you yourself.
I am not claiming that it can be proven with absolute certainty. Only that it can be shown to be most likely to be good and sound by experience.ia: But even if you could prove that God exists, that would in no way help you to resolve the logical problem: how can a morality based solely on God's character be proven to be objectively sound?
If you can find a non personal source of purpose I will stand corrected.ed: No, if ANY purposes exist in the universe then the cause of the universe must be personal.
ia: Nonsense. Why would you imagine that?
If you can find a non personal source of purpose, I am all ears. And you cant use living things as an example because that assumes what you are trying to prove.ed: Yes, all creatures have purposes and even the structures that make up organisms have purposes, such as ears for hearing and eyes for seeing.
ia: Yes. And? Purpose is simply a consequence of life evolving. There's nothing magical about it, and certainly nothing that points to something apart from the universe existing.
No, again you are assuming what you need to prove. You are assuming that natural selection can produce truth recognizing beings, ie humans, but how is that possible if natural selection only selects for survivability? A dog cannot determine if it is true that it has a finite lifespan or realize that if it loses a leg it will limp. And etc. Because none of those recognitions increase its survivability.ed: No, a cockroach can hide under a shoe thinking it is a rock and it will survive just as well as it if it knew the truth that it was not under a rock. You can accurately assess your surroundings and still not recognize whether something is true or not like whether 2 plus 2 is 4 or whether the earth is round or flat or whether we evolved or not. None of those things increase survivability.
ia: You're confusing knowledge with truth here. What evolution has given us, quite naturally, is an ability to sense the world around us and react to it. In organisms like us, that have evolved the ability to think, this has given us the ability to identify truth. It's not a foolproof ability, by any means, but it does mean that we can all agree that we live in a shared reality - not that truth is whatever we decide it is. If you think that, the perhaps you'd like to decide to step out of a third-floor window so you can float down like a bubble.
It is a plain violation of the free exercise clause. So you dont care about violations of the Constitution? Would you also force a jewish baker to bake a cake for a Neo Nazi celebrating Hitlers birthday?ia: He has already endorsed forcing Christians to bake cakes with messages that go against their religious beliefs and forcing Christians to provide abortions for their employees. Where has Trump said he wants to eliminate our First Amendment rights?
ia: Goodness me, is that what you meant? Those tired old problems of bakers for gay weddings and support for abortion providers? Well, that raises my opinion of Joe Biden.
Name one time.ia: And are you not aware of the many times Donald Trump has threatened or violated First Amendment rights? He's done it an awful lot, you know.
So you have no problems with violating the Second Amendment either? No wonder you like them. Doesn't surprise me coming from someone that admires Communist China.ed: He has already said he wants Beto O Rourke on his cabinet who has said blatantly he wants to confiscated Americans guns that are used for self defense.
ia: That's nice. Good for them.
I doubt seriously he would agree with you on much. He said mans law should be judged how well it accords with Gods law. It sounds like you have never read the letter. How would you determine whether it is immoral or not? As an atheist you dont believe in any objective moral law.ed: No, I demonstrated that it recognizes a higher law, the laws of Nature and the law of Natures God as stated in DOI. Even MLK recognized this, read his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He states that without Gods law we cannot judge mans law.
ia: What he meant was that you should judge a law to see whether it is moral or not, and that a bad law is immoral, even if it is legal. I would say the same thing except, not being a Christian, I would not talk about "God's law." But I have no doubt that Martin Luther King would agree with me a lot more than he would agree with you.
I didnt say person, I said being. A being can be the essence of something. And that being can also be a person. But beings can be the essence of many things, such as a raccoon contains the essence of being a raccoon.ed: No, a being can be the essence of something, God is the essence of goodness.
ia: That sounds extremely dubious. Is it possible for a person to be the essence of "something"? Of ugliness, or of mathematics, or of wisdom?
ia: But okay - God is presented as a supernatural being. Let's grant, for now, that He can be the essence of goodness.
In that case, what does this mean?
That God only does good things? That anything God does is good? That God is the measuring stick by which we judge what is good or not? That God tells us and/or shows us what goodness means?
We have built in goodar, ie moral conscience, our moral conscience recognizes what is good. So over time as we know and experience Him we discover He is good, just like you do with any other person.ia: But in that case, how will you know what goodness is? Your standard of goodness is "What God says is good."How can you tell that what God says is good, is in fact good?
No, see above how we learn He is good which confirms His words.ia: Let me ask you - if God did a bad thing, how would you know?How would you say "I have looked at this action, and it is bad or immoral," or "I know God would not do such a thing, because it would be bad or immoral, and God would never do such a thing."
Let's say God lied, or raped, or murdered. Would you say "God did a bad thing" if He did that? How could you? By definition - your definition - anything God does is good.
Would you answer that God would never do a bad thing like this? But the thing is, if He did it, it wouldn't be bad, would it? Again, by your definition.
Would you answer that God told you He would never do such a thing, so He wouldn't? And that God would never change his mind? But if He changed His mind, it would mean changing your mind is a good thing. How could you say otherwise? By what means would you judge God?
Don't you see, this is moral relativism at its logical extreme.
From my experience with Him just like you know this about your wife.ed: Because He says He only sends a strong delusion after a period of willful rebellion and rejection of the truth.
ia: He said that, did He? You're talking about a person and saying you know this person tells you the truth because this person assured you that He doesn't lie?
Do you see the logical problem with that?
How do you know God wasn't lying when He assured you He wouldn't lie to you?
By doing good things for me, helping me in times of trouble and etc. Yes, theoretically he could fool me, but so could your wife. Watch that movie based on a true story starring Nicole Kidman about the Russian mail order bride. She fooled her husband completely.ed: Yes, it is possible but as you get to know someone you learn that they are truthful and trustworthy. So it is with God.
ia: Okay - you've said that it is possible that God could, in fact, be being deceptive with you. Thank you for that admission.
In that case, how would you learn that He is trustworthy?
Remember, God is a being of incredible abilities. Of course He could fool you if He wanted to.
Where did I say that? I said I could prove it to the same level that you can prove that your wife loves you.ed; I never said we could prove He is with absolute certainty
ia: You said that you could prove that God was good with absolute certainty.
No, I never said I could prove it with absolute certainty. That is what faith is.ia: Now it appears that you can't. Because, when presented with a logical argument showing the mistake in defining God as the essence of goodness, your response is to say that you have learned to trust Him, but that you admit you can't be certain that you are right about Him.
The same way you believe that what you are seeing really exists. How do you know what you see objectively exists? Or any other of your senses.ed: True but we also have a moral conscience, that helps to see who is good and trustworthy and who is evil and not to be trusted.
ia: How do you know that your moral conscience is trustworthy? How do you know your sense of right and wrong is accurate?
You left out (c), it is self evident or (d) you just accept that is generally accurate on faith, like your other senses. My choice is a combination of c and d. But the difference is once you discover that God does exist, then you have more than faith that your senses are accurate, you have logic that they are and that therefore you do have a relatively accurate moral conscience and that conscience gets more accurate over time as you grow spiritually.ia: Either (a) it was given to you by God, which means you are now committing the logical fallacy of begging the question, as you are attempting to use the moral sense that came from God to prove that God is good.
Or (b) your sense of right and wrong was developed naturally, in which case you are wrong about God being the foundation of morality, since you didn't need God in order to be able to tell right from wrong.
If He is the good, then He cannot logically do evil. It would be logically impossible for Him to do evil.ed: No, even an omnipotent being cannot go against their character if they are a personal being because personal beings have a moral character by definition and in additon, they cannot go against logic and cannot do what is logically impossible.
ia: Who asked God to do anything logically impossible? that's a strawman argument.
No, actually they dont. What appears to be out of character is probably just a part of their character that you had not seen yet.ia: And people act out of character all the time. Nothing strange about that.
Maybe, but see above about our conscience.ia: Also, as I said earlier, maybe God is pretending to have a good character; maybe He's been deceptive all along.
He can but as I stated above only after an extended period of rebellion like Pharoah.ed: It is evidence that He is good, because of all the good that science has given to humans. If He was not good, he would have made sure that science never came into existence and especially made sure it was not invented by His followers.
ia: None of that makes sense in the slightest. What about all the bad that has come about through science - the pollution, the wars and weapons, the dangers and difficulties? And are you saying that God can override people's free will and so prevent them from doing certain things, like creating inventions?
It is not proof but it is evidence that God is good since His people (Christians) generally only came up with inventions for the good of humanity like the medical sciences. Of course, that would only be considered good for those that value humans.ia: The existence of Science is not proof of anything - not that God is good, not that God is truthful, and certainly not that God exists.
God may have used evolution to create humans but I believe the evidence points to creation over long periods of time. Each time the environment changed radically the creator had to salt the earth with organisms that could handle the change. Understood in its original language and from the proper viewpoint that author was trying to convey, I believe that fits the Biblical story of creation the best.Ed1wolf, you keep writing about evolution, but you still haven't told us your alternative. You appear to reject both evolution and young earth creation. OK. How do you think it happened? Can you give us an alternative that you think is more likely than evolution?
Most anthropologists believe humans came thru the afarensis line.ed: But that is africanus, the so-called human line goes thru afarensis. So the wrong one has the so-called human like brain in your article.
dm: Uh, most likely neither was our direct ancestor. Evolution branched in many directions. There are at least 7 known species that are classed in the genus australopitchicus, including the two you mentioned. There may have been many others. One of those species was probably our ancestor. Or maybe the direct line came through a cousin of the Australopithicus. We don't know.
dm: The point is that there is fossil evidence in the Australopithicus genus that some had a brain structured in a way that is characteristic of humans. This could indicate that many of the cousin species of the two you mentioned also had this feature.
Not according to all anthropologists as I demonstrated above. Their foramen magnum is also in the wrong place for obligate bipedalism.dm: That is an intermediate feature. Among creatures several million years ago, there were creatures that were partly equipped for upright walking, and had a brain feature characteristic of humans.
Yes, and that is strong evidence that they are not ancestral to humans.ed: And their brain size is in the chimp range not human.
dm: Of course not. Can you imagine if a small ape gave birth to a child with a brain in the human range. Pity that poor mother!
As Dr. Hawkins states above, the transition between Australopithicines and the genus Homo is too large for it to be a transitional form. We have yet to find such a form, if it even exists.dm: But as I describe in the opening post at the thread we discussed, there were a number of steps that led up to the point where it was possible to have larger brains. One of those steps was likely the organization of the brain in such a way that creatures relied more heavily on cognition. This led to social support and advances that allowed future generations to get the adaption of prolonged brain growth after birth.
After the process got started, there were incremental increases in brain size.
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?