the right religion

[9Westy9]

I thought you were acting confused on purpose but you actually can't see what I am saying can you? Lets just drop it I don't want to waste more time.

You're saying that knowing what someone will choose has no effect on their ability to make a choice. I disagree because if you know what they will choose then, no matter what, they will choose it.

That is completely false and not what I have ever said. That is a new one. Not. I actually said that if you comment on something about God that is contained within revelation or can be resonably implied from it then it has some basis for reliability. If you are just making stuff up about God in a vacume that only contains your opinion then it is meaningless.

If I was from another denomination that interpreted the bible differently I'd be fine then? Also if you want to say God is infinite then no matter what revelation he gives it's still limited and not a perfect explanation as we can't fully understand an infinite being. You can't have it both ways. Either we can understand god (not infinite) or we can't (infinite).

Wonder why?

No I'm very aware of why.

This actually brings up an issue that we as Christians have not suffeciently made clear. We always are quick to show God as the lamb but refrain from discussing his role as the Lion. God is perfectly within his nature and revelation to destroy rebellion when is has fully matured especially when it threatens his elect. Too often his terrible vengance and rightous indignation is glossed over. Unlike most atheists and evolutionists I will accept the more uncomfortable realities of my world view.

Nice little jab at atheists there. Although I'm very much willing to accept any "uncomfortable realities" of atheism

The people that these verses concern are the cannanites as I have mentioned several times now. The cannanites were completely corrupt, they forced children to pass through fire for a false God, they walled them up in the walls of buildings alive for luck (I guess). God had given them an opportunity to repent. They refused and he was justified in destroying them, which by the way he may not have even done with the exception that they were corrupting the Hebrews. And he only did this after offering them a way out. Forced labour I do not believe was equivalent to our understanding of slavery. That isn't important, God as well as being loving is also a righteous judge and had suffecient reason to destroy these people. I am currently reading a secular book on these wars and it elaborates in detail just how depraved these people were. As you operate consistently with atheism 101, your next jab will be what about the children. According to the bible the children went straight to heaven.
God, who knows all things, saw that they were incurable in their idolatry; that the cup of their iniquity was full; and as their Creator, Sovereign, and Judge, he determined to destroy them from off the face of the earth, "lest they should teach the Israelites to do after all their abominations," Deuteronomy 20:18. After all, many plausible arguments have been brought to prove that even these seven Canaanitish nations might be received into mercy, provided they, 1. Renounced their idolatry; 2. Became subject to the Jews; and, 3. Paid annual tribute: and that it was only in case these terms were rejected, that they were not to leave alive in such a city any thing that breathed, Deuteronomy 20:16. Deuteronomy - Chapter 20 - Adam Clarke Commentary on StudyLight.org
This site covers these issues in depth.

So because they were evil people God went against his moral view that slavery is wrong and commanded the Israelites to take them as slaves? That's like saying even though I think torture is wrong I'm going to torture Hitler anyway. Hardly benevolent or consistent. Also forced labour is slavery.

My understanding of the verse was this: It means to reject God is a foolish action. The foolish person having rejected God will behave in immoral ways a large portion of the time. (Your view of an immoral action will differ in many areas than what God considers immoral). I will have to adjust my interpretation to include what I posted as I did not understand that issue clearly.

define "reject God" because if all atheists reject god then my original point still stands

You have given suffecient reason for your preferences. You have not touched sufficient ground for declareing them Good, or not. Justifying why I like something does not justify my claiming it is ultimately good or bad. In short you can justify individual subjective preference which is not a suffecient method for establishing the moral systems of society without God. However a meaningful justification for the moral requirements of society and law are only found in an ultimate objective standard.

Because I can see the results of actions. So based on what happens when I do x instead of y I can tell whether x is better than y. If x seems to make everyone happy then x is good but if y makes people sad then y is bad. This good enough?

I knew it must be some deep philisophical gem of wisdom.

You expected something less from me?

 

[1robin]

You're saying that knowing what someone will choose has no effect on their ability to make a choice. I disagree because if you know what they will choose then, no matter what, they will choose it.

What he knows is the result of your decisions using freewill. Show me that when you decide what is for supper and I know what it is you freely decided forces your decision. How is the knowledge God has (an abstract concept) able to force a decision (a physical act)?

If I was from another denomination that interpreted the bible differently I'd be fine then? Also if you want to say God is infinite then no matter what revelation he gives it's still limited and not a perfect explanation as we can't fully understand an infinite being. You can't have it both ways. Either we can understand god (not infinite) or we can't (infinite).

Nope, if you make a conclusion based on the bible right or wrong it is not an irrational basis to justify choice. If you make a decision about God independant from revelation then it is a meaningless act without suffecient justification. If I say evolution is false bacause it violates thermodynamics and Abiogenisis that is a meaningful basis for the statement. If I say it is false because I do not like it that is a useless basis. It is not a strange concept to require meaningful justification for a claim.

No I'm very aware of why.

Appararently not because you keep posting anyway. I kid, I kid.

Nice little jab at atheists there. Although I'm very much willing to accept any "uncomfortable realities" of atheism

There is no value in making an empty claim. I have vast amounts of experience to justify what I said. Atheists and especially evolutionists will stretch and claim many things if they are viewed as good. But will fight tooth and nail against the most obvious and simple implications of their views if they are viewed as being bad. Either accept all the logical implications or deny them all. I do not care which. I will add that I can't remember if you have done this or not. It is a general claim.

So because they were evil people God went against his moral view that slavery is wrong and commanded the Israelites to take them as slaves? That's like saying even though I think torture is wrong I'm going to torture Hitler anyway. Hardly benevolent or consistent. Also forced labour is slavery.

I said it was I don't think what we view as slavery. If God gave them a choice between death and working for someone else (whatever that means) because they forced their kids to walk through fire for false idols and walled them up in buildings alive you will have a hard time showing that as unjust. As for slavery its self. The bible never forbids slavery it never condones slavery either. So which verse is it that God broke? I will add why would a perfect infinate God be required to be subject to rules he issues for people in this context? I am not saying he did anything inconsistent but why the requirement. Were your parents required to obey the rules they gave you? In modern times Christians have used the equality of man to fight slavery as we know it, However I do not know of any biblical principle God violated by instituteing forced labor on the grounds of their guilt. Why did you not balk at their death but did with forced labor?

define "reject God" because if all atheists reject god then my original point still stands

My opinion on this issue is meaningless and I don't know why I gave it before. If you actually want the answers go here
Psalm 14:1 For the director of music. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
You can find all the major commentaries plus all the verses in many languages.

Because I can see the results of actions. So based on what happens when I do x instead of y I can tell whether x is better than y. If x seems to make everyone happy then x is good but if y makes people sad then y is bad. This good enough?

No because many time what makes people happy winds up destroying them. For example it may be pleasing to have casual sex. Six months later it may be the prefered (happier would be a inaccurate word) decision to have an abortion. Three years later that women may commit suicide over the depression caused by her actions. Thuis has happened thousands of times. If God's superior morality was followed every bad outcome would have been prevented even though half the women in the country would hate your guts if this was the law. Sin isn't tempting because it doesn't make us happy but it is sin because in most cases someone sufferes for it eventually. No matter whether you call it happyness, common sence, empathy, etc.... it is still in the absence of God the opinion of a extremely fallable human beings.

You expected something less from me?

I plead the fifth.

 

[9Westy9]

What he knows is the result of your decisions using freewill. Show me that when you decide what is for supper and I know what it is you freely decided forces your decision. How is the knowledge God has (an abstract concept) able to force a decision (a physical act)?

because the decision is made long before the act. If I know what you will eat for supper then the decision has already been made in advance of you knowing it.

Nope, if you make a conclusion based on the bible right or wrong it is not an irrational basis to justify choice. If you make a decision about God independant from revelation then it is a meaningless act without suffecient justification. If I say evolution is false bacause it violates thermodynamics and Abiogenisis that is a meaningful basis for the statement. If I say it is false because I do not like it that is a useless basis. It is not a strange concept to require meaningful justification for a claim.

Can you prove that the bible is God's revelation beyond reasonable doubt?

Any comment on the not being able to understand an infinite being comment?

There is no value in making an empty claim. I have vast amounts of experience to justify what I said. Atheists and especially evolutionists will stretch and claim many things if they are viewed as good. But will fight tooth and nail against the most obvious and simple implications of their views if they are viewed as being bad. Either accept all the logical implications or deny them all. I do not care which. I will add that I can't remember if you have done this or not. It is a general claim.

I wasn't actually expecting you to respond to what I said. Either way I'll accept anything negative that comes from my worldview or disregard that view and search for a better one.

I said it was I don't think what we view as slavery. If God gave them a choice between death and working for someone else (whatever that means) because they forced their kids to walk through fire for false idols and walled them up in buildings alive you will have a hard time showing that as unjust. As for slavery its self. The bible never forbids slavery it never condones slavery either. So which verse is it that God broke? I will add why would a perfect infinate God be required to be subject to rules he issues for people in this context? I am not saying he did anything inconsistent but why the requirement. Were your parents required to obey the rules they gave you? In modern times Christians have used the equality of man to fight slavery as we know it, However I do not know of any biblical principle God violated by instituteing forced labor on the grounds of their guilt. Why did you not balk at their death but did with forced labor?

1) You seem to think that God is against slavery so why did he command his people to take them?
2) So God's objective standards are "Do what I say, not what I do"?
3) Their death is just as tragic but God forcing them into slavery when he, apparently, believes slavery to be wrong is inconsistent.

No because many time what makes people happy winds up destroying them. For example it may be pleasing to have casual sex. Six months later it may be the prefered (happier would be a inaccurate word) decision to have an abortion. Three years later that women may commit suicide over the depression caused by her actions. Thuis has happened thousands of times.

I was trying to explain why an act would be viewed as good or bad. The majority of the time acts that make people happy are good and acts that make people unhappy are bad. Whether we're referring to immediate happiness or overall happiness (i.e. happier over a prolonged period of time)

If God's superior morality...

Opinion

...was followed every bad outcome would have been prevented...

evidence?

...even though half the women in the country would hate your guts if this was the law.

They probably would

 

[1robin]

because the decision is made long before the act. If I know what you will eat for supper then the decision has already been made in advance of you knowing it.

I am actually committing the definition of insanity here. Oh well. God seeing what you will use your freewill to choose is not a determinative act. Your use of freewill was what determined the outcome God's role is passive yours is active.

Can you prove that the bible is God's revelation beyond reasonable doubt?

Reasonable is a relative term. Since billions of people have concluded it as true I would say there is suffecient evidence. I know what your response will be but will wait for it.

Any comment on the not being able to understand an infinite being comment?

I thought I did address it. Could you please repost I am currently in a hurry.

I wasn't actually expecting you to respond to what I said. Either way I'll accept anything negative that comes from my worldview or disregard that view and search for a better one.

That is reasonable but I would add it couldn't be used to meaningfully counter a well established religion except for maybe you personally..

1) You seem to think that God is against slavery so why did he command his people to take them?

I don't think God would favor the unjust enslavement of another person. I don't know why he wouldn't do so as a lesser punishment than death but that is only my opinion. How is it any different than sending prisoners to hard labor?

2) So God's objective standards are "Do what I say, not what I do"?

I don't think he did this but I can't think of a reason it couldn't be so. It is the same with parents and children. A gather wouldn't let a 5 year old drive a car.

3) Their death is just as tragic but God forcing them into slavery when he, apparently, believes slavery to be wrong is inconsistent.

How is forced labor or death outside God's sovereignty or justice. If these people made their kids walk through fire and walled them up alive I would have no problem destroying them myself and there is no way to justify they got more than they deserve. Their actions were tragic not their judgement, unless you consider justice tragic.

I was trying to explain why an act would be viewed as good or bad. The majority of the time acts that make people happy are good and acts that make people unhappy are bad. Whether we're referring to immediate happiness or overall happiness (i.e. happier over a prolonged period of time)

How is this imperfect system that is sometime right and sometimes dreadfully wrong better than a perfectly "just" every time system.

Opinion

What was? Since you asked for my opinion several times why are you rejecting whatever this one was.

evidence?

God assigns value to life and forbids destrotying it without suffecient justification. He also forbids premarital sex. Since either one of these would have eliminated the outcomes in my example then what are you asking?

They probably would

You said it sister. I was going to really launch into an abortion thing but my hands are currently full.

 

[9Westy9]

I am actually committing the definition of insanity here. Oh well. God seeing what you will use your freewill to choose is not a determinative act. Your use of freewill was what determined the outcome God's role is passive yours is active.

I'm not going to beat my head on the wall any longer.

Reasonable is a relative term. Since billions of people have concluded it as true I would say there is suffecient evidence. I know what your response will be but will wait for it.

Fine by me, but I'm not convinced

I thought I did address it. Could you please repost I am currently in a hurry.

If you want to say God is infinite then no matter what revelation he gives it's still limited and not a perfect explanation as we can't fully understand an infinite being. You can't have it both ways. Either we can understand god (not infinite) or we can't (infinite).

That is reasonable but I would add it couldn't be used to meaningfully counter a well established religion except for maybe you personally..

I agree. I wasn't using this point to counter a religion or worldview

I don't think God would favor the unjust enslavement of another person. I don't know why he wouldn't do so as a lesser punishment than death but that is only my opinion. How is it any different than sending prisoners to hard labor?

It's not. I'd argue that it's inconsistent with a benevolent being though

I don't think he did this but I can't think of a reason it couldn't be so. It is the same with parents and children. A gather wouldn't let a 5 year old drive a car.

Driving a car has nothing to do with morality. If you father told you x is wrong and then went on to do x he'd be a hypocrite.

How is forced labor or death outside God's sovereignty or justice. If these people made their kids walk through fire and walled them up alive I would have no problem destroying them myself and there is no way to justify they got more than they deserve. Their actions were tragic not their judgement, unless you consider justice tragic.

I don't consider justice tragic. Although I don't think justice is a necessary concept for an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being as 1 he'd know everything that caused person x to do what he did and why person x did what he did. 2 He'd be able to have changed (theoretically) the outcome so that no one would have needed to have been punished and 3 Would desire to not have to punish person x and, depending on how you define benevolent, would forgive the person rather than punish them. After all forgiveness is more loving than justice is it not?

How is this imperfect system that is sometime right and sometimes dreadfully wrong better than a perfectly "just" every time system.

Not what I'm trying to prove. As I said before all I'm trying to do is show how the concepts of good and evil can arise from an atheistic point of view.

What was? Since you asked for my opinion several times why are you rejecting whatever this one was.

You said that God's morality is superior. I was pointing out that it was your opinion rather than a fact

God assigns value to life and forbids destrotying it without suffecient justification. He also forbids premarital sex. Since either one of these would have eliminated the outcomes in my example then what are you asking?

I wanted evidence that following God's morality would prevent all bad outcomes

You said it sister. I was going to really launch into an abortion thing but my hands are currently full.

Probably for the best

 

[1robin]

I'm not going to beat my head on the wall any longer.

This horse is not just dead it is dust.

Fine by me, but I'm not convinced

That is your choice but 2000 plus prophecies if true have no other explenation.

If you want to say God is infinite then no matter what revelation he gives it's still limited and not a perfect explanation as we can't fully understand an infinite being. You can't have it both ways. Either we can understand god (not infinite) or we can't (infinite).

If an infinate being said 2 + 2 = 4 are you saying we can't understand that? It is amazing what people appeal to in order to dismiss the God. We can understand the part of his infinity that corresponds with the range of our finite knowledge. I agree that we will never fully comprehend a God but we were built to comprehend the issues necessary for us to relate to him for his purpose and our role. Numbers are infinate but we can comprehend portions of them.

I agree. I wasn't using this point to counter a religion or worldview

Very well

It's not. I'd argue that it's inconsistent with a benevolent being though

You mean the only possible source to establish an absolute value of life, equality of man, meaning, etc... is inconsistent with benevolence. It is also the only system with suffecient justification for even the concept of good and evil and which allows for the destruction of the evil when it is so far gone that it would corrupt the good. By your system evil is not destoyed and it would destroy the good.

Driving a car has nothing to do with morality. If you father told you x is wrong and then went on to do x he'd be a hypocrite.

It is moral when because if the kid killed or injured someone or himself that is wrong. However the father can drive. If you do not find it logical that a being that knows everything can execute actions that a finite being cannot I give up.

I don't consider justice tragic. Although I don't think justice is a necessary concept for an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being as 1 he'd know everything that caused person x to do what he did and why person x did what he did. 2 He'd be able to have changed (theoretically) the outcome so that no one would have needed to have been punished and 3 Would desire to not have to punish person x and, depending on how you define benevolent, would forgive the person rather than punish them. After all forgiveness is more loving than justice is it not?

Then you wish to be an automaton that will have reality adapted to force compliance. There is nothing unjust about accountabiblity.

Not what I'm trying to prove. As I said before all I'm trying to do is show how the concepts of good and evil can arise from an atheistic point of view.

Not in an absolute sense. Only in a preference sense.

You said that God's morality is superior. I was pointing out that it was your opinion rather than a fact

No, My claim of God's existance is a well justified opinion. The implications of that existance are philisophical law mostly.

I wanted evidence that following God's morality would prevent all bad outcomes

I only mentioned that in the context of that example. Regardless it is logical to assume that if a perfect God made a perfect law and it was perfectly followed the results would be perfect. There was no bad outcomes in the garden until they defied God.

Probably for the best

Sorry about the sister label I for some reason arbitrarily and involuntarily assign people in forums a gender, but I have since noticed yours and will not slip up again.

 

[9Westy9]

This horse is not just dead it is dust.

My dust is better than yours

That is your choice but 2000 plus prophecies if true have no other explenation.

I'll get around to the prophecies you posted after my term has finished.

If an infinate being said 2 + 2 = 4 are you saying we can't understand that? It is amazing what people appeal to in order to dismiss the God. We can understand the part of his infinity that corresponds with the range of our finite knowledge. I agree that we will never fully comprehend a God but we were built to comprehend the issues necessary for us to relate to him for his purpose and our role. Numbers are infinate but we can comprehend portions of them.

So you agree that we can't understand an infinite being, only have a slight understanding? I have nothing more to add then (note: I'm not talking about understanding what the being says I'm talking about understanding the being itself.)

You mean the only possible source to establish an absolute value of life, equality of man, meaning, etc... is inconsistent with benevolence. It is also the only system with suffecient justification for even the concept of good and evil and which allows for the destruction of the evil when it is so far gone that it would corrupt the good. By your system evil is not destoyed and it would destroy the good.

I believe a benevolent being would value forgiveness over justice. However it seems that your God values free will over justice. If you want to be like him then you might as well get rid of the law.

It is moral when because if the kid killed or injured someone or himself that is wrong.

The act of driving a car in and of itself is not about morality. Not allowing a kid to drive is protecting him because he's not yet old enough to drive it properly. So when a father tells a child not to drive the car it's not a "driving is evil" command rather it's a command to protect the child until he's old enough to drive it.

However the father can drive. If you do not find it logical that a being that knows everything can execute actions that a finite being cannot I give up.

I understand this perfectly. but using your analogy if the father says that driving is evil and then proceeds to drive then he's a hypocrite. If however he says that driving isn't evil but only bad for the kid to do then it's not hypocritical. So is God saying slavery is bad for humans only or is slavery always evil regardless?

Then you wish to be an automaton that will have reality adapted to force compliance. There is nothing unjust about accountabiblity.

I think you missed what I was trying to say

Not in an absolute sense. Only in a preference sense.

I don't need to prove it in absolute sense because people don't all agree on morality, only some parts.

No, My claim of God's existance is a well justified opinion.

key word here is opinion

The implications of that existance are philisophical law mostly.

I judge morality based on what seems most fair rather than how absolute it is. So I'll take my "superior" secular morality over God's

I only mentioned that in the context of that example. Regardless it is logical to assume that if a perfect God made a perfect law and it was perfectly followed the results would be perfect. There was no bad outcomes in the garden until they defied God.

If God is perfect. Although even perfect seems to be lacking objectivity.

Sorry about the sister label I for some reason arbitrarily and involuntarily assign people in forums a gender, but I have since noticed yours and will not slip up again.

It's alright. It's normal to make assumptions based on a persons avatar

 

[1robin]

My dust is better than yours

Is that good or bad for you?

I'll get around to the prophecies you posted after my term has finished.

Are you serving a prison sentence? Or are you in school? Almost the same thing in some ways.

So you agree that we can't understand an infinite being, only have a slight understanding? I have nothing more to add then (note: I'm not talking about understanding what the being says I'm talking about understanding the being itself.)

We can have at least enough of an understanding to relate to God in any way that is required of us. We in addition can understand God to the extent of what's contained in revelation and it's implications, but never totally comprehend him.

I believe a benevolent being would value forgiveness over justice. However it seems that your God values free will over justice. If you want to be like him then you might as well get rid of the law.

You might could make the case that he values freewill over justice in a temporal sense but not in an eternal absolute sense. You might get set free for killing someone on a technicality but God will not forget and unless you repent you will pay. The bible says that not even a sparrow hits the ground outside of his knowledge and every hair of our heads are numbered. There is no ultimate cheating of justice.

The act of driving a car in and of itself is not about morality. Not allowing a kid to drive is protecting him because he's not yet old enough to drive it properly. So when a father tells a child not to drive the car it's not a "driving is evil" command rather it's a command to protect the child until he's old enough to drive it.

Hair splitting meter is pegged. Try drinking, sex, etc....(I meant try evaluating them not practicing them.)

I understand this perfectly. but using your analogy if the father says that driving is evil and then proceeds to drive then he's a hypocrite. If however he says that driving isn't evil but only bad for the kid to do then it's not hypocritical. So is God saying slavery is bad for humans only or is slavery always evil regardless?

I didn't say driving was evil it's self I said to drive in spite of being qualified to do so is definately evil (morally wrong) BECAUSE you endanger yourself and others.

I think you missed what I was trying to say

I was trying very hard to. I kid.

I don't need to prove it in absolute sense because people don't all agree on morality, only some parts.

Then it is definately insuffecient for the needs of society. That is exactly why an ultimate standard is needed instead of 6 billion different opinions.

key word here is opinion

Of course my faith is my opinion. The implications if it is true are not opinion.

I judge morality based on what seems most fair rather than how absolute it is. So I'll take my "superior" secular morality over God's

I have shown you many reasons why your moral system is vastly deficient compared to God's but you may choose it over his for a while anyway. The deficiency of yours is illustrated by Jefferson acknowledging that the creator is the only justification for equality or inalienable rights possible. Some of the most benevolent and profound truths ever uttered.

If God is perfect. Although even perfect seems to be lacking objectivity.

Why does that matter if true?

It's alright. It's normal to make assumptions based on a persons avatar

It would be alright except I do it even without an Avatar.

 

[9Westy9]

Is that good or bad for you?

Not sure. It tastes good though

Are you serving a prison sentence? Or are you in school? Almost the same thing in some ways.

University. I finish term on Friday

You might could make the case that he values freewill over justice in a temporal sense but not in an eternal absolute sense. You might get set free for killing someone on a technicality but God will not forget and unless you repent you will pay. The bible says that not even a sparrow hits the ground outside of his knowledge and every hair of our heads are numbered. There is no ultimate cheating of justice.

and is forgiveness better than justice?

Hair splitting meter is pegged. Try drinking, sex, etc....(I meant try evaluating them not practicing them.)

Both are fine when used correctly and not abused (i.e. drinking too much, unprotected sex out of marriage)

I didn't say driving was evil it's self I said to drive in spite of being qualified to do so is definately evil (morally wrong) BECAUSE you endanger yourself and others.

and if we bring this back to the slavery example....?

I was trying very hard to. I kid.

indeed

Then it is definately insuffecient for the needs of society. That is exactly why an ultimate standard is needed instead of 6 billion different opinions.

No, what is needed is an agreed upon standard for society. It means compromising on some things and prioritising what the morality intends to achieve for everyone.

Of course my faith is my opinion. The implications if it is true are not opinion.

of course, but it's still an opinion

I have shown you many reasons why your moral system is vastly deficient compared to God's but you may choose it over his for a while anyway. The deficiency of yours is illustrated by Jefferson acknowledging that the creator is the only justification for equality or inalienable rights possible. Some of the most benevolent and profound truths ever uttered.

the only deficiency you've shown is it's relativity.

Why does that matter if true?

because when you say God is perfect it's your subjective opinion rather than an objective fact.

It would be alright except I do it even without an Avatar.

 

[Oryonder]

but could u explain how we could have more than one right religion? although that each religion has contradicts with other religions? how contradictions could be all right?

Even if you had "the right religion" how would one know ?

There is no way to prove that other religions are wrong .. so it is impossible to say which one is right.

 

[Oryonder]

.
I have shown you many reasons why your moral system is vastly deficient compared to God's but you may choose it over his for a while anyway. The deficiency of yours is illustrated by Jefferson acknowledging that the creator is the only justification for equality or inalienable rights possible. Some of the most benevolent and profound truths ever uttered.
.

I do not think that you are understanding Jefferson very well.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

Profound Truths indeed.

One of the major platforms of the Constitution is freedom from religion .. that the State should not use religion in any way shape or form to make laws.

 

[Muffled]

Everyone who values life, love, beauty, compassion tend to consider themselves to be on the right path. Another word for way is example. If Jesus was the example then healing the sick, feeding the poor. Forgiving people of their sins. Anyone who does these thing regardless of belief is following the example of Jesus.

If you teach, encourage, become the example of these values, regardless of anything else how can you say that person is not on the right track?

Because you have just traded in one law (Jewish) for another law (Christian) and although the law is good it is not perfect and our ability to keep that law is not perfect.

Jesus is my living law and the power to keep it and He is perfect.

 

[1robin]

I do not think that you are understanding Jefferson very well.



Profound Truths indeed.

I thought I said in my post and I know I have in threads before that Jefferson was not a Christian by any standard, he was a theist, he cut any part of the bible out with scissors that he didn't like. That makes his appeal to our creator for the justification of equality and inalienable rights all the more remarkable. There is a princile in Juric Prudence called the principle of embarassment that states that if someone makes a claim that emberasses them then that claim has a high degree of reliability.

Thomas Jefferson: “We are all endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights”, etc.
Thomas Jefferson: “We are all endowed by our CREATOR with certain unalienable rights”, etc. « Kingdom Economics – The Future Is Now
In the context of my comment it matters not what creator he referred to even though the best guess would be the biblical one. My point was that only God is a suffecient source and justification for the moral needs of society.

One of the major platforms of the Constitution is freedom from religion .. that the State should not use religion in any way shape or form to make laws

It is freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. These people just came from countries where the secular government incorporated the Church and enforced their rules on it and ruined it. They did not want that happening here. And so they said that they government could not establish or dictate a certain religion. That is probably why Jefferson used a general term like Creator instead of specifically Christian God. There is no seperation of Church and state clause in the constitution.

 

[Muffled]

Literature is full of examples of fulfilled prophecy. It's easy when you're dealing in fiction.


This is no more evidence of God's existence than the defeat of the Persians by the Greeks means Zeus is real.

You seem to lack discernment as to what fiction is. I Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series prophecy is used often and the author can make those prophecies come true. We know that is fiction because He says it is but the Bible proclaims itself as God inspired which is defintely not self proclaimed fiction.

Of course Zeus is real whether fictional or not ie He is portrayed as real just as fictional caharacters are portrayed as real. Whether Zeus actually existed as a physical person, we have no firm proof but that can be said of any person before photgraphs came into being and even now photographs can be doctored. Certainly people thought of Zeus as a real person since they worshipped him.

 

[waitasec]

You seem to lack discernment as to what fiction is.

the irony.

 

[waitasec]

We know that is fiction because He says it is but the Bible proclaims itself as God inspired which is defintely not self proclaimed fiction.

 

[Muffled]

By independent investigation of truth. Putting any bias and traditional beliefs and imitations away.
Many people also believe whatever the heart says follow that. I don't believe this, as the heart becomes biased to traditions and imitations, which prevent us from seeing and finding the right path.


“Verily we found our fathers with a faith, and verily, in their footsteps we follow.” Qur’án 43:22.

However people have a problem identifying the truth as Pilot said in response to Jesus "What is truth." Jesus says "I am the truth." Then your search is over and you have found the right religion.

 

[1robin]

Not sure. It tastes good though

I find it hard to believe that dead philisophical horse dust is tasty.

University. I finish term on Friday

Cool, what are you studying?

and is forgiveness better than justice?

I do not see the conflict within Christianity, but to play along if justice lands you in hell but forgiveness gets you into heaven which one would you honestly choose.

Both are fine when used correctly and not abused (i.e. drinking too much, unprotected sex out of marriage)

I meant that they are immoral at a certain age and considered moral at another.

and if we bring this back to the slavery example....?

Well do that and I will respond, I have been researching this subject so make my day.

indeed

inspirit

No, what is needed is an agreed upon standard for society. It means compromising on some things and prioritising what the morality intends to achieve for everyone.

So you would have jailed Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, and Ghandi because they defied the excepted majority agreed upon standard.

of course, but it's still an opinion

Whether God is real or not is my very well supported opinion, what that would mean if true is not.

the only deficiency you've shown is it's relativity.

There is no way to esablish the santity of life, concepts of absolute wrong and right (absoluteness is necessary), inalienable rights etc......Like Dawkins said: There is no way in evolution to claim what Hitler did was actually wrong.

because when you say God is perfect it's your subjective opinion rather than an objective fact.

If the bible is true then this is a fact. The opinion concerns whether it is true or not and does not apply to the implications if true. These conversations always wind up at the same place. The critics individual arguments do not work so we wind up where we started with the only meaningfull issue. Is the bible true? All else is automatic.

 

[waitasec]

However people have a problem identifying the truth as Pilot said in response to Jesus "What is truth." Jesus says "I am the truth." Then your search is over and you have found the right religion.

 

[Connie Sue]

Since, even if true you have no possible way to know no religion is correct then to post it as a fact says you are willing to be intellectually dishonest for the sake of rhetoric.

May I join your conversation?
One can take the bible and prove that God is truth, by the scriptures! When I say bible, I am referring to the inspired word of God.