Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Was America Always a Christian Nation?
Show More
Loading...
Flag El Cid October 8, 2015 12:20 AM EDT

Sep 29, 2015 -- 1:24AM, Roymond wrote:


Sep 29, 2015 -- 12:39AM, El Cid wrote:


If two people of the same sex can marry then why can't three or four people get married?




I don't know -- why?





Because it goes against God's law and the nature of women.

Flag El Cid October 8, 2015 12:34 AM EDT

Sep 29, 2015 -- 3:14PM, TPaine wrote:


tp: As I've said this is the wrong forum to discuss LGBT marriage. But I'll answer this one more time. 


ec: YOU are the one that brought it up. 


tp: You're wrong. The first post on gay marriage I see was #431 was dated March 18th. It was posted by Esdraelon who no longer posts in this forum The 1st post of mine in this thread since the discussion restarted 11 months ago after 13 months with no posts was #547 on April 18th. Your first post was #433 on March 21st. Obviously, I didn't bring the subject up. Please try to get your facts straight.



Well Ok sorry. But nevertheless it was one of your fellow Progressives and you kept bringing up after he did.


Sep 29, 2015 -- 12:39AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, as I demonstrated with studies earlier in this thread that behavior is not good for you, so just as our government discourages smoking for health reasons so should homosexual behavior be discouraged so plainly endorsing that kind of "marriage" is not good for society. Many of those of those diseases are highly transmittable. Also, it basically destroys marriage so that it can mean anything. If something can mean anything then it means nothing. If two people of the same sex can marry then why can't three or four people get married? Why can you not marry your daughter as long as you are sterile or do not engage in sex? Why can you not marry your dog as long as there is no sex? Why can you not marry your computer? Who says that your spouse must be human?


tp: And I have debunked your out-of-date studies with mutable up-to-date information from several professional associations and foundations. The only thing that is not good for LGBT people is the bigotry and discrimination they have to put up with from religious fundamentalists.



I would hardly call the 2001 JAMA and the 2012 CDC studies out of date. 


tp: There's no good reason why Polygamy should not be legal. To legalize polygamous marriage the rights and benefits that come with marriage would have to be amended first to cover multiple individuals. Marriage establishes a legal relationship between two or more individuals. A relationship between family members exist without the need of marriage.



But what if you want to have sex with your family member and to get the additional tax breaks?


tp: You can't marry your dog, or your computer because animals and inanimate objects cannot sign a contract. Nor can you marry dead people for the same reason.



Who made up the rule about the ability to sign a contract, and why should we obey it?


Sep 29, 2015 -- 12:39AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, that verse is dealing with consensual fornication not rape. Notice in verse 28 it says "and THEY are found out." If it was rape then it would have said "and HE was found out." The plural term "they" means that they were working together to hide their act therefore it was consensual. Rape is dealt with in verses 25-27, where it refers to the woman crying out because she was being raped. The man is executed for rape.


tp: The Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 reads


28 If a man finds a virgin girl who was not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,


 כחכִּי יִמְצָא אִישׁ נַעֲרָה (כתיב נער) בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֹרָשָׂה וּתְפָשָׂהּ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וְנִמְצָאוּ         :


9 the man who lay with her shall give fifty [shekels of] silver to the girl's father, and she shall become his wife, because he violated her. He shall not send her away all the days of his life.


כטוְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה (כתיב הנער) חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ לֹא יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ כָּל יָמָיו:


The word seize denotes grasping suddenly and forcibly or take or grab.




Things can get pretty rough with consensual fornication too. The key words and lack of words are the text uses "THEY are found out" plainly implying that both were hiding from the authorities. Also, she does not cry out as mentioned in the verses that do deal with rape, ie 25-27.

Flag El Cid October 8, 2015 12:40 AM EDT

Sep 29, 2015 -- 4:32PM, TPaine wrote:


Sep 29, 2015 -- 12:20AM, El Cid wrote:


The Word of God is not just "some document". It is God's loving communication to us to help us live in this world to our greatest potential. As king and Creator of the universe He can help us to think thoughts "that are lovely and pure" and righteous and make right decisions. As a Christian you disagree with that?



It may not be just some document to Christians but it certainly isn't to me and the other non-Christians that live in this country. We're not going to allow the fundamentalist Christians to make it so. You live by what it says in your holy book, but I'll continue to live by my God given reason and the Ethic of Reciprocity.




How do you know that your reason is God given? Maybe the deistic god just got evolution going and humans are still just the result of random processes and therefore, your reason just may be an illusion along with your consciousness as many atheists believe.

Flag amcolph October 8, 2015 8:20 AM EDT

Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:



tp: You can't marry your dog, or your computer because animals and inanimate objects cannot sign a contract. Nor can you marry dead people for the same reason.



ec: Who made up the rule about the ability to sign a contract, and why should we obey it?




We've answered this in detail at least once before.


The laws surrounding the creation of contracts are at the foundation of our economy, which could not function without them.  Abrogate them at your peril.


Of course, we are well aware that the only reason you obey any of the rules of a civilized society is because you fear God's wrath.


Normal people can understand the social utility of a rule and obey it for that reason.

Flag amcolph October 8, 2015 8:24 AM EDT

Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:



How do you know that your reason is God given? Maybe the deistic god just got evolution going and humans are still just the result of random processes and therefore, your reason just may be an illusion along with your consciousness as many atheists believe.




Believe it they may, but you are the one who added the "therefore."   In any case, the Christian god may have handled it the same way.  A "random process" does not, of necessity, exclude telos.

Flag TPaine October 8, 2015 2:33 PM EDT

Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:


Well Ok sorry. But nevertheless it was one of your fellow Progressives and you kept bringing up after he did.



He is an anti-same-sex Christian. He's far from a Progressive. Your first post in this forum was supporting his position.


Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

I would hardly call the 2001 JAMA and the 2012 CDC studies out of date.



Since you brought up the CDC, they have an article about the problem of LGBTQ suicide. Much of the problem is caused by bigotry, bullying, and violence in their school. Other problems are parents and relatives that refuse to accept the fact that their child is LGB. Link


Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

But what if you want to have sex with your family member and to get the additional tax breaks?



Families already have the tax breaks. Marriage makes a couple a legal family


Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

Who made up the rule about the ability to sign a contract, and why should we obey it?



The law was made to protect people who are incompetent to sign a contract.

Competent Law. (of a witness, a party to a contract, etc.) legal capacity or qualification based on the meeting of certain minimum requirements of age, soundness of mind, citizenship, or the like.


It should be obeyed because taking advantage of people who are too young or mentally unable to understand the contract is wrong.


Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

Things can get pretty rough with consensual fornication too. The key words and lack of words are the text uses "THEY are found out" plainly implying that both were hiding from the authorities. Also, she does not cry out as mentioned in the verses that do deal with rape, ie 25-27.



Deuteronomy 22:23-27 deals with virgin women who are engaged to a man. 22:28-29 deals with a virgin who is not engaged. Whether or not they were hiding out or not of whether she cried out is irrelevant. I love the way you, like Calvin, twist scripture to support your beliefs.

Flag TPaine October 8, 2015 3:01 PM EDT

Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:


How do you know that your reason is God given? Maybe the deistic god just got evolution going and humans are still just the result of random processes and therefore, your reason just may be an illusion along with your consciousness as many atheists believe.



I'm not an Atheist so I don't believe what they do. Humans are the only species that are able to reason. It's illogical, as Mr. Spock would say, to believe that of the 1,367,555 non-insect animals only one (humans) have the ability to reason came from evolution alone. How do I know it was God given? I know I didn't get it from Tinkerbell, Peter Pan, or R2-D2 so God seems to be the best answer.

Flag El Cid October 9, 2015 12:45 AM EDT

Sep 30, 2015 -- 9:05AM, amcolph wrote:


Sep 30, 2015 -- 12:28AM, El Cid wrote:



The bible is the only major religious book that states that there was a definite beginning of the universe and that it came into existence out of nothing material and this has been confirmed by science with the BB theory. Also, it teaches that the universe is expanding and is winding down energetically which was also confirmed by science over 2000 years later.




That statement is false from beginning to end--as you well know.


In particular, the 'Big Bang' theory is just that--a theory--so it "confirms" nothing.


Even so, it most certainly makes no statement about what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang.


You have been trying to push this bald-faced lie up our noses since you got here, but it's still a lie.  Big Bang cosmology neither affirms nor denies creation ex nihilo.




It may not confirm it but it strongly points in that direction. It does point strongly that nothing material existed prior to the BB. The first space-time theorem of general relativity was formulated by Hawking and Penrose in 1970 and all research since then has confirmed that space, time, matter and energy came into existence at the BB. So if there was no matter or energy prior to the BB that is strong evidence for creation out of nothing observable.

Flag El Cid October 10, 2015 12:17 AM EDT

Sep 30, 2015 -- 9:12AM, amcolph wrote:


Sep 30, 2015 -- 12:42AM, El Cid wrote:



The founding fathers did not believe that individuals own the government. Read the Articles of Confederation which was written and endorsed by most of the same people that wrote and endorsed the DOI. It references the Great Governor of the World. Government DID have the authority to restrict any behavior that went against the laws of nature's God (ie the biblical (not the Christian) God.




Not without the consent of the governed, as is clearly and unequivocally set out in our founding documents.


Your statement is both thoroughly un-American and thoroughly un-Christian.  It slanders the Founding Fathers and calls the Constitution a lie.


You, sir, are a traitor to your country and deserve to be dealt with as such.




Yes, the government had to be set up with the consent of the governed, but that does not mean that the people OWNED the government. The government is a minster of God, but it fell on the people to create the best government they could. Not just make up a government out of thin air anyway they wanted. As a group of Christians, which who most of the founders were, they knew that God's principles were the best so they chose to base much of the government on Christian principles.

Flag El Cid October 10, 2015 12:26 AM EDT

Sep 30, 2015 -- 1:54PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: Yes, he did ignore the part of the ruling that blacks could not be citizens of the US whether slave or free. And that they had no standing in a federal court.


tp; Lincoln didn't give blacks, slave or free, citizenship. That didn't happen until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. Lincoln was assassinated in 1865.



Well maybe not citizenship, but he ignored that they had no standing in federal court.


Sep 30, 2015 -- 12:08AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: But slavery probably would not have ended at that time if Lincoln had not tried to retake Ft. Sumter and began the war.


tp: Lincoln was elected on November 6, 1860. He wasn't inaugurated until March 4 1861. Seven southern states seceded while James Buchanan; 1. South Carolina (December 20, 1860), 2. Mississippi (January 9 1861), 3. Florida (January 10 1861), 4. Alabama (January 11 1861), 5. Georgia (January 1961), 6. Louisiana (January 26 1861), and  7. Texas (February 1 1861; referendum February 23 1861). Lincoln didn't try to retake Fort Sumter. The actual history is as follows. In a letter delivered January 31, 1861, South Carolina Governor Pickens demanded of President Buchanan that he surrender Fort Sumter because," I regard that possession is not consistent with the dignity or safety of the State of South Carolina." Over the next few months repeated calls for evacuation of Fort Sumter from the government of South Carolina and then from Confederate Brigadier General P. G. T. Beauregard were ignored. On Thursday, April 11, 1861, Beauregard sent three aides, Colonel James Chesnut, Jr., Captain Stephen D. Lee, and Lieutenant A. R. Chisolm to demand the surrender of the fort. surrender Fort Sumter. The commanding officer, Major Robert Anderson, refused. On April 12, 1861, 8 days after Lincoln became president the South Carolina military bombarded the fort forcing it to surrender. When the fort was attacked it was already in Union hands and had been since 1829. The war was started by the Confederates.




See my response to Amcoph where I make my point a little clearer.

Flag El Cid October 10, 2015 1:10 AM EDT

Sep 30, 2015 -- 5:45PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: Unitarians don't believe in original sin. Montesquieu was a devout Catholic, read Robert Shackleton, "Montesquieu: A Critical Biography". How do you know what Satan would do and by what standard can you judge morality since the Deist god has told us nothing about morality? The Ethic of Reciprocity is just based on an irrational sentimentality for homo sapiens, because nature says nothing special about humans. No one species deserves any different treatment from another species. Why does the EOR not apply to other animals?


tp: Why would a "devout Catholic" write an article for Denis Diderot's and Jean-Baptiste le Rond d'Alembert's (both Deists) Encyclopédie along with Voltaire and Rousseau (both Deists)?



There are some things especially back then, that Christians and deists had in common. So why not?


tp: To be honest, I don't believe there is a Satan. I use the term when I communicate with Christians because of their belief Satan is an evil being. The Deist God did give us the basic of morality. Its called the Ethic of Reciprocity and is easily understood through God given reason.



How do you know that the deist god gave you the EOR? Since he does not communicate?


tp: If "the Ethic of Reciprocity is just based on an irrational sentimentality for homo sapiens" Why did Jesus say what he did in Matthew 7:12?



Because Jesus believed that all humans have intrinsic value because we are created in the image of God. But if the Christian God does not exist then we are not created in His image.


tp: Nature shows that humans are the only species that has the ability to. reason. Where did you get the idea that all species are equal? Science has proved that they are not. Not all humans are equal in all respects, but they all have equal human rights.



I don't mean equal in abilities, but no species has intrinsic special value since all species are the result of the same process, ie evolution. And you are correct, if humans are the product of evolution then they are not equal, so on what basis do we all have equal rights?


Sep 30, 2015 -- 12:28AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: The bible is the only major religious book that states that there was a definite beginning of the universe and that it came into existence out of nothing material and this has been confirmed by science with the BB theory. Also, it teaches that the universe is expanding and is winding down energetically which was also confirmed by science over 2000 years later.


tp: Are we going through this again? The Hindu RigVeda states "If in the beginning there was neither Being nor Non-Being, neither air nor sky, what was there? Who or what oversaw it? What was it when there was no darkness, light, life, or death? We can only say that there was the One, that which breathed of itself deep in the void, that which was heat and became desire and the germ of spirit." which is suggestive of the fact that Ex nihilo creator was always there and he is not controlled by time or by any previous creation. This is I can find no religious text except the RigVeda that actually claims everything came out of nothing.



No, since in Hinduism there is no real separation between the One and the universe, there never was any real beginning to the universe, it has always existed just in different illusory forms. The universe and god are One in hinduism. The differences are just illusions. ALL is ultimately One. 




tp: Genesis 1:I states there was a formless, void earth and water. Water is something. Even the Big Bang theory doesn't claim that there was nothing to begin with. If there is nothing it couldn't go bang not even a little bang. As for the Bible claiming that God continues to stretch out the universe, read what it says at this Link




No, it states God CREATED the heavens and the earth at the beginning and then the earth was formless and void. The heavens and the earth with water on it were created not out of water. This is confirmed by Hebrews 11:3. Not absolutely nothing, just nothing physical. Also the hebrew term for many of those verses means an ongoing stretching.

Flag TPaine October 10, 2015 12:18 PM EDT

Oct 10, 2015 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:


There are some things especially back then, that Christians and deists had in common. So why not?



One thing Diderot, d'Alembert Voltaire and Rousseau, not to mention Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach an Atheist who wrote numerous articles for the Encyclopédie, had in common was a hatred of the Roman Catholic church. I'm surprised that a "devout Catholic" like you claim Montesquieu was would have anything to do with them, or more to the point, they would have anything to do with him. I was wrong in my earlier post. Diderot was an Atheist, not a Deist.


Oct 10, 2015 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:

How do you know that the deist god gave you the EOR? Since he does not communicate?



I've answered that question several times. If you can't understand what I wrote repeating it again will accomplish nothing.


Oct 10, 2015 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:

Because Jesus believed that all humans have intrinsic value because we are created in the image of God. But if the Christian God does not exist then we are not created in His image.



The EOR is basically universal among religions and moral/ethical systems. Its not something unique to the Christian god. Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato were pagans who lived before Christianity existed. Where did they get the EOR?


Oct 10, 2015 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:

I don't mean equal in abilities, but no species has intrinsic special value since all species are the result of the same process, ie evolution. And you are correct, if humans are the product of evolution then they are not equal, so on what basis do we all have equal rights?



animals operate on instinct, not on reason but they only fight and/or kill to protect themselves and others in their group or for food. They seem to understand equal rights better than humans do.Read The Lowest Animal by Mark Twain. Link 1


Oct 10, 2015 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:

No, since in Hinduism there is no real separation between the One and the universe, there never was any real beginning to the universe, it has always existed just in different illusory forms. The universe and god are One in hinduism. The differences are just illusions. ALL is ultimately One.




As I read it the One was the creator. Christians believe God is/was eternal. Both The Nasadiya Sukta and Genesis mention water existing before the creation. Link 2


Oct 10, 2015 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:

No, it states God CREATED the heavens and the earth at the beginning and then the earth was formless and void. The heavens and the earth with water on it were created not out of water. This is confirmed by Hebrews 11:3. Not absolutely nothing, just nothing physical. Also the hebrew term for many of those verses means an ongoing stretching.



Genesis 1:1-5 reads

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was a]">[a]formless and void, and darkness was over the b]">[b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was c]">[c]moving over the d]">[d]surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.


  1. Or a waste and emptiness
  2. Lit face of
  3. Or hovering
  4. Lit face of  NASB




1:1 is like a chapter heading that tells what the chapter is about. 1:2-5 tells what happened on the 1st day. The story is quite similar to the Nasadiya Sukta.

Flag El Cid October 10, 2015 11:53 PM EDT

Oct 1, 2015 -- 8:03AM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 1, 2015 -- 12:22AM, El Cid wrote:


 So THEY  are the ones committing treason. And not only against America's principles but also against God Himself.





Against your distorted notion of "America's priciples" perhaps, and against your God.


But this is a secular republic.  Nobody cares about your God but you.




Those principles are almost all the ones endorsed by the founding fathers. All devout orthodox Christians care about their God, not just me. If this was a secular republic it would have been founded more like the French Republic which was actually and intentionally founded as secular republic. They recalibrated the calender to ignore the birth of Christ among other things. 

Flag El Cid October 11, 2015 12:34 AM EDT

Oct 1, 2015 -- 3:06PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: Well there is no benefit with taxes, married people pay more taxes than single people.


tp: Wrong, there are tax breaks for married couples. Link 1 There are also many other benefits that married people receive. Link 2



I was referring to income taxes, which your link confirms.


ec: No, marriage is far more than that, true marriage (heterosexual) can unite two people into a single reproductive unit, this is a biological fact irrespective if they can reproduce or not. Homosexual sex cannot do this. Sexual intercourse unites and strengthens human personhood, gay sex is depersonalizing. It uses the person instrumentally for the sex act. Only heterosexual sex unites two persons biologically.


tp: If reproduction is the only reason for marriage should women who cannot reproduce due to menopause or Ovarian, Uterine, Cervical, Vaginal cancer or men who who can't reproduce due to testicular or prostate cancer not be allowed to marry? Obviously, that is not the case. Civil marriage is not based on reproduction or biology. It is based on two people who love each other and want to spend their lives together.



No, did you even read my statement above? I said that heterosexual marriage is the only relationship that can biologically unite two persons. This has been proven biologically. Biologists state that only a mating pair can unite into a single reproductive unit irrespective if they are a functioning reproductive unit. This is based on science and reason. This is the basis that marriage has always been founded on even if not fully expressed or understood in early history until recent history in Western societies. By this reinforcing of personhood society is strengthened.




tp: Your sentences that say, "gay sex is depersonalizing. It uses the person instrumentally for the sex act." is pure bigotry. Two Gays or Lesbians can love each other as much as straight people do, perhaps more given that the divorce rate for straight couples is around 50% while it is only 1% for Gay and Lesbian couples. Get used to it, its the law in the U.S.



I didn't say anything about love, as I stated above love is not the primary basis for marriage. It is the uniting of two persons biologically and therefore the uniting and reinforcing their personhood. Homosexual behavior cannot biologically do this. So it is two people engaging in sex acts. Such behavior does not reinforce their persons organically. It is impossible both logically and biologically. You need to think a little deeper. Any two people of any sex can certainly love each other more than other people, I am not denying that.


ec: Yes, they did make it up in all other SCOTUS cases dealing with marriage they were using the definition that existed throughout all of human history. Such as the Murphy v. Ramsey case. And actually the government does treat the sexes different, only women can make a decision about abortion. No father can stop or request the abortion of his child, only the mother can. So your statement is incorrect.


tp: You keep bringing up decisions of the Waite Court which may have been the most bigoted court in U.S. history. In Pace v. Alabama, The court disregarded the 14th Amendment and ruled that Alabama's anti-miscegenation statute that made marriage between white and black people a felony was constitutional. In United States v. Harris also known as the Ku Klux Klan Case, they held that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to penalize crimes such as assault and murder. Finally, in the Civil Rights Cases they found that neither the Thirteenth nor Fourteenth Amendments empower Congress to safeguard blacks against the actions of private individuals. So much for the idea that the 14th Amendment was to protect black people as you claim. All of those decisions have been overturned by amendment or later SCOTUS decisions.



The members of that court are not the only ones that confirmed that marriage is between a man and woman, this ruling was also referred to by United States vs. Bitty in 1908, even the court that ruled that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional assumed that marriage is between a man and woman. And all four of the dissenting judges in the SCOTUS ruling this year also agree that the Constitution says nothing about gay marriage.




tp: Actually, you are the one that's wrong. Both men and women have the right to control their own bodies. Do you believe a husband has a right to not allow his wife to use birth control?



Of course not, but once the woman becomes pregnant there are three human bodies involved, this is a scientific fact.


ec: The Constitution and the SCOTUS are not infallible, only God is infallible and He wants the best for everybody, so incorporating His principles into the government is engaging in a good thing. And fortunately the founding fathers did an excellent job doing that. Only recently have we had leaders who want to ignore the Constitution and impose their own views on it because they claim it evolves. But the founders only allowed changes to be made using the amendment process. They never wanted an unelected oligarchy to make up rights out of thin air and restrict rights to people that they didn't like, such as orthodox Christians. Right in the face of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.



tp: There is intentionally no mention of God in the Constitution.



Yes, because His role was already explained in the DOI and all the state constitutions, they felt there was no need to refer to Him again.




tp: It is a secular document. Your claim that it is based on Christianity or the Bible is ludicrous.



No, compare it to a real secular government constitution, the one the French republic used, where they changed the calendar so it would not reference the birth of Christ. If ours is secular why did they not do something similar?




tp: Neither the Athenian democracy and Roman republic ever heard of Christianity, but the Founding used some of their ideas in the constitution.  No matter how badly you want that to happen you can forget it.



I don't deny that they used some of their principles but some of the more important ones such as human equality came from the Bible.




tp: This isn't 16th Geneva and the American people wouldn't allow a 21st century John Calvin to take control of the government.




Geneva actually violated the Christian principle of freedom of conscience. So I would not be in favor of running our government in that manner.

Flag TPaine October 11, 2015 3:22 PM EDT

Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:


I was referring to income taxes, which your link confirms.



Since I used to work for H&R Block I know a bit about income taxes. Most of the time a married couple saves money by filing a joint return especially if only one of the couple works. Non-married couples cannot file joint returns.


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

No, did you even read my statement above? I said that heterosexual marriage is the only relationship that can biologically unite two persons. This has been proven biologically. Biologists state that only a mating pair can unite into a single reproductive unit irrespective if they are a functioning reproductive unit. This is based on science and reason. This is the basis that marriage has always been founded on even if not fully expressed or understood in early history until recent history in Western societies. By this reinforcing of personhood society is strengthened.




There is no requirement that a married couple has to be able to reproduce. If that were the case one of our best friends would not have been able to marry her husband since before the marriage she had cancer and had to have her uterus removed. Men who had a vasectomy would also be unable to marry. Marriage isn't based on biology its based of love and two people wanting to spend their lives together. If you can't tolerate a secular government find a theocracy you like and move there.


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

I didn't say anything about love, as I stated above love is not the primary basis for marriage. It is the uniting of two persons biologically and therefore the uniting and reinforcing their personhood. Homosexual behavior cannot biologically do this. So it is two people engaging in sex acts. Such behavior does not reinforce their persons organically. It is impossible both logically and biologically. You need to think a little deeper. Any two people of any sex can certainly love each other more than other people, I am not denying that.



There are many heterosexual married couples who do not want children who get married because they love each other. There are also elderly men and women who marry even after they no longer to reproduce. Person-hood is not based on the ability to reproduce. Unfortunately, when misused religion can be a source of evil. Preachers such as Bryan Fischer, Stephen L. Anderson, Lou Engle, and Gary DeMar, as well as organizations like the Liberty Counsel, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, and the American Family Association preach hate daily on TV, radio, and the internet daily.


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

The members of that court are not the only ones that confirmed that marriage is between a man and woman, this ruling was also referred to by United States vs. Bitty in 1908, even the court that ruled that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional assumed that marriage is between a man and woman. And all four of the dissenting judges in the SCOTUS ruling this year also agree that the Constitution says nothing about gay marriage.




You do know that Murphy v. Ramsey referenced Dred Scott v. Sandford don't you? A decision referencing a previous decision is not necessarily approving the referenced decision. The 9th Amendment clearly states that civil rights are not limited to those numerated in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't mention a right of miscegenation either, but SCOTUS ruled that a state can't make it illegal. If I disagree with Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and usually Roberts I know I'm morally correct.


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

Of course not, but once the woman becomes pregnant there are three human bodies involved, this is a scientific fact.



So because of that the husband has control over the wife's body? He gets to decide even if the wife doesn't want to go through pregnancy? After all he doesn't have to go through the problems pregnancy forces her to go through. 


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

Yes, because His role was already explained in the DOI and all the state constitutions, they felt there was no need to refer to Him again.




The DOI is not law. Its a letter telling the British people why we were braking away. It does so by listing the abridgement of rights of the colonists by the King and Parliament. Only six men of the fifty-six who signed the DOI were among the forty who signed the Constitution. What state constitutions say is irrelevant because of the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution. In 2009 the Christians in Asheville North Carolina tried to refuse to seat the elected city councilman, Cecil Bothwell, based on Article 6 Section 8 which reads in part:

Sec. 8.  Disqualifications for office.


The following persons shall be disqualified for office:


First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.


That clause was deemed unconstitutional based on Article 6 and the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.



Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

No, compare it to a real secular government constitution, the one the French republic used, where they changed the calendar so it would not reference the birth of Christ. If ours is secular why did they not do something similar?



The French Constitution during the revolution was based on the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen) was directly influenced by Thomas Jefferson, working with the Marquis de Lafayette, who introduced it. Its one of the best documents of the Enlightenment Link We didn't change the calendar for the same reasons the French changed it back. Its too hard to covert the date of everything that happened in the world. Its the same reason that the U.S. hasn't turned to the metric system.


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

I don't deny that they used some of their principles but some of the more important ones such as human equality came from the Bible.




The concept of human equality came from the Enlightenment, not the Bible which accepts both slavery and misogyny among other evils.


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

Geneva actually violated the Christian principle of freedom of conscience. So I would not be in favor of running our government in that manner.



I'm certainly glad you understand that Calvin violated the Freedom of Conscience, but it is certainly not strictly a Christian principle. Freedom of Conscience can be found in other, but not all, religions. The the edicts of King Ashoka of India (3rd century BCE) have been called the first decree respecting freedom of conscience. Throughout history philosophers Themistius, Michel de Montaigne, Baruch Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Alexandre Vinet, and John Stuart Mill have been considered major proponents of the idea of Freedom of Conscience.

Flag El Cid October 12, 2015 11:49 PM EDT

Oct 2, 2015 -- 1:34PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: I notice the tell tale date of this dictionary, it has already been cleansed by the gay PC police. But while there are different forms of marriage, this dictionrary is incorrect, it has ALWAYS been heterosexual.


tp: You claim that supporters of same-sex marriage are a tiny minority, but now you're saying that this tiny minority was able to force a dictionary to lie about the definition of marriage.



Huh? I never said that supporters of gay marriage are a tiny minority. At present they are a slim majority depending on how the question is framed. They have been propagandized by the liberal  establishment control of the largest media, schools, colleges, publishing houses, and hollywood. In addition, they ignore and in some cases cover up the scientific evidence that homosexual behavior is bad for you.




tp: That seems to be rather implausible to be. As has been explained several times before same sex marriage was common in ancient Greece and Rome, Mesopotamia where the Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man, and in the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements.



Your link does a bait and switch, it says marriage at the beginning of the paragraphs on these ancient societies and then changes to "same sex RELATIONSHIPS". I am not denying that these ancient societies had no problem with same sex relationships and may have had some types of ceremonies celebrating them, BUT they were never called marriages and were never on the level of importance in these societies as real marriages were. 


Oct 2, 2015 -- 12:43AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: I am still waiting on you to tell me where the right to gay marriage comes from, plainly not from nature given that anatomically we are all heterosexual.


tp: How many times do you have to be told? It comes from the concept of equal rights and anti-discrimination laws that are based on the Ethic of Reciprocity. Do we have to keep going around in circles?



You actually admitted earlier that humans are naturally NOT equal, so where did equal rights come from, plainly not from nature. And as I demonstrated earlier the EOR comes from the  assumption that humans have intrinsic value above other species but plainly that does not come from nature, nature treats all animals the same there is no intrinsic value of humans that is greater than other animals. Also other societies have become very powerful and successful in many ways  such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union by NOT operating by the EOR. So plainly it does not come from nature or reason. Hitler and Stalin both thought they were being rational. so who says EOR is the best morality jsut because a bunch of old philosophers say so does not mean it is correct. 




Oct 2, 2015 -- 12:43AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: While Rome and Greece condoned gay behavior they never had any thing like gay marriage. If you can provide a reputable source for your assertion maybe I would be willing to change that statement. And I don't think China ever had such a thing either. Not actual true gay marriage on par with heterosexual marriage.


This has nothing to do with gay marriage. People have always believed that the love between  male friends can be just as strong as the love between a man and a woman.


tp: This article says that you're comments that ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, and Mesopotamia not allowing same-sex marriage were wrong. That is unless Plato, Cicero, The Code of  Hammurabi, and the ancient Egyptian tomb paintings were wrong. Link



I read the article, see my comment above how it uses bait and switch semantics.


Oct 2, 2015 -- 12:43AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Only Christians have a rational basis for civil human rights. So your statement makes no sense.


tp: ROTFLMAO!! That is about the stupidest statement I have ever read. The only interest far too many fundamentalist Christians, Christian Identity,  Christian Reconstructionists, and Dominionists have in civil human rights is finding a way to eliminate them. Your position in LGBT rights is evidence of that.



What individual Christians do is irrelevant, what I am referring to is logically and philosophically. See above how I explain how human rights or human equality cannot come from reason or nature. And I am still waiting for where the right to gay marriage comes from as shown above it cannot come from nature or reason, nature obviously points in the opposite direction as shown by human anatomy.


ec: I have serious doubts that the Egyptians practiced what we would call gay marriage. Please provide evidence. Other than a few unsuual isolated cases.


tp: See the link above.




See the problems with that link above.

Flag amcolph October 13, 2015 9:00 AM EDT

Oct 12, 2015 -- 11:49PM, El Cid wrote:

See above how I explain how human rights or human equality cannot come from reason or nature.




LOL!  You have never explained it, all you have done is repeat the same assertion over and over.  Repetition does nothing to raise it above the level of fatuous nonsense.


You seem to think that value must have an origin outside of human experience.  If not God, then "reason" or "nature" or some other abstract source.


Flag TPaine October 13, 2015 2:56 PM EDT

I'm tired of going around and around on the LGBT marriage topic. You keep repeating the same thing over and over and I'm fed up with having to respond to it over and over. Same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states so either learn to live with it or move to some country like Russia or one of the Islamic theocracies where same-sex marriage is illegal.


Oct 12, 2015 -- 11:49PM, El Cid wrote:


You actually admitted earlier that humans are naturally NOT equal, so where did equal rights come from, plainly not from nature. And as I demonstrated earlier the EOR comes from the  assumption that humans have intrinsic value above other species but plainly that does not come from nature, nature treats all animals the same there is no intrinsic value of humans that is greater than other animals. Also other societies have become very powerful and successful in many ways  such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union by NOT operating by the EOR. So plainly it does not come from nature or reason. Hitler and Stalin both thought they were being rational. so who says EOR is the best morality jsut because a bunch of old philosophers say so does not mean it is correct.




For someone who seems to love the DOI you seem to forget the part that reads:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Jefferson originally  wrote it as:

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant [sic], that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;


I don't have to be as intelligent as Einstein or John Stuart Mill, as strong as Bill Kazmaier, as fast as Usain Bolt or as athletic as Chuck Connors to have the same civil rights they do. Both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union failed in the end. Hitler committed suicide and Stalin was murdered. Both were only interested in increasing their own personal power. If you disagree with the concept of treating others the way you want to be treated I suggest you find a good psychiatrist.


Oct 12, 2015 -- 11:49PM, El Cid wrote:

What individual Christians do is irrelevant, what I am referring to is logically and philosophically. See above how I explain how human rights or human equality cannot come from reason or nature. And I am still waiting for where the right to gay marriage comes from as shown above it cannot come from nature or reason, nature obviously points in the opposite direction as shown by human anatomy.



There's nothing logical or philosophically correct in what you say. Given it's history Christianity certainly can't be the basis of human rights nor can most other revealed religions. Jainism and Wicca may be the exceptions. As I've explained many times Reason was given to humans as a gift from God. No other species is able to reason.

Flag El Cid October 14, 2015 12:43 AM EDT

Oct 4, 2015 -- 2:21PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: I am not so sure, generally the government is a reflection of the people. I think the evidence points to the majority of the people favored Lenin and the imposition of communism which is pretty evil.  And many felt Stalin continued his program. This was definitely true of Nazi Germany the majority of the people favored persecuting jews[sic].


tp: The Russian people wanted Czar Nicholas II overthrown. Like most Russian Czars he was a brutal leader who considered the people to be nothing more than peasants. He was inept as an army leader and therefore Germany was easily defeating the Russian Army. The people revolted in February 1917 and forced Nicholas to abdicate, but the people weren't supporting Lenin and the Bolshevik Party. They supported Alexander Kerensky, a young and popular lawyer. In Autumn about 2 million members of the army who were sick of fighting WWI deserted. Kerensky was overthrown by Lenin, the Bolshevik Party, and solders who had refused to fight.



If they truly hated Lenin they could have overthrown him or Stalin, so why didnt they?


Oct 4, 2015 -- 12:15AM, El Cid wrote:

ec; Yes, but those rights are derived from the moral law of the biblical God. I was referring to where YOU think rights come from, the Deist god has not revealed any moral law. So there is no source to derive rights from. Impersonal nature certainly cannot provide rights.


tp: Deism's Nature's God certainly did if you use reason while observing nature. The concept of the Ethic of Reciprocity is evident in nature. Animals don't kill except for food or to protect themselves or others in their group. Humans seem to be the exception to it. Read The Lowest Animal by Mark Twain.



No, animals such as cats kill for fun. They also kill and eat their young in certain circumstances, does that mean it is ok for us to do that? We know practically nothing about the deist god, if he exists. We don't know if he is personal or impersonal, we don't know if he cares about his creation or not, we don't know if he is good or evil, we don't know anything about him or it.


Oct 4, 2015 -- 12:15AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Their decision regarding polygamy has not been overturned. And definitely their reasoning has never been refuted even by this court. Many courts make bad decisions one year and good decisions another year. Actually Thomas Jefferson would probably agree with the ruling of 1883. He believed strongly in the rights and almost absolute freedoms of private citizens and their businesses.


tp: The question here is not palimony. I have said that that multiple changes in the federal and state benefits and responsibilities connected with marriage in order to cover multiple spouses. I'm not at all sure Jefferson would agree with the 1833 decision. He strongly believed in the rights of all citizens. He said in his 1st Inaugural Address: "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Let us, then, fellow-citizens, unite with one heart and one mind. Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things."




Yes, but he believed that if you had a business you could do pretty much anything you wanted to do with it. He believed the less laws governing people's behavior the better, even bad behavior.

Flag TPaine October 14, 2015 11:40 AM EDT

Oct 14, 2015 -- 12:43AM, El Cid wrote:


If they truly hated Lenin they could have overthrown him or Stalin, so why didnt they?


One reason was that Lenin had the support of the military because he ended Russian participation in WWI. The Russian people were mostly unarmed. Some people did try to overthrow Stalin more than once. That's why he killed 7 million Russians.


Oct 14, 2015 -- 12:43AM, El Cid wrote:

No, animals such as cats kill for fun. They also kill and eat their young in certain circumstances, does that mean it is ok for us to do that? We know practically nothing about the deist god, if he exists. We don't know if he is personal or impersonal, we don't know if he cares about his creation or not, we don't know if he is good or evil, we don't know anything about him or it.



None of the cats my family and I owned never killed anything. Some animals have killed their young but only for food when they were starving or because the young was too handicapped to survive in nature. The Deist God created the universe and everything in it. If you observe nature its obvious (s)he cares about the creation. We really don't know anything about the Christian Hod either. All we have is a 2000-year-old book written my mostly unknown authors. It is nearly impossible to believe that a God capable of creating the universe could have anything to do with a book (the New Testament) that has 194 contradictions in it. Link


Oct 14, 2015 -- 12:43AM, El Cid wrote:

Yes, but he believed that if you had a business you could do pretty much anything you wanted to do with it. He believed the less laws governing people's behavior the better, even bad behavior.



I notice you didn't present any evidence to support your statement. Is that because you have none? I've been studying Jefferson for about 45 years and found nothing to support your claims.

Flag El Cid October 15, 2015 12:13 AM EDT

Oct 4, 2015 -- 3:27PM, TPaine wrote:



ec: No, not your understanding of a theocracy. The US is a democratic republic based on theistic principles. You assume that a nation based on Christian principles would take away freedom religion and conscience. But those themselves are Christian principles.


tp: The dictionary defines theocracy as: theocracy


html_removednoun, plural theocracies. html_removed
1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.

2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.

3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.



Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.





None of those are how the US was formed by the founders. They founded a theistic democratic republic. It might descrined as a government that recognizes the creator as the endower of rights and ultimate source of moral law. His obvious laws are used as a framework interpreted by the people and their representatives to develop the laws of the land as situations arise over time.  





tp: The Constitution forbids the government from establishing such a thing. Show me where democratic-republics, or even elections are found in the Bible. The first actual democracy was in Athens in the 4th century BGE, about 300 years before the birth of Jesus. The concept of the people choosing their leaders is not based on Christian principles.





Read how Jethro Moses' father in law asked the people to choose judges from among themselves. And also in the book of Acts in the NT, the apostles told the church congregation to choose from among themselves leaders for the church, one likely way for a large group of people to choose leaders from among themselves is to choose them by electing them by some type of vote. While I can't prove that they voted for their leadership there is a strong implication that they did by the words of the texts. 

Flag El Cid October 15, 2015 12:23 AM EDT

Oct 4, 2015 -- 7:58PM, amcolph wrote:


ec: Why, if deep in their soul they know the truth and reject it? Deep down all humans know that there is a God and when they do get exposed to the gospel they know it is the truth but they reject it because of their hatred of God. So they are knowingly doing what they want to do, though sometimes it is subconscious



amc: Or they actually believe both consciously and 'subconsciously' that it is just another religious story and are indifferent to it.


Atheists aren't necessarily people in denial, and you'll never get anywhere trying to evangelize them with that attitude.




Not according to Paul in Romans 1, he says that they are "without excuse". I generally do not bring up that fact when I am evangelizing them or just communicating with them because they would not take it well. They generally are not ready to learn such teaching until they repent and become a Christian. In fact I have heard some former atheists say that only later did the realize that in fact that deep down they did believe that God existed but they were in some type of denial.

Flag El Cid October 15, 2015 12:33 AM EDT

Oct 5, 2015 -- 9:36AM, TPaine wrote:


ec: No, this is a different case, this verse was quoted in the NT as a prophecy of Christ. The Holy Spirit revealed to the writer of the gospel that Isaiah was referring to Christ, so there is no need to use the grammitico-historical method when Christ Himself tells what an OT verse means.



tp: So are you saying the Jewish scholars don't know what they are talking about? Since you often demand evidence to prove something we said is true, its your turn now. What evidence do you have that the Holy Spirit revealed the meaning of Isaiah 7:14 to the authors of Matthew and Luke given the fact that the two stories don't even agree on the year Jesus born or the circumstances around it?




Because there are other examples where prophecies in the OT amazingly match what happened to Christ. But that is something that cannot be proved. In addition, there are all the other evidences that I mentioned earlier about the scientific truths in the bible that the authors could not have known without divine inspiration.

Flag amcolph October 15, 2015 7:46 AM EDT

Oct 15, 2015 -- 12:23AM, El Cid wrote:


Oct 4, 2015 -- 7:58PM, amcolph wrote:


ec: Why, if deep in their soul they know the truth and reject it? Deep down all humans know that there is a God and when they do get exposed to the gospel they know it is the truth but they reject it because of their hatred of God. So they are knowingly doing what they want to do, though sometimes it is subconscious



amc: Or they actually believe both consciously and 'subconsciously' that it is just another religious story and are indifferent to it.


Atheists aren't necessarily people in denial, and you'll never get anywhere trying to evangelize them with that attitude.




Not according to Paul in Romans 1, he says that they are "without excuse". I generally do not bring up that fact when I am evangelizing them or just communicating with them because they would not take it well. They generally are not ready to learn such teaching until they repent and become a Christian. In fact I have heard some former atheists say that only later did the realize that in fact that deep down they did believe that God existed but they were in some type of denial.




No doubt there are "atheists" who have mistakenly rejected God because they have been exposed to ugly and brutal religions (like yours).


But there are many atheists (and theists as well) who don't believe in anything that you would acknowlege as "God" deep down or otherwise, so they have nothing to deny.

Flag amcolph October 15, 2015 9:16 AM EDT

Oct 15, 2015 -- 12:33AM, El Cid wrote:



Because there are other examples where prophecies in the OT amazingly match what happened to Christ. But that is something that cannot be proved.



And sometimes Christ and His followers contrived it, as for example in Matt 21:2.


In addition, there are all the other evidences that I mentioned earlier about the scientific truths in the bible that the authors could not have known without divine inspiration.



I understand that you believe that, but I'm afraid that the rest of us think of it as ignorant self-serving nonsense which makes Christianity look stupid.


Trying to find contemporary science in an infallible Bible is a risky business.  The "scientific truths" you are talking about are scientific theories, which are subject to being heavily modified or overturned altogether at any time.


If you preach the spiritual truth and value of scripture as being proved by the prescient notion of the "big bang" theory allegedly to be found in it, what happens if the"big bang" theory turns out to be wrong?

Flag TPaine October 15, 2015 1:29 PM EDT

Oct 15, 2015 -- 12:13AM, El Cid wrote:


Read how Jethro Moses' father in law asked the people to choose judges from among themselves. And also in the book of Acts in the NT, the apostles told the church congregation to choose from among themselves leaders for the church, one likely way for a large group of people to choose leaders from among themselves is to choose them by electing them by some type of vote. While I can't prove that they voted for their leadership there is a strong implication that they did by the words of the texts.



The United States was the first country to create a tripartite system of government based on Montesquieu's theory of separation of powers with checks and balances that allow one branch to limit another. You won't find such a system in the Bible or any other ancient book.

Flag TPaine October 15, 2015 1:44 PM EDT

Oct 15, 2015 -- 12:23AM, El Cid wrote:


Not according to Paul in Romans 1, he says that they are "without excuse". I generally do not bring up that fact when I am evangelizing them or just communicating with them because they would not take it well. They generally are not ready to learn such teaching until they repent and become a Christian. In fact I have heard some former atheists say that only later did the realize that in fact that deep down they did believe that God existed but they were in some type of denial.



I don't care what Paul wrote. He was just a man with opinions he took the time to write down. I believe differently and and you can evangelize me until the moon turns into green cheese and I will keep believing on what I believe now. I agree with Thomas Paine who wrote:

HAVING now extended the subject to a greater length than I first intended, I shall bring it to a close by abstracting a summary from the whole.


First, That the idea or belief of a word of God existing in print, or in writing, or in speech, is inconsistent in itself for the reasons already assigned. These reasons, among many others, are the want of an universal language; the mutability of language; the errors to which translations are subject, the possibility of totally suppressing such a word; the probability of altering it, or of fabricating the whole, and imposing it upon the world.


Secondly, That the Creation we behold is the real and ever existing word of God, in which we cannot be deceived. It proclaimeth his power, it demonstrates his wisdom, it manifests his goodness and beneficence.


Thirdly, That the moral duty of man consists in imitating the moral goodness and beneficence of God manifested in the creation towards all his creatures. That seeing as we daily do the goodness of God to all men, it is an example calling upon all men to practice the same towards each other; and, consequently, that every thing of persecution and revenge between man and man, and every thing of cruelty to animals, is a violation of moral duty.


Flag El Cid October 16, 2015 12:05 AM EDT

Oct 5, 2015 -- 1:51PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: Why, if deep in their soul they know the truth and reject it? Deep down all humans know that there is a God and when they do get exposed to the gospel they know it is the truth but they reject it because of their hatred of God. So they are knowingly doing what they want to do, though sometimes it is subconscious. It was not just Paul that taught this, Christ Himself taught that going thru Him and His gospel is the primary way to salvation.


tp: I know there is a God, but as far as the Bible goes I find it far too disingenuous to be the truth or the word of God. I certainly don't hate God.



I think you probably do hate the Christian God. Often it can be determined by how unbelievers treat His people and His church. Like how the Nazis and the Communists either wanted to and tried to destroy the church. Also, how modern secularists try to take away Christians first amendment rights.




tp: If you believe such a thing provide evidence that everyone who doesn't accept that the Christian "gospel" is true hates God. Did or will people who believed in non-violence who chose to keep their religions rather than convert to Christianity such as Mahatma Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, or Koji Kobayashi hate God?



Yes.


Oct 4, 2015 -- 7:21PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: God takes that into account. There are different levels of heaven and hell. He can always become a Christian later in life too.


tp: It makes more sense to me that it is more important to God how one lives his or her life than what holy book (if any) one follows.



How do you know this? Yes, God cares how you live your life of course, but how do you know the true way to live life at its fullest without learning what the Creator says in His "manual" for living such a life? The deist god has told us nothing. We don't even know if he/it can communicate.


Oct 4, 2015 -- 7:21PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Well this one is pretty easy because their are so many verses that talk about how God's law is above man's law and how we are supposd to help the oppressed. But on more difficult passages, good scholars led by the Holy Spirit are ususally the best sources for getting the correct interpretation.


tp: Once again you've failed to provide actual evidence that anything in the Bible is God's law.



I demonstrated earlier evidence for the divine origin of the bible.


Oct 4, 2015 -- 7:21PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: None of those mistakes affect any major doctrine of Christianity.


tp: One would think that the "Word of God" would be perfect, not full of contradictions, incorrect translations, and scribal additions and deletions.




The original texts were perfect, at present it only contains minor copying errors and minor editing that have no effect on Christian doctrine. It has no contradictions. God and His church have preserved it over time with the help of the Holy Spirit. 

Flag El Cid October 16, 2015 12:45 AM EDT

Oct 5, 2015 -- 6:34PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: Well, he has been interviewed and his writing included in many evangelical publications such as Christianity Today and at least one of Lee Strobel's books. I have no problem with the RSV editions from 1952-1990. My grandmother gave my mother a 1952 edition of it at the time it came out. She has used it ever since and she is more conservative than I am. I have heard that the newest ediition has become politicaly correct on some verses, so I would not buy a copy now. I generaly prefer the ESV, but I like the NASB, NIV, and NKJV. I have hunch if Dr. Metzger were still alive today he would agree with me that abortion and gay "marriage" are immoral and against God's law.


tp: You said Dr. Metzger wrote for evangelical publications. Does that mean he was an evangelical? Remember, he also wrote a book with Dr. Bart D. Ehrman who is an Agnostic. Does that mean that Dr. Metzer was an Agnostic?



Of course not, he plainly said that he was a Christian. And he has written positive things about the accuracy of the bible, which is unlikely if he was not an evangelical.




tp: I prefer that NASB and the RSV. I have not read the NRSV yet. I'm sorry you find the NRSV is "too politically correct" since the Society of Biblical Literature wrote: "From 1977-1990 he was Chair of the Committee of Translators for the NRSV, and was largely responsible for seeing it through the press." Link



It was after Metzger left when they started using more politically correct language such as changing male pronouns into gender neutral pronouns. It is not a huge problem but could be a slippery slope toward more serious problems.




tp: I have no idea what he would think about same-sex-marriage. I can't find anything he may have written, but he died on February 13, 2007 which was before it became an issue in the U.S.



I think he probably would have agreed with me, given that even a very liberal presidential candidate agreed with me in 2007.




Oct 5, 2015 -- 2:30PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Well I partially agree with him about Revelation. I believe it was written for the people of John's day AND the people of today. Which I believe is also true of the entire bible. The human authors of course didn't intentionally do it, but God's inspiration and influence caused them to do so and the church preserved them guided by the Holy Spirit.


tp: As I've said before, I cannot find anything in the Bible that God had anything to with. Read Dr. Ehrman's book The Orthodox Corruption Of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. He quotes Dr. Metzger several times.



I have read one of his books though not that one.


Oct 5, 2015 -- 2:30PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Since the deist god has not communicated to you or other humans how do you know that this god set up the EOR in the beginning? Reason does not help you because the EOR assumes that humans have some intrinsic value in order to provide a reason to treat them according to it. But nature and the deist god have not given humans any intrinsic value. That is why such an ethic only works from a Christian perspective, because Christianity teaches that humans are created in the image of God and therefore have intrinsic great value.


tp: I know because I know history and nature. When I apply my God-given reason to that knowledge the answer is obvious.



Many very intelligent and well educated people would disagree with you and would make the same claim about basing their view on history and nature. Such as Nazi and Soviet scientists. Nazi Germnay was the most educated nation at the time of WW II, and yet most educated Germans did not believe in the EOR.


 


tp: Where do you get the idea that Deists don't believe that humans have intrinsic value? Humans are the only species that have the ability to reason.



How does being able to reason give humans INTRINSIC value? Reason may help humans survive but nature doesn't care that one species can reason and another cannot. Cockroaches are more successful as far as survival than even humans and yet they cannot reason. And because of that, how do you know that the deist god does not prefer cockroaches over humans?  




tp: Deists realize through observation that animals follow a form of the EOR. The don't kill except for food and to protect others in their group.



No, male lions kill the young of their male rivals when they take over a pride, that hardly fits the EOR and some animals rape the females of their species, again no EOR there.




tp: If the EOR only applies to Christians, why is it found in almost ever holy book (many older than the Christian Bible), philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates who all lived before Jesus was born, Humanism, and several African and American Indian tribes? Saying that the EOR applies only Christians makes no sense at all.



No, I am not saying that it only appiles to Christians, I am saying that it only has a rational basis in Christianity because only in Christianity and Judaism are humans created in the image of the Creator of the universe. Ancient philosophers believed in human value because of remnants of the Christian God's morality imbedded in their moral consciences by the fact of their being made in His image.


Oct 5, 2015 -- 2:30PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: You have no real evidence that the verses in John were written by later scribe other than that they are not in the oldest versions of the text. Some scholars think it was lost from an early version and later added back. But even it was never in the original and does not belong there, it does not change any major Christian doctrine. Now the verses in Mark, are more likely to have been added by a later scribe, again leaving out those verses does not impact any major Christian doctrine.


tp: I don't have time today to get too deeply into this today. If the story was lost and replaced why was it place in Luke in at least one manuscript. We should have a discussion on biblical history.



They made an editing error, as I stated above such things have happened but with no damage to Christian doctrine.


Oct 5, 2015 -- 2:30PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Using those cases, you are assuming what you are trying to prove. NONE of those cases even refer to heterosexual marriage being a right much less some 21st century invention called "gay marriage".


tp: Same-sex marriage was not an issue in the 19th century so there wouldn't be any SCOTUS cases about it. You said that the 14th Amendment was to protect black people, but the Waite court overturned laws that were passed to do just that.



No SCOTUS is infallible. That is why the founders were very scared of a legislating Court. Read the Federalist Paper no. 81.


Oct 5, 2015 -- 2:30PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Just saying that the EOR was given to us by this god, does not provide any evidence for that being so. Has this god communciated with us in any way? I don't think so, see above. Also, see above what the EOR assumes, ie that humans have some intrinsic value.


tp: Since the EOR is so universally believed in it had to come from some source. If it wasn't God, who was it from the Wizard of Oz, Santa Claus, Peter Pan? Whether or not you think so is irrelevant. What matters is what the believe of the religion believes.




Yes, but its source has to be source that is capable of producing it. Since we don't even know if the deist god is a personal being, and if he is not, then he/it would know nothing about morality or ethics. 

Flag amcolph October 16, 2015 4:16 PM EDT

Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:


I think you probably do hate the Christian God. Often it can be determined by how unbelievers treat His people and His church. Like how the Nazis and the Communists either wanted to and tried to destroy the church. Also, how modern secularists try to take away Christians first amendment rights.




Odd.  No secularist has tried to take away any of my first amendment rights, or those of any Christian I know.

Flag El Cid October 17, 2015 1:01 AM EDT

Oct 6, 2015 -- 10:21AM, TPaine wrote:


ec: "Exposed to Christianity and rejects it."


That's an interesting proposition -- and it cannot be defended from he Bible, BTW.


Fraid so, read Matt. 10:5-15, John 3:16-18, Luke 8:9-15, and many others.


tp: Christianity is an evangelical religion. One of my problems with it is it uses scare tactics like threats of going to Hell to get converts. Of course it's scripture would support that threat.



While some Christiians do have a tendency to focus on the negative aspects of rejecting Christ, I find it is better to explain the positiveness and beauty of having a personal relationship with the Creator of the universe. While fear of going to hell is one way to convert, it usually produces believers whose faith is rather shallow and often cannot withstand the onslaught of the surrounding secular society.


Oct 6, 2015 -- 12:19AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Yes, unfortunately that has happened, but probably in most cases they would have rejected the gospel anyway. Mamy times it is just an excuse to make fun of conservative christians, when the real question is their sin,not how God created the universe. It is the whether He did in fact create the universe and they are seperated from God by their sin but He loves them and wants a relationship with them.


tp: Those who claim God didn't create the universe have to explain who did. Nothing creates itself. Nature tells us that. My problem with most religions is that they are earth based. Given the fact that there are (3 x 1023) stars in the observable universe its likely that there are other planets with intelligent life. How do the various revealed religions deal with them?




 Actually given the very narrow parameters necessary to support life, especially intelligent life, it is very unlikely that it exists on other planets. But for Christianity, if intelligent life was discovered on other planets it would not be too surprising since the universe is the product of an intelligent personal cause. But for the deist, I think there could be problems because the deist doesn't know anything about his god except that it is the cause of the universe.

Flag El Cid October 17, 2015 1:09 AM EDT

T

Oct 6, 2015 -- 12:51PM, TPaine wrote:



html_removed



Ten Myths About The Ten Commandments


Religious Right Groups Hold Strong Beliefs About The Decalogue, But It Turns Out That Much Of What They Know Just Isn't So



html_removed




Legislators in Arkansas believe that you can’t fathom America without first understanding the Ten Commandments.


“In order that they may understand and appreciate the basic principles of the American system of government, the people of the United States of America and of the State of Arkansas need to identify the Ten Commandments, one of many sources, as influencing the development of what has become modern law,” intoned legislation authorizing placement of a Ten Commandments monument at the state Capitol in Little Rock.


There is one problem, though: No evidence exists that the Ten Commandments, a code of religious behavior found in the Old Testament of the Bible, in any way influenced the development of the American system of government.


The belief that the Decalogue is the font of all American law and the basis of our government is treasured by many Religious Right activists. But that doesn’t mean it’s accurate. As proposals to display the Ten Commandments on government property spread, it’s important to understand what’s really going on here: Powerful sectarian lobbies are looking for a way to create a symbolic merger between church and state by persuading government bodies to display a code that largely regulates religious behavior.


With that thought in mind, here are 10 myths about the Ten Commandments:


1.) The Founding Fathers relied on the Ten Commandments when creating the American government.


The Founding Fathers rarely, if ever, cited the Ten Commandments during the creation of the American government.


This question of the founders’ relationship to the Ten Commandments was answered definitively in 2003 when 41 professors and legal historians weighed in on a lawsuit challenging Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore’s display of the Ten Commandments in the state Judicial Building in Montgomery. The scholars, brought together by Steven K. Green, former legal director at Americans United and now a law professor at Willamette University College of Law in Salem, Ore., filed a friend-of-the-court brief mustering ample historical evidence to debunk claims by Moore’s attorneys that the judge had the right to display the Ten Commandments because they are the foundation of American law.


Nothing in the nation’s legal history supports Moore’s view, the legal scholars and historians said, asserting in part, “Aside from a failed attempt in the seventeenth century to establish a biblically based legal system in the Puritan colonies, American law is generally viewed as having secular origins.”


The brief noted that “various documents and texts” figured in the development of American law, among them English common and statutory law, Roman law, the civil law of continental Europe and private international law.


American law, they pointed out, was also influenced by the writings of William Blackstone, John Locke, Adam Smith and others as well as the Magna Carta, the Federalist Papers and other sources.


“Each of these documents had a far greater influence on America’s laws than the Ten Commandments,” asserted the brief. “Indeed, the legal and historical record does not include significant and meaningful references to the Ten Commandments, the Pentateuch or to biblical law generally…as can best be determined, no delegate ever mentioned the Ten Commandments or the Bible.”


Concluded the brief, “While the Ten Commandments have influenced some of our notions of right and wrong, a wide variety of other documents have played a more dominant and central role in the development of American law. No respected scholar of legal or constitutional history would assert that the Ten Commandments have played a dominant or major role, or even a significant role, in the development of American law as a whole. To insist on a closer relationship or to claim the Ten Command­ments has a special place in the development of American law lacks historical support.”


2.) The Ten Commandments provide a perfect foundation for governance.


It would be difficult for the Ten Commandments to be the foundation for any government since the document says nothing about legislative bodies, courts, rulers or how a state is to be ordered and function.


The Decalogue is chiefly a list of rules designed to regulate religious and moral behavior. Several of the Ten Commandments deal with purely theological issues, such as how God is to be worshipped, whether it’s appropriate to make idols, the need to honor the Sabbath, etc. These matters have no reflection in the U.S. Constitution, which is a wholly secular document that contains no references to God, Jesus Christ or Christianity.


The Ten Commandments are a moral/legal code, which is why they are brief (less than 100 words in most versions) and scant on details. By contrast, the Constitution has more than 4,400 words (not including its amendments) because it goes into explicit detail of how a government is to be set up and function.


3.) It’s OK to display the Ten Commandments at city hall. After all, they are displayed at the U.S. Sup­reme Court.


The Ten Commandments are not displayed alone at the U.S. Supreme Court. The courtroom’s main chamber includes an ornate frieze that shows an array of historic lawgivers, and Moses is depicted holding the Ten Commandments – but he’s not alone. Also shown are Hammurabi, Solo­mon, Confucius, Augustus, Nap­o­leon, William Blackstone, Charl­emagne and others. The purpose of this frieze is to educate about the evolution of the law over many centuries; it does not single out the Ten Commandments for special treatment.


Another part of the frieze shows allegorical figures representing concepts like wisdom, justice and the rights of the people. A single tablet with the Roman numerals one through 10 rests between figures representing the majesty of the law and the power of government. For many years, people assumed that this tablet represented the Ten Commandments. But a letter has since surfaced from Adolph A. Weinman, the sculptor who designed the frieze, indicating that it really represents the Bill of Rights.


4.) James Madison once said, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments.”


It’s highly unlikely that Madison ever said this. Although this suspect quotation is often promoted by Religious Right groups, no one has ever been able to provide a source for it. The quotation appears in none of Madison’s writings. Furthermore, it cuts against everything Madison ever wrote about separation of church and state.


In 1995, the late Robert S. Alley of the University of Richmond wrote a scholarly piece on the quote that appeared in the William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal. Alley consulted with John Stagg and David Mattern, the editors of Madison’s papers. In a letter dated Nov. 23, 1993, Mattern wrote, “We did not find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent us. In addition, the idea is inconsistent with everything we know about Madison’s views on religion and government, views which he expressed time and time again in public and in private.”


Alley concluded that the quotation was fake, writing, “Proving that a quotation does not exist is a daunting task. If you cannot find it in any extant manuscripts or collections of Madison’s works, just how does one prove it will not turn up in someone’s attic tomorrow? Of course you cannot. That is why the Madison editors were careful in how they phrased their response. But, after all, it is incumbent solely upon the perpetrators of this myth to prove it by at least one citation. This they cannot do. Their style is not revisionism, it is anti-historical.”


5.) The Ten Commandments are a secular code of behavior, so it’s permissible for the government to acknowledge them.


Many of the commandments deal with explicitly religious matters. These commandments attempt to regulate religious behaviors, and they warn against acknowledging false gods, creating idols, taking the name of God in vain and failing to honor the Sabbath. Government does not (or should not) have an opinion on these matters.


Other commandments outlaw things like murder, stealing and lying. These activities are always detrimental to society and thus have been curbed whenever people have lived together in organized societies.


6.) Local governments in the United States have a long history of displaying the Ten Commandments to promote virtue.


Some communities across the country contain Ten Commandments displays, often in public parks or near the seat of government. Defenders of government-backed Ten Commandments displays sometimes argue that these large tablets were erected to promote virtue and good behavior.


The truth is somewhat different: They were likely part of a publicity campaign for a movie.


A Minnesota juvenile court judge named E.J. Ruegemer started a campaign in 1943 to post the Ten Commandments in juvenile courts. Ruegemer believed, perhaps somewhat naively, that the problem of juvenile delinquency could be combatted by exposing youngsters to the Decalogue.


Ruegemer was active in the Fraternal Order of Eagles and urged that group to promote the project. The effort poked along modestly for a number of years until the mid-1950s, when film producer Cecil B. DeMille got wind of it. DeMille was working on his epic film “The Ten Commandments,” which starred Charlton Heston as Moses, at the time, and he was eager to drum up publicity for the movie. He worked with the Eagles to produce granite Ten Commandments markers that were donated to cities around the country, skillfully exploiting the situation to ensure maximum publicity for his movie.


Some of the monument dedications were timed to tie in with the release of the 1956 film. In one town, Dunseith, N.D., actor Heston appeared personally for the unveiling. In Milwaukee, a Ten Commandments monument was unveiled the same week the film debuted, with actor Yul Brynner (Pharaoh in the movie) on hand for the festivities.


Thus, many of those old Ten Commandments monuments in public parks have more to do with a publicity stunt for a movie than promoting good behavior.


7.) Christians and Jews agree on the wording of the Ten Commandments.                    

There are at least three different translations of the Ten Commandments – Jewish, Protestant and Catholic versions. Different terms are used in the commandments (“Thou shall not murder” as opposed to “Thou shall not kill,” for example), and the commandments are listed in different orders. In the Roman Catholic tradition, commandment four is “Honor your father and mother.” In most Protestant communities, this is the fifth commandment.


The Catholic version also omits entirely the commandment against making idols, and it breaks the admonishment against coveting into two separate commandments. For Protestants (and Jews) the tenth commandment covers all forms of coveting.


Although some try to gloss over these differences today and assert that they aren’t that important, doctrinal disputes are often taken very seriously by people. Disagreement over doctrine has sparked numerous divisions among religions and led to the many denominations we have today.


8.) The Ten Commandments deserve special recognition because it is the oldest legal code in history.


There are law codes older than the Ten Commandments. The Code of Hammurabi, for example, is estimated to be about 300 years older than the Ten Commandments. Hammurabi, a Babylonian king who ruled from 1792 to 1750 B.C.E., published an extensive list of laws, but only about 34 are extant. There are some similarities between the Code of Hammurabi and the Ten Commandments, which has led some scholars to believe that the latter borrowed from the former.


9.) The Supreme Court has ruled that it’s legal to display the Ten Commandments at the seat of government.


On June 27, 2005, the U.S. Sup­reme Court issued a pair of rulings concerning the Ten Commandments that provide some guidance on the legality of such displays. When we consider both rulings, it’s clear that the high court did not approve all forms of government-backed Ten Commandments displays.


In the first case, Van Orden v. Perry, the court permitted the display of a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state Capitol in Austin, Texas. The court majority approved the display in part because it had been there since 1961 and hadn’t sparked an earlier challenge. The court also noted that the Decalogue was only one of 40 monuments and historical markers on the Capitol grounds.


The second case, McCreary County v. ALCU, concerned Ten Commandments displays erected alone in two Kentucky courthouses in recent times. The court ruled that the displays had the effect of endorsing religion.


Thus, the high court did not issue a blanket ruling permitting all Ten Commandments displays. Factors such as the placement of the Ten Commandments, the context of the display and even the motivation of the government officials who erected it must be taken into consideration.


10.) Government-sponsored Ten Commandments displays are mostly harmless and not worth fighting.


When government entities display the Ten Commandments, it sends the message that the state endorses and promotes this particular sectarian code. Many of the commandments deal with issues that the government has no right to meddle in, such as what god (if any) people worship, how they worship and what day they worship.


Public display of the Decalogue at the seat of government is often defended as merely educational. But these displays actually misinform people by implying that a religious list of regulations is the source of U.S. law. This does a disservice because it ignores the rich variety of sources that shaped and informed the development of American law. Link




Actually the founders did mention the ten commandments, the term "God's law" and the laws of Natures God are the same thing as the ten commandments. Also, how John Adams said that our nation could not exist for a non-religious people. By this he means people whose lives are not guided by God's moral laws, ie the ten commandments.

Flag TPaine October 17, 2015 10:57 AM EDT

Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:


I think you probably do hate the Christian God. Often it can be determined by how unbelievers treat His people and His church. Like how the Nazis and the Communists either wanted to and tried to destroy the church. Also, how modern secularists try to take away Christians first amendment rights.




If you think that, you're wrong. I don't hate anyone or any God. I disagree with many beliefs but don't hate them. I believe there is only one God and no more. I also believe that so-called "revealed religion" is the work of men, not God. Churches have the right to exist and people have the right to believe what they preach. What churches and their followerers don't have the right to do is force people who do not believe what they do to follow their rules. Religious belief does not give someone the right to discriminate.


tp: If you believe such a thing provide evidence that everyone who doesn't accept that the Christian "gospel" is true hates God. Did or will people who believed in non-violence who chose to keep their religions rather than convert to Christianity such as Mahatma Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, or Koji Kobayashi hate God?



Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:

Yes.



Do Christians who disagree with you also hate God? Do the members of Episcopal Church 1.9 million members, the Presbyterian Church (USA) 1.8 million members, and the United Church of Christ 1.2 million members who all welcome LGBT people and perform gay and lesbian weddings in all their congregations hate God?



Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:

I demonstrated earlier evidence for the divine origin of the bible.



You can't prove a book is true by quoting it. If one could do so one could prove any holy book is true.


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:

The original texts were perfect, at present it only contains minor copying errors and minor editing that have no effect on Christian doctrine. It has no contradictions. God and His church have preserved it over time with the help of the Holy Spirit.



No original texts exist so how do you know what was in them? As far as contadictions go explain how the 194 of them in the New Testament alone don't really exist. Link

Flag TPaine October 17, 2015 3:43 PM EDT

Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:


Of course not, he plainly said that he was a Christian. And he has written positive things about the accuracy of the bible, which is unlikely if he was not an evangelical.




I don't deny that Dr. Metzger was a Christian, but if he wrote positive things about the accuracy of the Bible, why did he teach Dr. Bart Ehrman that it wasn't? Dr. Ehrman became an evangelical Christian as a teenager. Since it was his desire to understand the original words of the Bible he chose to study ancient languages and also textual criticism. He chose to go to the Moody Bible Institute where he received a three-year diploma. From there he went to Wheaton College, a Christian College in Illinois where he received a bachelor's degree magna cum laude. It wasn't until he enrolled in Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Dr. Bruce Metzger, that he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled which caused him to become a liberal Christian rather than an evangelical. Why would Dr. Metzger teach that there were contradictions and discrepancies if he believed the Bible was accurate?


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

It was after Metzger left when they started using more politically correct language such as changing male pronouns into gender neutral pronouns. It is not a huge problem but could be a slippery slope toward more serious problems.




From 1977 to 1990, he chaired the Committee on Translators for the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible and was "largely responsible for ... seeing [the NRSV] through the press." He considered it a privilege to present the NRSV—which includes the books referred to as Apocrypha by Protestants, though Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox consider them deuterocanonical—to Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Demetrius I of Constantinople. The NRSV was published in 1989, a year before Dr. Metzger left the committee. Link



Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

I have read one of his books though not that one.



Which one of his books did you read. I have 11 of them in my library.


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

Many very intelligent and well educated people would disagree with you and would make the same claim about basing their view on history and nature. Such as Nazi and Soviet scientists. Nazi Germnay was the most educated nation at the time of WW II, and yet most educated Germans did not believe in the EOR.



Religion and religious beliefs or the lack of them had nothing to do with Hitler's and the Nazi's rise to power. The main cause was the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI. The treaty forced "Germany [to] accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war, and forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at (then $31.4 billion roughly equivalent to $442 billion  in 2015). These requirements destroyed the German economy, and seriously damaged their industry. This was despite the fact that Germany didn't start the war. It was started when a Serbian terrorist assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary. Believing that Serbia was behind the assassination, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and Russia mobilized to attack Austria-Hungary. After that alliances took over and France, Britain, and Germany mobilized. Hitler took advantage of problems the treaty caused in Germany.


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

How does being able to reason give humans INTRINSIC value? Reason may help humans survive but nature doesn't care that one species can reason and another cannot. Cockroaches are more successful as far as survival than even humans and yet they cannot reason. And because of that, how do you know that the deist god does not prefer cockroaches over humans?


 


You claim, and I agree, that God created nature. Where we differ is that I believe we have the ability (reason) to understand and learn from nature. Obviously, based on your comment about cockroaches, you don't.


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

No, male lions kill the young of their male rivals when they take over a pride, that hardly fits the EOR and some animals rape the females of their species, again no EOR there.




From what I can find online about lions without wasting too much time, I find that the males only fight males that come from outside the pride and attempt to take it over. Such males do not bring their young with them when they do this. The males in the pride are defending the pride from outsiders.


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

No, I am not saying that it only appiles to Christians, I am saying that it only has a rational basis in Christianity because only in Christianity and Judaism are humans created in the image of the Creator of the universe. Ancient philosophers believed in human value because of remnants of the Christian God's morality imbedded in their moral consciences by the fact of their being made in His image.



Now your showing how little you know about religions other than Judo-Christian. Islam, Bahá'í Faith, and Sikhism all believe man was created in the image of God.


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

They made an editing error, as I stated above such things have happened but with no damage to Christian doctrine.



If it was just an editing error why does it not appear in the oldest and best manuscripts we have of the Gospel of John, and why is the writing style in it very different than the writing style of the rest of John including the stories just before and after it?



Oct 5, 2015 -- 2:30PM, El Cid wrote:

No SCOTUS is infallible. That is why the founders were very scared of a legislating Court. Read the Federalist Paper no. 81.



No humans are infallible. That is why  Founders designed a system of separation of powers which created checks and balances that allow for a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of the President to nominate Federal Court Judges, the power of the Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, the Courts to decide whether legislation is constitutional. In the cases of United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUS made the correct decisions despite the fact that religious and homophobic opponents of the decision whine and cry that it was wrong. And before you accuse me, I don't hate such people, I feel sorry for them.


Oct 5, 2015 -- 2:30PM, El Cid wrote:

Yes, but its source has to be source that is capable of producing it. Since we don't even know if the deist god is a personal being, and if he is not, then he/it would know nothing about morality or ethics.



I feel much more comfortable with my reasoned knowledge of of God's morality and ethics than what I can find in an ancient book that often shows God to have narcissistic personality disorder and psychopathic characteristics.

Flag TPaine October 17, 2015 4:07 PM EDT

Oct 16, 2015 -- 4:16PM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:


I think you probably do hate the Christian God. Often it can be determined by how unbelievers treat His people and His church. Like how the Nazis and the Communists either wanted to and tried to destroy the church. Also, how modern secularists try to take away Christians first amendment rights.



Odd.  No secularist has tried to take away any of my first amendment rights, or those of any Christian I know.



No Secularist or Deist I know ever would think about doing so unless you attempt to use your 1st Amendment free exercise of religion as an excuse to discriminate against the equal rights of others. I don't expect that will ever become a problem for you.


BTW, it looks that Godwin's Law has made it's appearance here

Flag TPaine October 17, 2015 4:46 PM EDT

Oct 17, 2015 -- 1:09AM, El Cid wrote:


Actually the founders did mention the ten commandments, the term "God's law" and the laws of Natures God are the same thing as the ten commandments. Also, how John Adams said that our nation could not exist for a non-religious people. By this he means people whose lives are not guided by God's moral laws, ie the ten commandments.



Now we're back to your misinterpretation of the DOI. The  phrases "God's Law" and Nature's God are not limited to the Judea-Christian religion. God's Law in Deism is quite simple; "Love your neighbor as yourself and treat others as you would want them to treat you." There were several Deists and Unitarians at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Read the book Debates In The Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison. It is the only record of the convention written by a participant.

Flag El Cid October 18, 2015 12:49 AM EDT

Oct 7, 2015 -- 9:54AM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 7, 2015 -- 12:18AM, El Cid wrote:


No, my argument is that the US had already been operating according to biblical principles that are contained in the DOI and Constitution and that now they are being removed, I am just trying to keep them in our government or restoring the ones that have already been removed.




That may be your argument, but the impression you are giving is,


that you are reading those "principles" into the Constitution in an intellectually dishonest way because you want to restore Evangelical Protestantism to the illegitimate status of de facto national religion it enjoyed during the late 19th and early 20th century.




No, those principles are plainly in there. It is quite obvious to me and John Witherspoon, Samuel Adams, John Adams, among others.

Flag El Cid October 18, 2015 12:57 AM EDT

Oct 7, 2015 -- 5:43PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: No, my argument is that the US had already been operating according to biblical principles that are contained in the DOI and Constitution and that now they are being removed, I am just trying to keep them in our government or restoring the ones that have already been removed.


tp: Read Jefferson's draft of the DOI. He didn't intend it to be a religious document. You can also notice his anti-slavery paragraph was removed from the final document. Link 1. As for the our founding documents being based on biblical principles read the article at this Link 2



What other laws can he be rerferring to in the DOI? He first refers to natural laws then he refers to the laws of natures God. It cannot be the deist god because he has not told us what his laws are.


tp: Let's look at some of the "biblical principles" that have been removed from the Constitution: Black people weren't citizens and were considered to be property,



Umm that is NOT a biblical principle. The bible does not even mention race. It is plainly teaches in Genesis that ALL humans are created in God's image both women and blacks.


tp: Black people and women were not allowed to vote, segregation was legal, miscegenation was legal, women were second class citizens, we couldn't vote for our Senators. If you want to have things as they were before I suggest you get in Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine and go back to Massachusetts Bay Colony. As for me, I'll stay in the 21st century.




Again, none of those are biblical principles in fact they VIOLATE biblical principles as I demonstrated above.

Flag TPaine October 18, 2015 10:41 AM EDT

Oct 18, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


What other laws can he be rerferring to in the DOI? He first refers to natural laws then he refers to the laws of natures God. It cannot be the deist god because he has not told us what his laws are.



Anyone with eyes, ears, and the ability to reason can understand the laws of nature. They don't have to read it in an ancient book written by men.


Oct 18, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:

Umm that is NOT a biblical principle. The bible does not even mention race. It is plainly teaches in Genesis that ALL humans are created in God's image both women and blacks.



For the DOI to pass all the states had to vote in favor of it. So the southern members of the Continental Congress refused to sign the DOI if Jefferson's anti-slavery paragraph wasn't removed. After all, the Bible allowed slavery. Its doubtful that any of the authors of the Bible ever saw an sub-Saharan African or Eastern Asian person.


Oct 18, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:

Again, none of those are biblical principles in fact they VIOLATE biblical principles as I demonstrated above.



But you have spent months claiming that the Constitution was based on biblical principals. Either it was or it wasn't, make up your mind.

Flag amcolph October 18, 2015 7:49 PM EDT

Oct 18, 2015 -- 12:49AM, El Cid wrote:



No, those principles are plainly in there. It is quite obvious to me and John Witherspoon, Samuel Adams, John Adams, among others.




The only "biblical principle" of any importance to you is the prohibition of anal intercourse, but I don't believe that any of those worthies ever spoke of it.

Flag El Cid October 19, 2015 12:02 AM EDT

Oct 8, 2015 -- 8:20AM, amcolph wrote:


 


tp: You can't marry your dog, or your computer because animals and inanimate objects cannot sign a contract. Nor can you marry dead people for the same reason.


ec: Who made up the rule about the ability to sign a contract, and why should we obey it?



amc: We've answered this in detail at least once before.


The laws surrounding the creation of contracts are at the foundation of our economy, which could not function without them.  Abrogate them at your peril.



No, i am referring specifically about marriage contracts, given that they are considered relatively innocuous as far as the economy goes. What is the source of the requirement to have an ability to sign a contract in order to get married? And why should we obey that source?



amc: Of course, we are well aware that the only reason you obey any of the rules of a civilized society is because you fear God's wrath.



No, I obey the laws of God and the laws of society because I love God and He has commanded us to obey the laws of society as long as they don't conflict with the laws of God. 



amc: Normal people can understand the social utility of a rule and obey it for that reason.




Yes, most people do not think about whether the foundations of society's laws are rational and analyze exactly what that social utility is and whether it is ultimately good for society. This is a major part of the problem with Western societies in the last 40 years or so. The people just accept any law as long as it helps make people "happy" and give them good feelings without thinking about the deeper ramifications of some laws.

Flag El Cid October 19, 2015 12:04 AM EDT

Oct 8, 2015 -- 8:24AM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:



How do you know that your reason is God given? Maybe the deistic god just got evolution going and humans are still just the result of random processes and therefore, your reason just may be an illusion along with your consciousness as many atheists believe.




Believe it they may, but you are the one who added the "therefore."   In any case, the Christian god may have handled it the same way.  A "random process" does not, of necessity, exclude telos.




It does if your definiton of "random process" means non-goal oriented.

Flag El Cid October 19, 2015 12:22 AM EDT

Oct 8, 2015 -- 2:33PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: Well Ok sorry. But nevertheless it was one of your fellow Progressives and you kept bringing up after he did.


tp: He is an anti-same-sex Christian. He's far from a Progressive. Your first post in this forum was supporting his position.



Well that was a long time ago, I had forgotten, but I was just using it as an example of how our nation is abandoning its founding biblical principles but nevertheless you are the one that kept that subject on the forefront of this discussion.




Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: I would hardly call the 2001 JAMA and the 2012 CDC studies out of date.


tp: Since you brought up the CDC, they have an article about the problem of LGBTQ suicide. Much of the problem is caused by bigotry, bullying, and violence in their school. Other problems are parents and relatives that refuse to accept the fact that their child is LGB. Link



Jews and African Americans experienced all those things in the 1950's thru the 1960's in America and their suicide rate did not go up significantly. I believe the evidence may point to additional causes rather than solely those factors for gays.


Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: But what if you want to have sex with your family member and to get the additional tax breaks?


tp: Families already have the tax breaks. Marriage makes a couple a legal family



But what if a brother and sister or a father and daughter want to be considered a married couple, ie a husband and wife?


Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Who made up the rule about the ability to sign a contract, and why should we obey it?


tp: The law was made to protect people who are incompetent to sign a contract. Competent Law. (of a witness, a party to a contract, etc.) legal capacity or qualification based on the meeting of certain minimum requirements of age, soundness of mind, citizenship, or the like. It should be obeyed because taking advantage of people who are too young or mentally unable to understand the contract is wrong.



On what basis is it wrong? It is plainly not wrong according to the laws of nature, animals take advantage of other animals incompetencies all the time.


Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Things can get pretty rough with consensual fornication too. The key words and lack of words are the text uses "THEY are found out" plainly implying that both were hiding from the authorities. Also, she does not cry out as mentioned in the verses that do deal with rape, ie 25-27.



tp: Deuteronomy 22:23-27 deals with virgin women who are engaged to a man. 22:28-29 deals with a virgin who is not engaged. Whether or not they were hiding out or not of whether she cried out is irrelevant. I love the way you, like Calvin, twist scripture to support your beliefs.




No, whether she cried out and whether they were hiding out, is very relevant otherwise the text would not have mentioned it. And remember the OT teaches the EOR so plainly this is also a violation of that law.

Flag amcolph October 19, 2015 7:49 AM EDT

Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:04AM, El Cid wrote:


Oct 8, 2015 -- 8:24AM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:



How do you know that your reason is God given? Maybe the deistic god just got evolution going and humans are still just the result of random processes and therefore, your reason just may be an illusion along with your consciousness as many atheists believe.




Believe it they may, but you are the one who added the "therefore."   In any case, the Christian god may have handled it the same way.  A "random process" does not, of necessity, exclude telos.




It does if your definiton of "random process" means non-goal oriented.




Yes, and that is not the definition of "random" used in the theory of evolution--or any other science that I am aware of.


It is one of the meanings of "random" as used in common speech, but to impose it on scientific discourse is nothing but a rascally rhetorical trick used by shysters like yourself.




Flag TPaine October 19, 2015 1:44 PM EDT

Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:02AM, El Cid wrote:


No, i am referring specifically about marriage contracts, given that they are considered relatively innocuous as far as the economy goes. What is the source of the requirement to have an ability to sign a contract in order to get married? And why should we obey that source?



The marriage contract is important to the couple that sign it because it protects the 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges of both of the signers.


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:02AM, El Cid wrote:

No, I obey the laws of God and the laws of society because I love God and He has commanded us to obey the laws of society as long as they don't conflict with the laws of God.



So what laws are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists, Shintos, Wicca's, etc. to follow? Do they have to follow Judaeo-Christian law or the laws of their own holy books? The requirement to follow the holy book of one religion is called a theocracy which is what the men in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 opposed.


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:02AM, El Cid wrote:

Yes, most people do not think about whether the foundations of society's laws are rational and analyze exactly what that social utility is and whether it is ultimately good for society. This is a major part of the problem with Western societies in the last 40 years or so. The people just accept any law as long as it helps make people "happy" and give them good feelings without thinking about the deeper ramifications of some laws.



Since the end or WWII we ended segregation, passed a civil rights and voting rights law, passed six constitutional amendments, and made progress in expanding women's rights. IMO while we still have a way to go in eliminating racism, misogynism, homophobia, jingoism, and theonomy, the last 50 or so years have been positive for all the American people.

Flag TPaine October 19, 2015 3:01 PM EDT

Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:22AM, El Cid wrote:


Well that was a long time ago, I had forgotten, but I was just using it as an example of how our nation is abandoning its founding biblical principles but nevertheless you are the one that kept that subject on the forefront of this discussion.




I've been trying to avoid the same sex marriage and have said so repeatedly. I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up. You're the one with the problem with it based on your theonomous beliefs.


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:22AM, El Cid wrote:

Jews and African Americans experienced all those things in the 1950's thru the 1960's in America and their suicide rate did not go up significantly. I believe the evidence may point to additional causes rather than solely those factors for gays.



So the psychologists and psychiatrists are wrong and you are right? Jewish and Black parents didn't refuse to accept their children's religion or race. Far too many parents of LGBT children  do refuse to accept it.


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:22AM, El Cid wrote:

But what if a brother and sister or a father and daughter want to be considered a married couple, ie a husband and wife?



Marriage form a familial bond that is recognized legally. Members of a family already have a legally recognized familial bond.


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:22AM, El Cid wrote:

On what basis is it wrong? It is plainly not wrong according to the laws of nature, animals take advantage of other animals incompetencies all the time.



If you can't understand the immorality of letting people who don't understanding what they're doing you're beyond hope. Animals kill for food and to protect their group. Unlike some humans they don't do it for fun or to build up their ego.


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:22AM, El Cid wrote:

No, whether she cried out and whether they were hiding out, is very relevant otherwise the text would not have mentioned it. And remember the OT teaches the EOR so plainly this is also a violation of that law.



It doesn't say whether they were they were hiding out or not. Its irrelevant. It says he attacked her and raped her. The woman in this case is not engaged or married as she is the other cases mentioned. Read Deuteronomy 22:22-29. Making a woman marry her rapist is totally immoral.

Flag El Cid October 20, 2015 12:07 AM EDT

Oct 8, 2015 -- 3:01PM, TPaine wrote:


Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:


How do you know that your reason is God given? Maybe the deistic god just got evolution going and humans are still just the result of random processes and therefore, your reason just may be an illusion along with your consciousness as many atheists believe.



I'm not an Atheist so I don't believe what they do. Humans are the only species that are able to reason. It's illogical, as Mr. Spock would say, to believe that of the 1,367,555 non-insect animals only one (humans) have the ability to reason came from evolution alone. How do I know it was God given? I know I didn't get it from Tinkerbell, Peter Pan, or R2-D2 so God seems to be the best answer.




But what is your basis for knowing that your god gave you reason? Do you know if even your god can reason? If he can't reason then how could he impart it to humans? Also as a deist, you believe that he just got things going 13.7 bya, humans did not come onto the scene until much later, at the earliest maybe 2 mya, maybe as late as 50,000 years ago. So by that time the deist god had already started things and was no longer intervening in evolution, so it was just an unguided, impersonal irrational process. Reason is extremely unlikely to come from non-reason. 

Flag amcolph October 20, 2015 7:52 AM EDT

Oct 20, 2015 -- 12:07AM, El Cid wrote:


 


But what is your basis for knowing that your god gave you reason? Do you know if even your god can reason? If he can't reason then how could he impart it to humans? Also as a deist, you believe that he just got things going 13.7 bya, humans did not come onto the scene until much later, at the earliest maybe 2 mya, maybe as late as 50,000 years ago. So by that time the deist god had already started things and was no longer intervening in evolution, so it was just an unguided, impersonal irrational process. Reason is extremely unlikely to come from non-reason. 




What nonsense.


One of your unloveliest tendencies is to tell other people about their religious beliefs: "If you don't agree with me then you must believe X, and X is wrong."


You have no idea what TPaine believes about how divine providence is realized in the world.  What is worse, if he tried to explain it to you and it didn't agree with what you think he must believe, you would blow him off.


It is a common rhetorical tactic for fundamentalists.  I think you must learn it in Sunday School.

Flag TPaine October 20, 2015 1:03 PM EDT

Oct 20, 2015 -- 12:07AM, El Cid wrote:


But what is your basis for knowing that your god gave you reason? Do you know if even your god can reason? If he can't reason then how could he impart it to humans? Also as a deist, you believe that he just got things going 13.7 bya, humans did not come onto the scene until much later, at the earliest maybe 2 mya, maybe as late as 50,000 years ago. So by that time the deist god had already started things and was no longer intervening in evolution, so it was just an unguided, impersonal irrational process. Reason is extremely unlikely to come from non-reason.



What is your basis for knowing that God had anything to do with the Bible? It is the holy book of one relgion out of those of 12 pther religions. How do you know your book is right and the others aren't? The 613 mitzvot in the Torah make him appear to be a narcissistic psychopath. there are 194 contradictions in the New Testament alone,

[Jewish scholars] do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:
1. Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2. Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3. Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4. Jewish belief is based on national revelation. Link


God would not write or accept an imperfect book.


Now you're telling me what Deists believe again. I suggest you find out what that actually is before you tell me about it because you look foolish when you are wrong about it. Why would Thomas Paine pray to a God he believed wouldn't listen to his prayer?

Flag El Cid October 21, 2015 12:41 AM EDT

Oct 10, 2015 -- 12:18PM, TPaine wrote:



ec: There are some things especially back then, that Christians and deists had in common. So why not?


tp: One thing Diderot, d'Alembert Voltaire and Rousseau, not to mention Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d'Holbach an Atheist who wrote numerous articles for the Encyclopédie, had in common was a hatred of the Roman Catholic church. I'm surprised that a "devout Catholic" like you claim Montesquieu was would have anything to do with them, or more to the point, they would have anything to do with him. I was wrong in my earlier post. Diderot was an Atheist, not a Deist.



Nevertheless it is true, read the biography I referenced.




Oct 10, 2015 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: How do you know that the deist god gave you the EOR? Since he does not communicate?


tp: I've answered that question several times. If you can't understand what I wrote repeating it again will accomplish nothing.



I don't remember you answering this question, and you did not answer the questions I asked in the post just above this one either. You say I don't know what deists believe, well then enlighten me.


Oct 10, 2015 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Because Jesus believed that all humans have intrinsic value because we are created in the image of God. But if the Christian God does not exist then we are not created in His image.


tp: The EOR is basically universal among religions and moral/ethical systems. Its not something unique to the Christian god. Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato were pagans who lived before Christianity existed. Where did they get the EOR?



It is embedded in almost all human consciences because we are all created in the image of the Christian God,  read Genesis 1:27. But it is based on humans being intrinsically valuable for that reason, but where does such value come from for the deist?


Oct 10, 2015 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: I don't mean equal in abilities, but no species has intrinsic special value since all species are the result of the same process, ie evolution. And you are correct, if humans are the product of evolution then they are not equal, so on what basis do we all have equal rights?


tp: animals operate on instinct, not on reason but they only fight and/or kill to protect themselves and others in their group or for food. They seem to understand equal rights better than humans do.Read The Lowest Animal by Mark Twain. Link 1



Yes sometimes, but animals also rape and kill each other all the time. And cats and foxes play with and kill mice just for fun even when they are not hungry. 


Oct 10, 2015 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, since in Hinduism there is no real separation between the One and the universe, there never was any real beginning to the universe, it has always existed just in different illusory forms. The universe and god are One in hinduism. The differences are just illusions. ALL is ultimately One.


tp: As I read it the One was the creator. Christians believe God is/was eternal. Both The Nasadiya Sukta and Genesis mention water existing before the creation. Link 2



No, the creation event is ultimately an illusion for hindus. Most hindus are pantheists where they believe that the entire universe including humans are all god and part of god. The appearance of distinct individuals is an illusion. The bible does not teach that water existed before creation. It says God first created the heavens and the earth, ie the physical inorganic universe, including water. There is scientific evidence for an early possibly worldwide ocean on the earth. This has also just recently been confirmed for Mars too. This is what probably the verse in Gen. 1 is referring to.


Oct 10, 2015 -- 1:10AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, it states God CREATED the heavens and the earth at the beginning and then the earth was formless and void. The heavens and the earth with water on it were created not out of water. This is confirmed by Hebrews 11:3. Not absolutely nothing, just nothing physical. Also the hebrew term for many of those verses means an ongoing stretching.


tp: Genesis 1:1-5 reads In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was a]">[a]formless and void, and darkness was over the b]">[b]surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was c]">[c]moving over the d]">[d]surface of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.


  1. Or a waste and emptiness
  2. Lit face of
  3. Or hovering
  4. Lit face of  NASB


1:1 is like a chapter heading that tells what the chapter is about. 1:2-5 tells what happened on the 1st day. The story is quite similar to the Nasadiya Sukta.





No, verse 1 is an action performed by God from the perspective of an observer of God. Then there is a perspective shift to the surface of the earth, so that from verse 3 things occur from the perspective of an observer on the earth's surface. The light coming to the surface of the earth is the result of the clearing of the early opaque atmosphere of the early earth caused by debris surrounding the earth.

Flag amcolph October 21, 2015 10:43 AM EDT

Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:


Yes sometimes, but animals also rape and kill each other all the time. And cats and foxes play with and kill mice just for fun even when they are not hungry.



Of course they do it for fun.  Such creatures do everything for fun.  That's how instinct is carried out. Domesticated cats hunt because it gives them pleasure in itself to do so.  There is no chain of reasoning: "I will hunt because I am hungry."  That is why they hunt even when they are not hungry.  As for "playing" with their prey, this is a safe procedure for dispatching a creature who, while small, might still inflict potentially dangerous wounds.


They are not able to contain their appetites for abstract reasons like we are.  Consequently raping and killing are not possible for them, for there is no sin or death in their world


Flag TPaine October 21, 2015 3:27 PM EDT

Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:


Nevertheless it is true, read the biography I referenced.


I've read several biographies of Montesquieu and they all say he was born in a Roman Catholic family and was baptized in it as a child, but as an adult he left the church because he opposed their policies. Like Voltaire he became disillusioned with Christianity because of all the fighting and killing that went on between Christian sects and also like Voltaire became a Deist.


Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:

I don't remember you answering this question, and you did not answer the questions I asked in the post just above this one either. You say I don't know what deists believe, well then enlighten me.



I don't know why I should bother because I know you will just say that I am wrong, but here goes. Homo Sapiens are the only species on the planet that have the ability to reason. That ability had to come from somewhere. Reason tells me it didn't come from Tinkerbell, Peter Pan, or R2-D2. It wasn't brought to Earth by aliens in a flying saucer. None of the great apes we are descended from have that ability. Therefore, reason tells me it had to come from the Creator (God). We (who we call Enlightenment Deists) don't believe God just started the universe and went away. Why would we say prayers of thanksgiving to a deity that was no longer there?


Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:

It is embedded in almost all human consciences because we are all created in the image of the Christian God,  read Genesis 1:27. But it is based on humans being intrinsically valuable for that reason, but where does such value come from for the deist?



No, you believe it was embedded by the Christian God. Hindus believe it came from their Gods, Sikhs believe it came from their God, Zoroastrian believe it came from their God, Shintoists believe it came from their Gods and so on. They all say that because that is what's in their holy books, and that their holy books are right and all the rest are wrong. We Deists believe it came from the Creator because there is no other logical cause. We believe that all holy books were written by priests as a way to control their followers and God had nothing to do with them.


Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:

Yes sometimes, but animals also rape and kill each other all the time. And cats and foxes play with and kill mice just for fun even when they are not hungry.



And some humans torture and kill other humans because they don't follow what they believe to be the "true" holy book, or because their skin is a different color, or they have affection for the wrong gender. Just because we have the EOR doesn't mean everyone follows it.


Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:

No, the creation event is ultimately an illusion for hindus. Most hindus are pantheists where they believe that the entire universe including humans are all god and part of god. The appearance of distinct individuals is an illusion. The bible does not teach that water existed before creation. It says God first created the heavens and the earth, ie the physical inorganic universe, including water. There is scientific evidence for an early possibly worldwide ocean on the earth. This has also just recently been confirmed for Mars too. This is what probably the verse in Gen. 1 is referring to.



Have you read the Rig-Veda? It tells the Hindu creation story as I explained it. I realize you feel it necessary to denigration all non-Christian religions, but your doing so damages your credibility. I suggest you read the book A History Of The World's Religions by David S. Noss and John B. Noss. You might actually learn something. I understand your need to fit the Bible to your beliefs, but doing so doesn't necessarily make your beliefs correct. Its common knowledge that the earth was covered with water at one point and both the Abrahamic and Hindu religions agree with that. It has been confirmed that there was once liquid water on Mars (and may still be) but not that Mars was totally covered with water. Genesis makes no mention of planets because they had no idea there were any. It only mentions Earth, the sun, the moon, and stars.



Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:

No, verse 1 is an action performed by God from the perspective of an observer of God. Then there is a perspective shift to the surface of the earth, so that from verse 3 things occur from the perspective of an observer on the earth's surface. The light coming to the surface of the earth is the result of the clearing of the early opaque atmosphere of the early earth caused by debris surrounding the earth.



And you fit your interpretation of Genesis 1:1 to fit your beliefs. People who hold different beliefs interpret it differently. Since none of us can prove exactly what the author intended when he wrote it, we have no way of knowing who's right. One of the problems with ancient holy books is that they can be interpreted in different ways to suit different beliefs. If God wrote those books they would be perfect and have only one interpretation.

Flag El Cid October 22, 2015 12:40 AM EDT

Oct 11, 2015 -- 3:22PM, TPaine wrote:


ec:I was referring to income taxes, which your link confirms.


tp: Since I used to work for H&R Block I know a bit about income taxes. Most of the time a married couple saves money by filing a joint return especially if only one of the couple works. Non-married couples cannot file joint returns.



So are you saying that your own link is wrong?


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, did you even read my statement above? I said that heterosexual marriage is the only relationship that can biologically unite two persons. This has been proven biologically. Biologists state that only a mating pair can unite into a single reproductive unit irrespective if they are a functioning reproductive unit. This is based on science and reason. This is the basis that marriage has always been founded on even if not fully expressed or understood in early history until recent history in Western societies. By this reinforcing of personhood society is strengthened.


tp: There is no requirement that a married couple has to be able to reproduce. If that were the case one of our best friends would not have been able to marry her husband since before the marriage she had cancer and had to have her uterus removed. Men who had a vasectomy would also be unable to marry. Marriage isn't based on biology its based of love and two people wanting to spend their lives together. If you can't tolerate a secular government find a theocracy you like and move there.



While it is not a requirement, it is one of the main reasons marriage came into existence. And one the main reasons governments got involved in it. We were not founded as a secular government as I demonstrated earlier in this thread.


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: I didn't say anything about love, as I stated above love is not the primary basis for marriage. It is the uniting of two persons biologically and therefore the uniting and reinforcing their personhood. Homosexual behavior cannot biologically do this. So it is two people engaging in sex acts. Such behavior does not reinforce their persons organically. It is impossible both logically and biologically. You need to think a little deeper. Any two people of any sex can certainly love each other more than other people, I am not denying that.


tp: There are many heterosexual married couples who do not want children who get married because they love each other. There are also elderly men and women who marry even after they no longer to reproduce. Person-hood is not based on the ability to reproduce.



I don't think you are understanding what I wrote, because you didn't address any of my points in any rational manner. Do you understand what I am saying? Only heterosexual sexual intercourse can unite two persons, thereby reinforcing their personhood. All other sex acts do not, irresepective of reproduction. 




tp: Unfortunately, when misused religion can be a source of evil. Preachers such as Bryan Fischer, Stephen L. Anderson, Lou Engle, and Gary DeMar, as well as organizations like the Liberty Counsel, the Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, and the American Family Association preach hate daily on TV, radio, and the internet daily.



I don't know about the others but DeMar, the FRC and the AFA do not preach hate. Evidence that they preach hate? Just because somebody believes that homosexuality is immoral does not mean that they hate people that engage in it. You can tolerate the person but not the behavior without hate. Just because you want an alcoholic to go to AA does not mean you hate the alcoholic in fact the opposite, you care about them. Christians care about gays that is why we try to explain to them that such behavior is not good for them and that there is a better way. Christ loves them and wants what is best for them. If we did not care about them we would say nothing and just let them die in their sin. 




Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: The members of that court are not the only ones that confirmed that marriage is between a man and woman, this ruling was also referred to by United States vs. Bitty in 1908, even the court that ruled that banning interracial marriage is unconstitutional assumed that marriage is between a man and woman. And all four of the dissenting judges in the SCOTUS ruling this year also agree that the Constitution says nothing about gay marriage.


tp: You do know that Murphy v. Ramsey referenced Dred Scott v. Sandford don't you? A decision referencing a previous decision is not necessarily approving the referenced decision. The 9th Amendment clearly states that civil rights are not limited to those numerated in the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't mention a right of miscegenation either, but SCOTUS ruled that a state can't make it illegal. If I disagree with Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and usually Roberts I know I'm morally correct.



But where does the right come from? Even the ones that are not enumerated in the Constiution cannot be just made up out of thin air. Obviously it can not come from nature since we are all anatomically heterosexual. And whlile a few animals engage in homsexual behavior, no animal has a homosexual orientation. During mating season, the healthy ones always want to mate with a member of the oppostie sex. So again you fail to provide where this right comes from. And you can't reference the God of the DOI, because it  is the biblical God of nature.


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Of course not, but once the woman becomes pregnant there are three human bodies involved, this is a scientific fact.


tp: So because of that the husband has control over the wife's body? He gets to decide even if the wife doesn't want to go through pregnancy? After all he doesn't have to go through the problems pregnancy forces her to go through. 



No, not the husband, the government has jurisdiction to make sure all humans are at least entitled to their most basic enumerated right, the right to life. The child is entitled to that life once he comes into existence within the womb.


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Yes, because His role was already explained in the DOI and all the state constitutions, they felt there was no need to refer to Him again.


tp: The DOI is not law. Its a letter telling the British people why we were braking away. It does so by listing the abridgement of rights of the colonists by the King and Parliament.



While technically not a law it is part of the US Legal Code. The United States Code Annotated includes the DOI under the heading "The Organic Laws of the United States of America". Also the SCOTUS has repeatedly the DOI as part of the fundamental law fo the land in multple cases such as United States v. Will, 1980, Nevada v. Hall, 1979 among others.




tp: Only six men of the fifty-six who signed the DOI were among the forty who signed the Constitution. What state constitutions say is irrelevant because of the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution. In 2009 the Christians in Asheville North Carolina tried to refuse to seat the elected city councilman, Cecil Bothwell, based on Article 6 Section 8 which reads in part: Sec. 8.  Disqualifications for office.


The following persons shall be disqualified for office:


First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. That clause was deemed unconstitutional based on Article 6 and the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.



It was not irrelevant at the time of its writing, the founders allowed the states to keep their state churches at the time and their references to Christ and God in their constitutions. And their requirements that office holders had to be theists were not stopped by the founders.



Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, compare it to a real secular government constitution, the one the French republic used, where they changed the calendar so it would not reference the birth of Christ. If ours is secular why did they not do something similar?


tp: The French Constitution during the revolution was based on the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen (Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen) was directly influenced by Thomas Jefferson, working with the Marquis de Lafayette, who introduced it. Its one of the best documents of the Enlightenment Link We didn't change the calendar for the same reasons the French changed it back. Its too hard to covert the date of everything that happened in the world. Its the same reason that the U.S. hasn't turned to the metric system.



Nevertheless the French Declaration intentionally omits any reference to God and Christ including in the date. This is very different from our DOI and Constitiution with its references to Providence among the more obvious references to Creator. And no, that is not why we kept the Christ centered calendar, it is because most  of the founders were Christians 50 out of the 56 that signed the DOI and the Constitution were Christians.


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: I don't deny that they used some of their principles but some of the more important ones such as human equality came from the Bible.


tp: The concept of human equality came from the Enlightenment,



On what basis and from whom?


tp: not the Bible which accepts both slavery and misogyny among other evils.



No, the bible does not allow involuntary slavery except for POWS and prisoners which is the same as the constiution. And it teaches that both men AND Women are equally created in the image of God. Now Christians have not always followed the teachings of the bible, but at least we have a standard by which to judge them, deism does not.


Oct 11, 2015 -- 12:34AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Geneva actually violated the Christian principle of freedom of conscience. So I would not be in favor of running our government in that manner.



tp: I'm certainly glad you understand that Calvin violated the Freedom of Conscience, but it is certainly not strictly a Christian principle. Freedom of Conscience can be found in other, but not all, religions. The the edicts of King Ashoka of India (3rd century BCE) have been called the first decree respecting freedom of conscience. Throughout history philosophers Themistius, Michel de Montaigne, Baruch Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Alexandre Vinet, and John Stuart Mill have been considered major proponents of the idea of Freedom of Conscience.




I didn't say it was strictly a Christian principle but that is where the founders of America got it from, especially from the writings of Christian John Locke.

Flag TPaine October 22, 2015 11:42 PM EDT

Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:


So are you saying that your own link is wrong?



I can't answer that unless I have the link in front of me. You are so far behind I went back 3 pages to try to find it. If you want an answer either post the link or give me the post number so I can find it.


Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

While it is not a requirement, it is one of the main reasons marriage came into existence. And one the main reasons governments got involved in it. We were not founded as a secular government as I demonstrated earlier in this thread.



You wrote, "While it is not a requirement, it is one of the main reasons marriage came into existence." That is my point. Reproduction is not a requirement for marriage. Historically, some of the reasons people were married had nothing to do reproduction. Women were actually sold by their fathers for what was called the "bride's price." In other cases the family had to provide a "dowry" to get the man to marry their daughter. In many cases marriages were a way for commoners to become members of the nobility. When the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation we became a secular nation. Article 6 states that there can't be religious tests for government employees and the 1st Amendment guaranteed the people to have the free exercise of religion despite what that religion that may be, but the government could not establish a religion or follow the beliefs of one religion over the beliefs of other religions. The United States government is secular whether you like it or not.


Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

I don't think you are understanding what I wrote, because you didn't address any of my points in any rational manner. Do you understand what I am saying? Only heterosexual sexual intercourse can unite two persons, thereby reinforcing their personhood. All other sex acts do not, irresepective of reproduction.



As I pointed out above, marriage wasn't always based on love or biology. It was often based on money or social status. These days in the United States it is based on both love and the rights married couples have that couples living together do not have, not biology. Intercourse is not a requirement to unite people in any way. I know heterosexual couples who are married yet due to medical reasons are unable to have intercourse. Does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry? To deny those rights to some adult couples and not others is discrimination and therefore unconstitutional. Saying that my responses are not made in a rational manner is a case of the pot calling the kettle back.


Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

I don't know about the others but DeMar, the FRC and the AFA do not preach hate. Evidence that they preach hate? Just because somebody believes that homosexuality is immoral does not mean that they hate people that engage in it. You can tolerate the person but not the behavior without hate. Just because you want an alcoholic to go to AA does not mean you hate the alcoholic in fact the opposite, you care about them. Christians care about gays that is why we try to explain to them that such behavior is not good for them and that there is a better way. Christ loves them and wants what is best for them. If we did not care about them we would say nothing and just let them die in their sin.




DeMar is the president of The American Vision whose site says it's vision is

Vision
An America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life, where Christians apply a Biblical worldview to every facet of society. This future America will be again a “city on a hill” drawing all nations to the Lord Jesus Christ and teaching them to subdue the earth for the advancement of His Kingdom Link 1


. Gee, that sounds like you. The members of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 went out of their way to create a government that opposed a theocracy or a theonomy and succeeded. In an interview on AFA radio DeMar also said that

"The Bible doesn't say that homosexuals ought to be executed. What it says is this: If two men lie together like man and woman, they are to be put to death."



In an Atlanta radio interview host Paul Gonzales asked DeMar:

GONZALES: If, indeed, the Reconstructionist movement ever made it in America, would you advocate these biblical principles being carried out: the execution of the adulterer, the abortionist, and the homosexual?


DeMAR: I'm saying that they could be implemented, yes. Link 2


Bryan Fischer of the AFA has said A&E’s suspension of Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson “is the Mark of the Beast,” No evolutionists should hold public office, India’s anti-sodomy law is “entirely right and entirely appropriate,” Religious liberty only applies to Christians, and Voters should probably be a landowner in order to be eligible to vote. Link 3 Fischer also has said that Hitler was gay and all the Nazis were gay and all the gays today are Nazis who are trying to kill off the Jews. Link 4


Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

But where does the right come from? Even the ones that are not enumerated in the Constiution cannot be just made up out of thin air. Obviously it can not come from nature since we are all anatomically heterosexual. And whlile a few animals engage in homsexual behavior, no animal has a homosexual orientation. During mating season, the healthy ones always want to mate with a member of the oppostie sex. So again you fail to provide where this right comes from. And you can't reference the God of the DOI, because it  is the biblical God of nature.




I've answered this about a dozen times in this thread along with links and you keep asking it over and over. Go back and read what I've already written. I have a life. I can't waste time repeating myself since you obviously won't accept the truth.


Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

No, not the husband, the government has jurisdiction to make sure all humans are at least entitled to their most basic enumerated right, the right to life. The child is entitled to that life once he comes into existence within the womb.



Most anti-choice people really care about the fetus while the mother is carrying it, but one it is born they don't care what happens to it. If it starves to death because the mother can't afford to buy enough food, they couldn't care less. Besides, women should have the right to control her own body without some man (husband or not) being allowed to tell her what she's allowed to do. SCOTUS can mention Mein Kamph in a decision, but mentioning it doesn't make it law.


Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

While technically not a law it is part of the US Legal Code. The United States Code Annotated includes the DOI under the heading "The Organic Laws of the United States of America". Also the SCOTUS has repeatedly the DOI as part of the fundamental law fo the land in multple cases such as United States v. Will, 1980, Nevada v. Hall, 1979 among others.




The SCOTUS decision in United States v. Will mentioned the DOI's used a a grievance that the King of England took control of Colonial Courts by ruling that he could appoint and fire the judges at his pleasure. However, this mention didn't state that the DOI paragraph was law. The basis for the decision was Article III Section 1 which stated, "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office." In Nevada v. Hall the DOI is mentioned in a footnote, but the decision was based in earlier court decisions by John Jay and John Marshall.




Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

It was not irrelevant at the time of its writing, the founders allowed the states to keep their state churches at the time and their references to Christ and God in their constitutions. And their requirements that office holders had to be theists were not stopped by the founders.



It wasn't until the 14th Amendment was ratified which incorporated the Bill of Rights. That incorporation of the establishment clause in the Ist Amendment made it unconstitutional for states to establish religions.  All state churches were disestablished by the end of 1834.


Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

Nevertheless the French Declaration intentionally omits any reference to God and Christ including in the date. This is very different from our DOI and Constitiution with its references to Providence among the more obvious references to Creator. And no, that is not why we kept the Christ centered calendar, it is because most  of the founders were Christians 50 out of the 56 that signed the DOI and the Constitution were Christians.



There was nothing wrong with the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen which was the basis of the French Constitution of 1793. The problems started when Maximilien Robespierre and the Jacobins took power and Robespierre became a dictator who arrested most of his political opponents including Thomas Paine, and executed many of them. It had nothing to do with the lack of Christian references in their Constitution. The American Constitution like the French Constitution of 1793 has no Christian references. There is no mention of God in either of the documents. If you want a constitution that mentions God, I suggest the Iranian or Saudi Arabian constitutions. Only six of the 56 signers of the DOI were among the 39 signers of the Constitution. Get your facts right. There were 89 people who signed the the documents, not 56. You need to prove that the 50 you said were Christians actually were Christians.


Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

On what basis and from whom?



Sir Francis Bacon, John Locke, Denis Diderot, Voltaire, Alexander Pope, David Hume, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and many more.


tp: not the Bible which accepts both slavery and misogyny among other evils.



Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

No, the bible does not allow involuntary slavery except for POWS and prisoners which is the same as the constiution. And it teaches that both men AND Women are equally created in the image of God. Now Christians have not always followed the teachings of the bible, but at least we have a standard by which to judge them, deism does not.



The Bible does allow slavery. Link 5 The standard is the EOR. Even Jesus said so (Matthew 7:12). If the only way you can have standard how did America Indians who had never heard of Christianity or the Bible before the 6th century CE know that the EOR was the correct moral code? The Bible says women are not equal. Ephesians 5:22-24.


Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

I didn't say it was strictly a Christian principle but that is where the founders of America got it from, especially from the writings of Christian John Locke.



Prove that Locke was a Christian. According to my 40-year study of the Enlightenment I found no evidence that he was a Christian but quite a bit of evidence that he was a Deist. Link 6

Flag El Cid October 23, 2015 12:23 AM EDT

Oct 13, 2015 -- 9:00AM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 12, 2015 -- 11:49PM, El Cid wrote:

See above how I explain how human rights or human equality cannot come from reason or nature.




LOL!  You have never explained it, all you have done is repeat the same assertion over and over.  Repetition does nothing to raise it above the level of fatuous nonsense.


You seem to think that value must have an origin outside of human experience.  If not God, then "reason" or "nature" or some other abstract source.





For the value to be objective, then its source must be outside of humanity.

Flag El Cid October 23, 2015 12:33 AM EDT

Oct 13, 2015 -- 2:56PM, TPaine wrote:


tp: I'm tired of going around and around on the LGBT marriage topic. You keep repeating the same thing over and over and I'm fed up with having to respond to it over and over. Same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states so either learn to live with it or move to some country like Russia or one of the Islamic theocracies where same-sex marriage is illegal.


ec: You actually admitted earlier that humans are naturally NOT equal, so where did equal rights come from, plainly not from nature. And as I demonstrated earlier the EOR comes from the  assumption that humans have intrinsic value above other species but plainly that does not come from nature, nature treats all animals the same there is no intrinsic value of humans that is greater than other animals. Also other societies have become very powerful and successful in many ways  such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union by NOT operating by the EOR. So plainly it does not come from nature or reason. Hitler and Stalin both thought they were being rational. so who says EOR is the best morality jsut because a bunch of old philosophers say so does not mean it is correct.


tp: For someone who seems to love the DOI you seem to forget the part that reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Jefferson originally  wrote it as: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant [sic], that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;



Yes, but how do you know that God created all men equal and in what way are they equal? Do you just take Jefferson's word for it?




tp: I don't have to be as intelligent as Einstein or John Stuart Mill, as strong as Bill Kazmaier, as fast as Usain Bolt or as athletic as Chuck Connors to have the same civil rights they do. Both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union failed in the end. Hitler committed suicide and Stalin was murdered. Both were only interested in increasing their own personal power. If you disagree with the concept of treating others the way you want to be treated I suggest you find a good psychiatrist.



But on what basis do you have equal rights? As a Christian of course, I believe in doing unto others as I would have them do unto me.


Oct 12, 2015 -- 11:49PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: What individual Christians do is irrelevant, what I am referring to is logically and philosophically. See above how I explain how human rights or human equality cannot come from reason or nature. And I am still waiting for where the right to gay marriage comes from as shown above it cannot come from nature or reason, nature obviously points in the opposite direction as shown by human anatomy.


tp: There's nothing logical or philosophically correct in what you say. Given it's history Christianity certainly can't be the basis of human rights nor can most other revealed religions. Jainism and Wicca may be the exceptions. As I've explained many times Reason was given to humans as a gift from God. No other species is able to reason.




While Christians have not always lived up to Christ's teachings and God's laws, we do have a standard by which to judge what is right and wrong. Where do rights come from for a deist since the deist god has said nothing?

Flag Do_unto_others October 23, 2015 10:25 AM EDT

I've never seen an actual heterosexual obsess quite so very much over homosexuality.



It's quite amusing.

Flag TPaine October 23, 2015 10:35 AM EDT

Oct 23, 2015 -- 12:33AM, El Cid wrote:


Oct 13, 2015 -- 2:56PM, TPaine wrote:


tp: I'm tired of going around and around on the LGBT marriage topic. You keep repeating the same thing over and over and I'm fed up with having to respond to it over and over. Same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states so either learn to live with it or move to some country like Russia or one of the Islamic theocracies where same-sex marriage is illegal.


ec: You actually admitted earlier that humans are naturally NOT equal, so where did equal rights come from, plainly not from nature. And as I demonstrated earlier the EOR comes from the  assumption that humans have intrinsic value above other species but plainly that does not come from nature, nature treats all animals the same there is no intrinsic value of humans that is greater than other animals. Also other societies have become very powerful and successful in many ways  such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union by NOT operating by the EOR. So plainly it does not come from nature or reason. Hitler and Stalin both thought they were being rational. so who says EOR is the best morality jsut because a bunch of old philosophers say so does not mean it is correct.


tp: For someone who seems to love the DOI you seem to forget the part that reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Jefferson originally  wrote it as: We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant [sic], that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;



Yes, but how do you know that God created all men equal and in what way are they equal? Do you just take Jefferson's word for it?




tp: I don't have to be as intelligent as Einstein or John Stuart Mill, as strong as Bill Kazmaier, as fast as Usain Bolt or as athletic as Chuck Connors to have the same civil rights they do. Both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union failed in the end. Hitler committed suicide and Stalin was murdered. Both were only interested in increasing their own personal power. If you disagree with the concept of treating others the way you want to be treated I suggest you find a good psychiatrist.



But on what basis do you have equal rights? As a Christian of course, I believe in doing unto others as I would have them do unto me.


Oct 12, 2015 -- 11:49PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: What individual Christians do is irrelevant, what I am referring to is logically and philosophically. See above how I explain how human rights or human equality cannot come from reason or nature. And I am still waiting for where the right to gay marriage comes from as shown above it cannot come from nature or reason, nature obviously points in the opposite direction as shown by human anatomy.


tp: There's nothing logical or philosophically correct in what you say. Given it's history Christianity certainly can't be the basis of human rights nor can most other revealed religions. Jainism and Wicca may be the exceptions. As I've explained many times Reason was given to humans as a gift from God. No other species is able to reason.




While Christians have not always lived up to Christ's teachings and God's laws, we do have a standard by which to judge what is right and wrong. Where do rights come from for a deist since the deist god has said nothing?



I'm tired of answering the same question over and over. If you can''t understand my answers after multiple posts there is no sense in repeating them again. Come up with something new or forget it. You remind me of my daughter when she was 3-years-old and we were in a store. She would say, "Can I have some candy?" and I'd reply, "No, honey, its to close to dinner time." and she would respond, "But, can I have some candy?"

Flag amcolph October 23, 2015 10:52 AM EDT

Oct 23, 2015 -- 12:23AM, El Cid wrote:


Oct 13, 2015 -- 9:00AM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 12, 2015 -- 11:49PM, El Cid wrote:

See above how I explain how human rights or human equality cannot come from reason or nature.




LOL!  You have never explained it, all you have done is repeat the same assertion over and over.  Repetition does nothing to raise it above the level of fatuous nonsense.


You seem to think that value must have an origin outside of human experience.  If not God, then "reason" or "nature" or some other abstract source.





For the value to be objective, then its source must be outside of humanity.




On what basis do you claim that human nature is not part of objective reality?

Flag El Cid October 23, 2015 5:47 PM EDT

Oct 14, 2015 -- 11:40AM, TPaine wrote:



ec: If they truly hated Lenin they could have overthrown him or Stalin, so why didnt they?


tp: One reason was that Lenin had the support of the military because he ended Russian participation in WWI. The Russian people were mostly unarmed. Some people did try to overthrow Stalin more than once. That's why he killed 7 million Russians.



If there was a huge majority that hated Lenin then the families of the military would have convinced them to overthrow him, but obviously that never happened therefore the evidence strongly supports the likelihood that the majority of people agreed with him.


Oct 14, 2015 -- 12:43AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, animals such as cats kill for fun. They also kill and eat their young in certain circumstances, does that mean it is ok for us to do that? We know practically nothing about the deist god, if he exists. We don't know if he is personal or impersonal, we don't know if he cares about his creation or not, we don't know if he is good or evil, we don't know anything about him or it.


tp: None of the cats my family and I owned never killed anything.



That is very unusual unless they are purely indoor cats. Outdoor domestic cats kill millions of birds every year. Look it up.




tp: Some animals have killed their young but only for food when they were starving or because the young was too handicapped to survive in nature.



No, male lions kill all the young of a rival in the pride when they try to take over it. And other species do it also. 




tp: The Deist God created the universe and everything in it. If you observe nature its obvious (s)he cares about the creation. We really don't know anything about the Christian Hod either. All we have is a 2000-year-old book written my mostly unknown authors. It is nearly impossible to believe that a God capable of creating the universe could have anything to do with a book (the New Testament) that has 194 contradictions in it. Link



How do you know the deist god created the universe? What is your evidence? We know many things about the Christian God, but not everything of course. Most of those so-called contradictions have been explained and refuted 100 years ago. Just as an example, nos. 3 and 4, your link says that Matthew 1:18 says that Christ's specialness was not announced until after His conception, but this was the announcement to Joseph, Mary had been told BEFORE conception in Luke. The two nativity stories complement each other one is Mary's story, the other Joseph's. 


Oct 14, 2015 -- 12:43AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Yes, but he believed that if you had a business you could do pretty much anything you wanted to do with it. He believed the less laws governing people's behavior the better, even bad behavior.


tp: I notice you didn't present any evidence to support your statement. Is that because you have none? I've been studying Jefferson for about 45 years and found nothing to support your claims.




There is no evidence he ever attempted to pass any anti-discrimination laws while he was president.

Flag El Cid October 23, 2015 10:38 PM EDT

Oct 15, 2015 -- 9:16AM, amcolph wrote:


ec: Because there are other examples where prophecies in the OT amazingly match what happened to Christ. But that is something that cannot be proved.


amc: And sometimes Christ and His followers contrived it, as for example in Matt 21:2.



So you believe that Christ and the apostles were deceivers? That is a rather shocking statement coming from someone that says that they are a Christian. That sounds more like something an atheist would say.


ec: In addition, there are all the other evidences that I mentioned earlier about the scientific truths in the bible that the authors could not have known without divine inspiration.


amc: I understand that you believe that, but I'm afraid that the rest of us think of it as ignorant self-serving nonsense which makes Christianity look stupid.



How does it make Christianity look stupid?


amc: Trying to find contemporary science in an infallible Bible is a risky business.  The "scientific truths" you are talking about are scientific theories, which are subject to being heavily modified or overturned altogether at any time.



Yes, I know it is risky, but the BB theory is one of the best attested to theories in the history of science.



amc: If you preach the spiritual truth and value of scripture as being proved by the prescient notion of the "big bang" theory allegedly to be found in it, what happens if the"big bang" theory turns out to be wrong?




I am not saying that it proves anything, it is just one piece of evidence. If the BB theory is proven wrong then that will be one piece of evidence against Christianity. But of course, the amount of evidence FOR Christianity would remain large.

Flag El Cid October 23, 2015 10:39 PM EDT

Oct 15, 2015 -- 1:29PM, TPaine wrote:


Oct 15, 2015 -- 12:13AM, El Cid wrote:


Read how Jethro Moses' father in law asked the people to choose judges from among themselves. And also in the book of Acts in the NT, the apostles told the church congregation to choose from among themselves leaders for the church, one likely way for a large group of people to choose leaders from among themselves is to choose them by electing them by some type of vote. While I can't prove that they voted for their leadership there is a strong implication that they did by the words of the texts.



The United States was the first country to create a tripartite system of government based on Montesquieu's theory of separation of powers with checks and balances that allow one branch to limit another. You won't find such a system in the Bible or any other ancient book.




I am not making that claim, so that is a non sequitur to my post above.

Flag El Cid October 23, 2015 11:07 PM EDT

Oct 15, 2015 -- 1:44PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: Not according to Paul in Romans 1, he says that they are "without excuse". I generally do not bring up that fact when I am evangelizing them or just communicating with them because they would not take it well. They generally are not ready to learn such teaching until they repent and become a Christian. In fact I have heard some former atheists say that only later did the realize that in fact that deep down they did believe that God existed but they were in some type of denial.



tp: I don't care what Paul wrote. He was just a man with opinions he took the time to write down. I believe differently and and you can evangelize me until the moon turns into green cheese and I will keep believing on what I believe now. I agree with Thomas Paine who wrote: HAVING now extended the subject to a greater length than I first intended, I shall bring it to a close by abstracting a summary from the whole.


First, That the idea or belief of a word of God existing in print, or in writing, or in speech, is inconsistent in itself for the reasons already assigned. These reasons, among many others, are the want of an universal language; the mutability of language;



Actually linguistic experts like Noam Chomsky have stated that they believe there IS a universal linguistic blueprint in the human brain thereby making it possible to make all human languages understandable to all humans.




tp: the errors to which translations are subject, the possibility of totally suppressing such a word; the probability of altering it, or of fabricating the whole, and imposing it upon the world.



Yes, such things would have been possible and have happened in other religious books but all the evidence points to the Holy Spirit thru His people the hebrews and His church protecting the Bible from all these things. The Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages when they had a corrupt leadership did try to impose a false understanding of the bible onto the world but then God sent Martin Luther and others to get the church back on track to the correct understanding of the bible.


tp: Secondly, That the Creation we behold is the real and ever existing word of God, in which we cannot be deceived. It proclaimeth his power, it demonstrates his wisdom, it manifests his goodness and beneficence.



Actually he is partially right about this, creation or Nature is God's other book of revelation, but it is incomplete. While it does reveal His power and great knowledge, it does not tell us whether God is loving and merciful and whether He is wholly good. Because there are many things in nature that seem to point to a cruel creator, but His written word helps to explain those things that appear to be evil but actually serve good purposes.




tp: Thirdly, That the moral duty of man consists in imitating the moral goodness and beneficence of God manifested in the creation towards all his creatures.



What about parasites and all the diseases and mutations affecting men and animals?




tp: That seeing as we daily do the goodness of God to all men, it is an example calling upon all men to practice the same towards each other; and, consequently, that every thing of persecution and revenge between man and man, and every thing of cruelty to animals, is a violation of moral duty.




But he does not take into account all the evil that men do to other men. And all the natural disasters that occur that the deist god may be causing for no good reason as far as we know because it hasn't communicated to us. In the Bible the Christian God explains why such things happen.

Flag amcolph October 24, 2015 9:20 AM EDT

Oct 23, 2015 -- 10:38PM, El Cid wrote:


ec: Because there are other examples where prophecies in the OT amazingly match what happened to Christ. But that is something that cannot be proved.


amc: And sometimes Christ and His followers contrived it, as for example in Matt 21:2.


ec: So you believe that Christ and the apostles were deceivers? That is a rather shocking statement coming from someone that says that they are a Christian. That sounds more like something an atheist would say.



Deceivers?  Hardly, read the passage I cited.  It was all done quite openly.


In any case, it is only a shocking notion to Fundamentalists such as yourself, who have the bogus idea that 'fulfilled prophecy' proves your erroneous notions about scripture, none of which is essential to the Christian faith.


ec: In addition, there are all the other evidences that I mentioned earlier about the scientific truths in the bible that the authors could not have known without divine inspiration.


amc: I understand that you believe that, but I'm afraid that the rest of us think of it as ignorant self-serving nonsense which makes Christianity look stupid.


ec:How does it make Christianity look stupid?



Because it is fatuous nonsense that you Fundamentalists need to support your corrupt view of scripture, but is not necessary to any essential Christian doctrine.


amc: Trying to find contemporary science in an infallible Bible is a risky business.  The "scientific truths" you are talking about are scientific theories, which are subject to being heavily modified or overturned altogether at any time.


ec: Yes, I know it is risky, but the BB theory is one of the best attested to theories in the history of science.


amc: If you preach the spiritual truth and value of scripture as being proved by the prescient notion of the "big bang" theory allegedly to be found in it, what happens if the"big bang" theory turns out to be wrong?


ec: I am not saying that it proves anything, it is just one piece of evidence. If the BB theory is proven wrong then that will be one piece of evidence against Christianity. But of course, the amount of evidence FOR Christianity would remain large.




Christianity  does not require the truth of any scientific theory, nor is it disturbed in the least by the falsity of any theory.


In any case, you are a fine one to profess yourself shocked by what I say.  Almost everything you post is a shock to the sensibilities of any normal Christian.

Flag TPaine October 24, 2015 1:50 PM EDT

Oct 23, 2015 -- 5:47PM, El Cid wrote:


If there was a huge majority that hated Lenin then the families of the military would have convinced them to overthrow him, but obviously that never happened therefore the evidence strongly supports the likelihood that the majority of people agreed with him.



The majority of people in Russia were not connected to the military. The members of the military and their families were happy that the war had ended for them. However the majority of the Russian citizens supported the elected government of Alexander Kerensky. However, Lenin, backed by the military, threw thousands of Kerensky supporters into what became the gulags and killed thousands more. Kerensky managed to escape to France, and when the Nazis invaded France in 1940 he went to the U.S. and lived in New York city until he died in 1970. The local Russian Orthodox Churches in New York refused to bury him because he couldn't stop Lenin from taking over Russia. He was finally buried in London.


Oct 23, 2015 -- 5:47PM, El Cid wrote:

That is very unusual unless they are purely indoor cats. Outdoor domestic cats kill millions of birds every year. Look it up.



They were indoor cats, but the did go out daily. They played with some small animals they found outside, but never killed them. They let them go after a minute or two. In about an hour they wanted to come back in. My daughter's cat refused to go outside. He would go to the open door, sit and look out, but he would never go out.


Oct 23, 2015 -- 5:47PM, El Cid wrote:

No, male lions kill all the young of a rival in the pride when they try to take over it. And other species do it also.




The rivals they have come from outside the pride. The average pride consists of four or five females who are related, their cubs and one or two males that do not fight each other. They fight males from outside the pride that are trying to take it over. They do not kill their cups.


Oct 23, 2015 -- 5:47PM, El Cid wrote:

How do you know the deist god created the universe? What is your evidence? We know many things about the Christian God, but not everything of course. Most of those so-called contradictions have been explained and refuted 100 years ago. Just as an example, nos. 3 and 4, your link says that Matthew 1:18 says that Christ's specialness was not announced until after His conception, but this was the announcement to Joseph, Mary had been told BEFORE conception in Luke. The two nativity stories complement each other one is Mary's story, the other Joseph's.



How do you know what you call Judeo-Christian God created the universe? All you have is an ancient book that says so. There were no witnesses, and no proof that God told them what to write. Matthew says Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great in late April or early May in 4 BCE. It says that Joseph learned in a dream that Herod was going to kill Jesus and he should take the family to Egypt to protect them. Then it said that Herod order that all the male children 2-years-old or younger in Bethlehem be killed. That would mean that Jesus would have to have been born before April 4 BCE. There is no historic mention of such a massacre happening. except in Matthew. One would think Josephus or someone like him would have mentioned it had it really happened. Joseph then had another dream that said Herod had died and he could return to his home in Bethlehem, but when he heard that Archelaus was king the took the family to Galilee instead. Luke wrote that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem, Josephus' ancestral home because of the Roman census, and Jesus was born there. The only Roman census in that time period was the Census of Quirinius in 6 CE after the Emperor Augustus removed Archelaus who was a brutal dictator and murderer and made Judea a Roman province. After the census they returned to their home in Galilee. Its not that one story was Joseph's and one was Mary's, the two stories were totally different other than Jesus being born in Bethlehem.


Oct 23, 2015 -- 5:47PM, El Cid wrote:

There is no evidence he ever attempted to pass any anti-discrimination laws while he was president.



He couldn't do so. Until the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, 42 years after Jefferson died. There was no incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It applied to the federal government only. Jefferson opposed slavery but Virginia law made it impossible for him to free his slaves without the state taking them and giving or selling them to other owners.

Flag El Cid October 24, 2015 10:09 PM EDT

Oct 24, 2015 -- 9:20AM, amcolph wrote:


ec: Because there are other examples where prophecies in the OT amazingly match what happened to Christ. But that is something that cannot be proved.


amc: And sometimes Christ and His followers contrived it, as for example in Matt 21:2.


ec: So you believe that Christ and the apostles were deceivers? That is a rather shocking statement coming from someone that says that they are a Christian. That sounds more like something an atheist would say.


amc: Deceivers?  Hardly, read the passage I cited.  It was all done quite openly.



Oops sorry I was thinking of another prophecy, you are correct in this case. Though, I don't think the disciples had any part in it at the time they did not fully realize who He was at the time it occurred. Jesus intentionally did it to in order to openly declare His identity as the Davidic Messiah.



amc: In any case, it is only a shocking notion to Fundamentalists such as yourself, who have the bogus idea that 'fulfilled prophecy' proves your erroneous notions about scripture, none of which is essential to the Christian faith.



Up until about 40 years ago most Christians believed that fulfilled prophecy was evidence for the divine source of the bible. Only recently among the laity have they no longer believed in the supernatural. I never said it was an essential belief in order to be a Christian.



ec: In addition, there are all the other evidences that I mentioned earlier about the scientific truths in the bible that the authors could not have known without divine inspiration.


amc: I understand that you believe that, but I'm afraid that the rest of us think of it as ignorant self-serving nonsense which makes Christianity look stupid.


ec:How does it make Christianity look stupid?


amc: Because it is fatuous nonsense that you Fundamentalists need to support your corrupt view of scripture, but is not necessary to any essential Christian doctrine.



Nevertheless most Christians have believed in inerrancy until about 40 years ago. Christianity stripped of its supernaturalism is a recent modernist invention.



amc: Trying to find contemporary science in an infallible Bible is a risky business.  The "scientific truths" you are talking about are scientific theories, which are subject to being heavily modified or overturned altogether at any time.


ec: Yes, I know it is risky, but the BB theory is one of the best attested to theories in the history of science.


amc: If you preach the spiritual truth and value of scripture as being proved by the prescient notion of the "big bang" theory allegedly to be found in it, what happens if the"big bang" theory turns out to be wrong?


ec: I am not saying that it proves anything, it is just one piece of evidence. If the BB theory is proven wrong then that will be one piece of evidence against Christianity. But of course, the amount of evidence FOR Christianity would remain large.


amc: Christianity  does not require the truth of any scientific theory, nor is it disturbed in the least by the falsity of any theory.



I never said it REQUIRED the truth of any scientific theory.



amc: In any case, you are a fine one to profess yourself shocked by what I say.  Almost everything you post is a shock to the sensibilities of any normal Christian.




As I stated above I misunderstood what you were saying, but nothing I have posted would shock any lay Christians prior to 40 years ago. The theologically trained would not have been shocked prior to 75 years ago.

Flag El Cid October 25, 2015 12:05 AM EDT

Oct 16, 2015 -- 4:16PM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:


I think you probably do hate the Christian God. Often it can be determined by how unbelievers treat His people and His church. Like how the Nazis and the Communists either wanted to and tried to destroy the church. Also, how modern secularists try to take away Christians first amendment rights.




Odd.  No secularist has tried to take away any of my first amendment rights, or those of any Christian I know.




They have tried to take away the rights of evangelical Christians in this country, Europe, and Canada. Free exercise and free speech rights.

Flag El Cid October 25, 2015 12:25 AM EDT

Oct 17, 2015 -- 10:57AM, TPaine wrote:


ec: I think you probably do hate the Christian God. Often it can be determined by how unbelievers treat His people and His church. Like how the Nazis and the Communists either wanted to and tried to destroy the church. Also, how modern secularists try to take away Christians first amendment rights. 


tp: If you think that, you're wrong. I don't hate anyone or any God. I disagree with many beliefs but don't hate them. I believe there is only one God and no more. I also believe that so-called "revealed religion" is the work of men, not God. Churches have the right to exist and people have the right to believe what they preach. What churches and their followerers don't have the right to do is force people who do not believe what they do to follow their rules. Religious belief does not give someone the right to discriminate.



So you don't think a store should discriminate against a kleptomaniac when they are hiring, a day care against a pedophile when hiring, or against a man that wants to go into the women's restroom?  


tp: If you believe such a thing provide evidence that everyone who doesn't accept that the Christian "gospel" is true hates God. Did or will people who believed in non-violence who chose to keep their religions rather than convert to Christianity such as Mahatma Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, or Koji Kobayashi hate God?


ec: Yes.


tp: Do Christians who disagree with you also hate God? Do the members of Episcopal Church 1.9 million members, the Presbyterian Church (USA) 1.8 million members, and the United Church of Christ 1.2 million members who all welcome LGBT people and perform gay and lesbian weddings in all their congregations hate God?



Some do, and some just may be confused and misled by their leadership.



Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: I demonstrated earlier evidence for the divine origin of the bible.


tp: You can't prove a book is true by quoting it. If one could do so one could prove any holy book is true.



I didn't. I stated that they recorded information in the bible that they could not have known without divine inspiration 2000 to 3500 years before scientists confirmed that information. No other major religious book has that information.


 


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: The original texts were perfect, at present it only contains minor copying errors and minor editing that have no effect on Christian doctrine. It has no contradictions. God and His church have preserved it over time with the help of the Holy Spirit.


tp: No original texts exist so how do you know what was in them? As far as contadictions go explain how the 194 of them in the New Testament alone don't really exist. Link




By using textual criticism and analysis we can come very close to discovering what most likely the original text said. All of those so-called contradictions have been refuted and explained 100 years ago or more.  Most of them are the result of taking verses out of their grammatico-historical context.

Flag amcolph October 25, 2015 10:36 AM EDT

Oct 25, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:


Oct 16, 2015 -- 4:16PM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:


I think you probably do hate the Christian God. Often it can be determined by how unbelievers treat His people and His church. Like how the Nazis and the Communists either wanted to and tried to destroy the church. Also, how modern secularists try to take away Christians first amendment rights.




Odd.  No secularist has tried to take away any of my first amendment rights, or those of any Christian I know.




They have tried to take away the rights of evangelical Christians in this country, Europe, and Canada. Free exercise and free speech rights.




For example? 

Flag amcolph October 25, 2015 10:45 AM EDT

Oct 24, 2015 -- 10:09PM, El Cid wrote:


Up until about 40 years ago most Christians believed that fulfilled prophecy was evidence for the divine source of the bible. Only recently among the laity have they no longer believed in the supernatural. I never said it was an essential belief in order to be a Christian...



Nevertheless most Christians have believed in inerrancy until about 40 years ago. Christianity stripped of its supernaturalism is a recent modernist invention...



As I stated above I misunderstood what you were saying, but nothing I have posted would shock any lay Christians prior to 40 years ago. The theologically trained would not have been shocked prior to 75 years ago...




It would be interesting to know what you think happened in 1975 to bring that about.


You also appear to be confusing belief in the supernatural with belief in the inerrancy of scripture.  Many people who believe in the supernatural reject your interpretation of scripture.

Flag TPaine October 25, 2015 3:45 PM EDT

Oct 25, 2015 -- 12:25AM, El Cid wrote:


So you don't think a store should discriminate against a kleptomaniac when they are hiring, a day care against a pedophile when hiring, or against a man that wants to go into the women's restroom?



If a kleptomaniac takes his or her Pharmacological treatments using selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), mood stabilizers and opioid receptor antagonists, and other antidepressants along with cognitive behavioral therapy, they are not a threat to steal and could be an excellent employee. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church I don't believe pedophiles even if they're priests should be allowed around children. As far as the restrooms go, I've been to a lot of concerts during which women use the men's restroom because the limes to get in are much shorter. If no one objects I don't see a problem with it.


Oct 25, 2015 -- 12:25AM, El Cid wrote:

tp: If you believe such a thing provide evidence that everyone who doesn't accept that the Christian "gospel" is true hates God. Did or will people who believed in non-violence who chose to keep their religions rather than convert to Christianity such as Mahatma Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, or Koji Kobayashi hate God?


ec: Yes.



Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Bahá'í Faith are all based on the Hebrew Bible, but you believe only Christians don't hate God? Do believe that Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu with Jain influence who taught non-violence hated God but Cotton Mather, a Calvinist Christian who laid the groundwork for the Salem Witch Trials loved God?


Oct 25, 2015 -- 12:25AM, El Cid wrote:

tp: Do Christians who disagree with you also hate God? Do the members of Episcopal Church 1.9 million members, the Presbyterian Church (USA) 1.8 million members, and the United Church of Christ 1.2 million members who all welcome LGBT people and perform gay and lesbian weddings in all their congregations hate God?


Some do, and some just may be confused and misled by their leadership.




So your beliefs are the only ones that allow you to love God? You're right and everyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong? No wonder you defended Gary DeMar. Do you, like DeMar and Rousas Rushdoony, agree with the writings of Cornelius Van Til?


Oct 25, 2015 -- 12:25AM, El Cid wrote:

I didn't. I stated that they recorded information in the bible that they could not have known without divine inspiration 2000 to 3500 years before scientists confirmed that information. No other major religious book has that information.



What in the Bible besides your faulty interpretations of Genesis 1 and your claim about what stretching out the universe means. Psalm 104:2, and Isaiah 40:22 show that it was stretched to a certain point not continuously.

Psalm 104:2 The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; _ he stretches out the heavens like a tent


Isaiah 40:22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, _ and its people are like grasshoppers. _He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, _ and spreads them out like a tent to live in.


The people who wrote the Bible didn't know that the Earth was one planet out of 8 in the Solar System. They thought that the Earth was the center of the universe and the Sun rose and fell. not that the Earth rotated. BTW, the Big Bang model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state. It didn't come from nothing. Link What other things do you believe they "knew' from divine inspiration?


Oct 25, 2015 -- 12:25AM, El Cid wrote:

By using textual criticism and analysis we can come very close to discovering what most likely the original text said. All of those so-called contradictions have been refuted and explained 100 years ago or more.  Most of them are the result of taking verses out of their grammatico-historical context.



According to Dr. Bart Ehrman who earned his PhD in textural criticism at Princeton University under Dr. Bruce Metzger who is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century, does not believe textural criticism can teach us what the original authors actually wrote without having original documents. Other than 7 of the 13 letters credited to Paul and someone who called himself John of Patmos who wrote Revelation we don't even know who the original authors were. The New Testament wasn't canonized until the the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393 AD) under Augustine.

Flag El Cid October 26, 2015 12:11 AM EDT

Oct 17, 2015 -- 3:43PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: Of course not, he plainly said that he was a Christian. And he has written positive things about the accuracy of the bible, which is unlikely if he was not an evangelical.


tp: I don't deny that Dr. Metzger was a Christian, but if he wrote positive things about the accuracy of the Bible, why did he teach Dr. Bart Ehrman that it wasn't?



He may not have believed in inerrancy, but he must have believed that the bible is accurate about the essentials of the faith, otherwise why become a Christian?




tp: Dr. Ehrman became an evangelical Christian as a teenager. Since it was his desire to understand the original words of the Bible he chose to study ancient languages and also textual criticism. He chose to go to the Moody Bible Institute where he received a three-year diploma. From there he went to Wheaton College, a Christian College in Illinois where he received a bachelor's degree magna cum laude. It wasn't until he enrolled in Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Dr. Bruce Metzger, that he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled which caused him to become a liberal Christian rather than an evangelical. Why would Dr. Metzger teach that there were contradictions and discrepancies if he believed the Bible was accurate?



Actually I think Ehrman is an agnostic now. See above about Metzger's beliefs.




Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: It was after Metzger left when they started using more politically correct language such as changing male pronouns into gender neutral pronouns. It is not a huge problem but could be a slippery slope toward more serious problems.


tp: From 1977 to 1990, he chaired the Committee on Translators for the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible and was "largely responsible for ... seeing [the NRSV] through the press." He considered it a privilege to present the NRSV—which includes the books referred to as Apocrypha by Protestants, though Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox consider them deuterocanonical—to Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Demetrius I of Constantinople. The NRSV was published in 1989, a year before Dr. Metzger left the committee. Link



Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: I have read one of his books though not that one.


tp: Which one of his books did you read. I have 11 of them in my library.



Misquoting Jesus.


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Many very intelligent and well educated people would disagree with you and would make the same claim about basing their view on history and nature. Such as Nazi and Soviet scientists. Nazi Germnay was the most educated nation at the time of WW II, and yet most educated Germans did not believe in the EOR.


tp: Religion and religious beliefs or the lack of them had nothing to do with Hitler's and the Nazi's rise to power.The main cause was the Treaty of Versailles at the end of WWI. The treaty forced "Germany [to] accept the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage" during the war, and forced Germany to disarm, make substantial territorial concessions, and pay reparations to certain countries that had formed the Entente powers. In 1921 the total cost of these reparations was assessed at (then $31.4 billion roughly equivalent to $442 billion  in 2015). These requirements destroyed the German economy, and seriously damaged their industry. This was despite the fact that Germany didn't start the war. It was started when a Serbian terrorist assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary. Believing that Serbia was behind the assassination, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia and Russia mobilized to attack Austria-Hungary. After that alliances took over and France, Britain, and Germany mobilized. Hitler took advantage of problems the treaty caused in Germany.



A nations worldview, such as whether it is Christian, atheist, secular or pagan has a major effect on how it reacts to problems and stress and events whether negative or positive. If Germany had still been more of an orthodox Christian nation it would most likely handled the beginning of WWI and its aftermath very differently. And definitely would not have slaughtered the jews later on. But Germany had long abandoned the authority of the bible by the early 20th century since it was the originator of liberal theology. A high view of Gods Word generally leads to a high view of human life and its sacredness. This has been shown in America and other nations that have had major influence of othodox and primarily protestant Christianity which holds a higher view of the bible than Roman Catholics.


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: How does being able to reason give humans INTRINSIC value? Reason may help humans survive but nature doesn't care that one species can reason and another cannot. Cockroaches are more successful as far as survival than even humans and yet they cannot reason. And because of that, how do you know that the deist god does not prefer cockroaches over humans? 


tp: You claim, and I agree, that God created nature. Where we differ is that I believe we have the ability (reason) to understand and learn from nature. Obviously, based on your comment about cockroaches, you don't.



You didn't answer my question.


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, male lions kill the young of their male rivals when they take over a pride, that hardly fits the EOR and some animals rape the females of their species, again no EOR there.


tp: From what I can find online about lions without wasting too much time, I find that the males only fight males that come from outside the pride and attempt to take it over. Such males do not bring their young with them when they do this. The males in the pride are defending the pride from outsiders.



So does that mean it is ok to kill the children of men that commit adultery with another's man's wife? If not, why not based on nature? 


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, I am not saying that it only appiles to Christians, I am saying that it only has a rational basis in Christianity because only in Christianity and Judaism are humans created in the image of the Creator of the universe. Ancient philosophers believed in human value because of remnants of the Christian God's morality imbedded in their moral consciences by the fact of their being made in His image.


tp: Now your showing how little you know about religions other than Judo-Christian. Islam, Bahá'í Faith, and Sikhism all believe man was created in the image of God.



No, Islam does not believe that humans are created in the image of God. Bahai is a mishmash of every religion which means it is self contradictory since it believes what every religion says even though they contradict each other. Evidence that Sikhism believes that man is created in the image of God.


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: They made an editing error, as I stated above such things have happened but with no damage to Christian doctrine.


tp: If it was just an editing error why does it not appear in the oldest and best manuscripts we have of the Gospel of John, and why is the writing style in it very different than the writing style of the rest of John including the stories just before and after it?



Because it may have gotten separated from the rest of the John manuscript and then got edited itself. But as I stated before even if it is a total fabrication, and dropped from the canon, it would have no effect on Christian doctrine.



Oct 5, 2015 -- 2:30PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No SCOTUS is infallible. That is why the founders were very scared of a legislating Court. Read the Federalist Paper no. 81.


tp: No humans are infallible. That is why  Founders designed a system of separation of powers which created checks and balances that allow for a system-based regulation that allows one branch to limit another, such as the power of the President to nominate Federal Court Judges, the power of the Congress to alter the composition and jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, the Courts to decide whether legislation is constitutional. In the cases of United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges SCOTUS made the correct decisions despite the fact that religious and homophobic opponents of the decision whine and cry that it was wrong. And before you accuse me, I don't hate such people, I feel sorry for them.



They had no grounds or historic precedent for a certain sexual behavior to be considered a civil right. This was plainly demonstrated by the four opposing justices in the Obegefell case. And according to the Federalist paper no. 81 courts are to be very limited in their power, they have no power to create new rights out of thin air or to make laws. That is limited to the legislative branch.


Oct 5, 2015 -- 2:30PM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Yes, but its source has to be source that is capable of producing it. Since we don't even know if the deist god is a personal being, and if he is not, then he/it would know nothing about morality or ethics.


tp: I feel much more comfortable with my reasoned knowledge of of God's morality and ethics than what I can find in an ancient book that often shows God to have narcissistic personality disorder and psychopathic characteristics.




How do you know your god has a morality and ethics?

Flag El Cid October 26, 2015 12:17 AM EDT

Oct 17, 2015 -- 4:07PM, TPaine wrote:


Oct 16, 2015 -- 4:16PM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:05AM, El Cid wrote:


I think you probably do hate the Christian God. Often it can be determined by how unbelievers treat His people and His church. Like how the Nazis and the Communists either wanted to and tried to destroy the church. Also, how modern secularists try to take away Christians first amendment rights.



Odd.  No secularist has tried to take away any of my first amendment rights, or those of any Christian I know.



No Secularist or Deist I know ever would think about doing so unless you attempt to use your 1st Amendment free exercise of religion as an excuse to discriminate against the equal rights of others. I don't expect that will ever become a problem for you.


BTW, it looks that Godwin's Law has made it's appearance here




You admitted that it is ok to discriminate against pedophiles based on your religious belief that pedophilia is morally wrong. Therefore, Christians should be allowed to discriminate against a behavior that they consider morally wrong too. 

Flag El Cid October 26, 2015 12:33 AM EDT

Oct 17, 2015 -- 4:46PM, TPaine wrote:


Oct 17, 2015 -- 1:09AM, El Cid wrote:


Actually the founders did mention the ten commandments, the term "God's law" and the laws of Natures God are the same thing as the ten commandments. Also, how John Adams said that our nation could not exist for a non-religious people. By this he means people whose lives are not guided by God's moral laws, ie the ten commandments.



Now we're back to your misinterpretation of the DOI. The  phrases "God's Law" and Nature's God are not limited to the Judea-Christian religion. God's Law in Deism is quite simple; "Love your neighbor as yourself and treat others as you would want them to treat you." There were several Deists and Unitarians at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787. Read the book Debates In The Federal Convention of 1787 by James Madison. It is the only record of the convention written by a participant.




How do you know that is the deist gods moral law? The founders plainly favored the judeo-christian religion. John Adams said " that the bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries in the world." And Jefferson regularly attended almost every Sunday evangelical preaching while he was president in the rotunda of the US Capital Building. Why does the peace treaty ending the American Revolution begin with the phrase "In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity"?

Flag amcolph October 26, 2015 7:43 AM EDT

Oct 26, 2015 -- 12:11AM, El Cid wrote:


No, Islam does not believe that humans are created in the image of God.



For someone who is so abysmally ignorant of regions besides your own, you are sure eager to tell people what it is they believe.


The Muslims use for their "Old Testament" our OT plus the Synoptics.  The Book of Genesis is their creation story too.




Flag TPaine October 26, 2015 12:27 PM EDT

Oct 26, 2015 -- 12:33AM, El Cid wrote:


How do you know that is the deist gods moral law? The founders plainly favored the judeo-christian religion. John Adams said " that the bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries in the world." And Jefferson regularly attended almost every Sunday evangelical preaching while he was president in the rotunda of the US Capital Building. Why does the peace treaty ending the American Revolution begin with the phrase "In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity"?



How do you know what the Judeo-Christian God's moral law was? After all, the Torah Law which was written in about 1380 BCE and was based on the older Code of Hammurabi which was written around 1754 BCE, which was based on older laws dating back to the Maat which was written sometime between 2,510-2370 BCE. According to biblical genealogy Adam was created 5782 years ago. According to science homo sapiens appeared about 200,000 years ago. One doesn't need an ancient holy book to understand moral law. I've known to attend church services. It gives me something to do on boring Sunday mornings. Jefferson could have done the same thing. He even wrote he was not a Christian. Did he lie? The Treaty of Paris was written the way it was because King George III asked that it be that way. He agreed to what we wanted done because he wanted us to deal with Britain instead of France. Why was Article 11 written in the English copy of the Treaty of Tripoli if it was written to placate the Muslims but was not put in the Arabic version? 

Flag TPaine October 26, 2015 1:13 PM EDT

Oct 26, 2015 -- 12:17AM, El Cid wrote:


You admitted that it is ok to discriminate against pedophiles based on your religious belief that pedophilia is morally wrong. Therefore, Christians should be allowed to discriminate against a behavior that they consider morally wrong too.



Pedophiles harm their victims by their actions as well as break the law. Christians are required to follow the law just as every other person is. Two gay or lesbian of legal age are legally allowed to get married because it does no harm despite the whining and crying of some bigoted Christians who think that the United States should make their concept of God's law American law. "God's law" was tried in colonial Massachusetts Bay Colony. People were forbidden to smoke tobacco, profane dancing, sleeping in church, and playing cards among many other that were punished by whipping and sitting in the stocks. They also hung four Quakers for refusing to leave the colony. Quakers were not allowed in Massachusetts Bay Colony. They also executed 32 people who they said were witches.

Flag TPaine October 26, 2015 4:09 PM EDT

Oct 26, 2015 -- 12:11AM, El Cid wrote:


He may not have believed in inerrancy, but he must have believed that the bible is accurate about the essentials of the faith, otherwise why become a Christian?



He, like many others including me, agree(d) with the most of the things Jesus said. He was non-violent, inclusive, and opposed to some of the stupid laws supported by the Pharisees.


Oct 26, 2015 -- 12:11AM, El Cid wrote:

Actually I think Ehrman is an agnostic now. See above about Metzger's beliefs.




Dr. Ehrman became an agnostic based on his study of  discrepancies in ancient New Testament manuscripts and his failed attempts to find an answer to the Epicurean paradox.


Oct 16, 2015 -- 12:45AM, El Cid wrote:

A nations worldview, such as whether it is Christian, atheist, secular or pagan has a major effect on how it reacts to problems and stress and events whether negative or positive. If Germany had still been more of an orthodox Christian nation it would most likely handled the beginning of WWI and its aftermath very differently. And definitely would not have slaughtered the jews later on. But Germany had long abandoned the authority of the bible by the early 20th century since it was the originator of liberal theology. A high view of Gods Word generally leads to a high view of human life and its sacredness. This has been shown in America and other nations that have had major influence of othodox and primarily protestant Christianity which holds a higher view of the bible than Roman Catholics.



Which of the 40,000 Christian sects do you consider orthodox? Like most countries in northern Europe the German people were mostly Protestant with some Roman Catholics near the borders of Austria and France. In WWI, like France and Britain did with Russia, Germany supported it's ally Austria Hungary. It was Serbia, Austria-Hungary, and Russia that started the war, but Germany got the blame from the Allies, especially France.


Oct 26, 2015 -- 12:11AM, El Cid wrote:

You didn't answer my question.



I've answered that question multiple times. If you can't figured out my reply its your fault. We only have four more days to have this discussion so why don't we get back to the thread topic.


Oct 26, 2015 -- 12:11AM, El Cid wrote:

So does that mean it is ok to kill the children of men that commit adultery with another's man's wife? If not, why not based on nature?



The lions that try to take over a pride don't belong to one. In some cases some cubs who have left their pride for some reason meet up with and follow the nomadic male. The will die anyway because only the female lions hunt. They would starve to death if they were on their own or even if they stay with the nomadic male. Adultery is not a capital crime. Even though the Bible stated in several places that is OK to kill children; Isaiah 14:21, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Jeremiah 51:20-23, Isaiah 13:15-16, etc. its not morally right. Animals live based on instinct, humans live in reason.


Oct 26, 2015 -- 12:11AM, El Cid wrote:

No, Islam does not believe that humans are created in the image of God. Bahai is a mishmash of every religion which means it is self contradictory since it believes what every religion says even though they contradict each other. Evidence that Sikhism believes that man is created in the image of God.



I know Muslims and Bahais who would tell you why you're wrong. There's no was you can prove that there isn't good in all religions. Link


Oct 26, 2015 -- 12:11AM, El Cid wrote:

Because it may have gotten separated from the rest of the John manuscript and then got edited itself. But as I stated before even if it is a total fabrication, and dropped from the canon, it would have no effect on Christian doctrine.



Prove that it was written by the author of John.


Oct 26, 2015 -- 12:11AM, El Cid wrote:

They had no grounds or historic precedent for a certain sexual behavior to be considered a civil right. This was plainly demonstrated by the four opposing justices in the Obegefell case. And according to the Federalist paper no. 81 courts are to be very limited in their power, they have no power to create new rights out of thin air or to make laws. That is limited to the legislative branch.



There you go repeating the same thing over and over again. I guess I have to answer over and over again. They had the 14th Amendment which reads in part:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Making same-sex marriage violated the equal protection clause, Try reading Justice Kennedy's decision. Those same four Justices also voted, with Kennedy, to gut the Voting Right's Act of 1965 that protected the right of Black people to vote.


Oct 26, 2015 -- 12:11AM, El Cid wrote:

How do you know your god has a morality and ethics?



Why can't you understand that given your interpretation of the Bible your God has neither morality nor ethics?

Flag El Cid October 27, 2015 12:28 AM EDT

Oct 18, 2015 -- 10:41AM, TPaine wrote:


ec: What other laws can he be rerferring to in the DOI? He first refers to natural laws then he refers to the laws of natures God. It cannot be the deist god because he has not told us what his laws are.


tp: Anyone with eyes, ears, and the ability to reason can understand the laws of nature. They don't have to read it in an ancient book written by men.



Is there any thing wrong with committing adultery as long as you don't get caught? Is there anything wrong with necrophilia? How come you think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality when one of the most obvious natural laws is that we are anatomically designed to be heterosexual? Since according to nature we are just animals, and animals rape each other all the time, why is it wrong for humans to rape?


Oct 18, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Umm that is NOT a biblical principle. The bible does not even mention race. It is plainly teaches in Genesis that ALL humans are created in God's image both women and blacks.


tp: For the DOI to pass all the states had to vote in favor of it. So the southern members of the Continental Congress refused to sign the DOI if Jefferson's anti-slavery paragraph wasn't removed. After all, the Bible allowed slavery. Its doubtful that any of the authors of the Bible ever saw an sub-Saharan African or Eastern Asian person.



Irrelevant what southerners did, Christians often disobey God's moral laws but at least we have an objective standard to judge our behavior. Deists do not have this. Contrary to popular opinion even among Christians the bible does not allow involuntary slavery except for POWs.


Oct 18, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Again, none of those are biblical principles in fact they VIOLATE biblical principles as I demonstrated above.


tp: But you have spent months claiming that the Constitution was based on biblical principals. Either it was or it wasn't, make up your mind.




It is but it is not infallible as God's word is, there were things that needed to be corrected and were because of the influence of Christianity on the Constitution and later Christian politicians.

Flag El Cid October 27, 2015 12:34 AM EDT

Oct 18, 2015 -- 7:49PM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 18, 2015 -- 12:49AM, El Cid wrote:



No, those principles are plainly in there. It is quite obvious to me and John Witherspoon, Samuel Adams, John Adams, among others.




The only "biblical principle" of any importance to you is the prohibition of anal intercourse, but I don't believe that any of those worthies ever spoke of it.




No, God forbids any homosexual behavior, that is just the most popular form for gay men.  Why is that particular sexual act now a civil right and others are not like adultery or pedophilia? Those worthies never needed to speak of something so obviously perverse and morally suspect due to the strong Christian influence in America at the time, people rarely needed to bring it up even the homosexuals living at the time knew it was wrong unlike today.

Flag El Cid October 27, 2015 12:36 AM EDT

Oct 19, 2015 -- 7:49AM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:04AM, El Cid wrote:


Oct 8, 2015 -- 8:24AM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 8, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:



How do you know that your reason is God given? Maybe the deistic god just got evolution going and humans are still just the result of random processes and therefore, your reason just may be an illusion along with your consciousness as many atheists believe.




Believe it they may, but you are the one who added the "therefore."   In any case, the Christian god may have handled it the same way.  A "random process" does not, of necessity, exclude telos.




It does if your definiton of "random process" means non-goal oriented.




Yes, and that is not the definition of "random" used in the theory of evolution--or any other science that I am aware of.


It is one of the meanings of "random" as used in common speech, but to impose it on scientific discourse is nothing but a rascally rhetorical trick used by shysters like yourself.




Since natural selection is the primary mechanism for evolution to occur and it is guided at its foundation by changes in the environment which occur randomly, at its core evolution is random in the common sense.

Flag amcolph October 27, 2015 7:48 AM EDT

Oct 27, 2015 -- 12:36AM, El Cid wrote:



Since natural selection is the primary mechanism for evolution to occur and it is guided at its foundation by changes in the environment which occur randomly, at its core evolution is random in the common sense.



So if it's God who adapts us to a randomly changing environment rather than variation and selection, his actions are non-goal oriented, right?  Of course in these days of computer automation, random variation and selection forms the basis of many industrial processes.  Would you say that they are non-goal oriented as well?


Or are you saying that continuous adaptation to a randomly changing environment can't be a goal?


Evolution is contingent, not random in the sense that you mean it. The "random" in random variation and selection of the theory refers to the distribution of trait variation in each generation which tends toward a random--i.e, bell curve--distribution.

Flag amcolph October 27, 2015 8:20 AM EDT

Oct 27, 2015 -- 12:28AM, El Cid wrote:


 Since according to nature we are just animals...



So you're telling people what they have to believe again?


"If you don't subscribe to my crappy excuse for the Christian religion, you must believe that there is no difference between humans and other creatures, and I won't take "no" for an answer."


Another sophistical technique you learned in Fundamentalist Sunday School, no doubt.

Flag TPaine October 27, 2015 11:31 AM EDT

Oct 27, 2015 -- 12:28AM, El Cid wrote:


Is there any thing wrong with committing adultery as long as you don't get caught? Is there anything wrong with necrophilia? How come you think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality when one of the most obvious natural laws is that we are anatomically designed to be heterosexual? Since according to nature we are just animals, and animals rape each other all the time, why is it wrong for humans to rape?



As far as adultery goes if both partners agree to allow the other to have sex with other people it, there's nothing wrong with it because no one gets hurt. People don't choose to be homosexual. Despite you antiquated religious belief they have the same rights heterosexuals do. Discrimination is illegal. I never said humans are just animals. Humans are not guided by instinct alone. They have the ability to reason. The other animals do not. Rape violates the victim's rights and therefore is illegal.


Oct 27, 2015 -- 12:28AM, El Cid wrote:

Irrelevant what southerners did, Christians often disobey God's moral laws but at least we have an objective standard to judge our behavior. Deists do not have this. Contrary to popular opinion even among Christians the bible does not allow involuntary slavery except for POWs.



Everyone who understands the EOR has an objective standard to judge our behavior with. It doesn't take an entire book to learn to treat others as you want to be treated.


Oct 27, 2015 -- 12:28AM, El Cid wrote:

It is but it is not infallible as God's word is, there were things that needed to be corrected and were because of the influence of Christianity on the Constitution and later Christian politicians.



This is the key to our disagreement. You believe the Bible is the "word of God." I don't believe it is the "word of God" based on all the evil attributed to God in the 613 mitzvot. However, based our Constitution we each have the right to believe as we do.

Flag El Cid October 28, 2015 12:57 AM EDT

Oct 19, 2015 -- 1:44PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: No, i am referring specifically about marriage contracts, given that they are considered relatively innocuous as far as the economy goes. What is the source of the requirement to have an ability to sign a contract in order to get married? And why should we obey that source?


tp:The marriage contract is important to the couple that sign it because it protects the 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges of both of the signers.



Why do humans deserve benefits, rights, and priviledges and other animals don't? Just because we can reason is no reason. Why is reason the end all be all? What about humans that are mentally challenged and cannot reason? Also, why can't a father and daughter get married and enjoy all these benefits? As long as they don't reproduce who are they hurting? And why cant you marry your pet to enjoy these benefits? Just because the pet cannot sign a contract why should the pet owner be punished not to enjoy those benefits?


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:02AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, I obey the laws of God and the laws of society because I love God and He has commanded us to obey the laws of society as long as they don't conflict with the laws of God.


tp: So what laws are Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists, Shintos, Wicca's, etc. to follow? Do they have to follow Judaeo-Christian law or the laws of their own holy books? The requirement to follow the holy book of one religion is called a theocracy which is what the men in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 opposed.



As Ben Carson said, they are free to follow their religions laws as long as they don't violate the principles of the DOI and the laws of the Constitution.


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:02AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Yes, most people do not think about whether the foundations of society's laws are rational and analyze exactly what that social utility is and whether it is ultimately good for society. This is a major part of the problem with Western societies in the last 40 years or so. The people just accept any law as long as it helps make people "happy" and give them good feelings without thinking about the deeper ramifications of some laws.


tp: Since the end or WWII we ended segregation, passed a civil rights and voting rights law, passed six constitutional amendments, and made progress in expanding women's rights. IMO while we still have a way to go in eliminating racism, misogynism, homophobia, jingoism, and theonomy, the last 50 or so years have been positive for all the American people.




 I don't deny that the main thrust of the last 50 years have been positive, but the last 40 years has seen a very gradual erosion of human rights, such as the right to life for the unborn, the gradual erosion of marriage and the family, and the beginnings of the loss of first amendment rights for a certain group, ie conservative Christians. 

Flag Do_unto_others October 28, 2015 11:46 AM EDT

Oct 28, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:

Why do humans deserve benefits, rights, and priviledges and other animals don't?



Other animals don't pay taxes (which contributes TO those benefits, etc.) or vote. What a silly question ...


Oct 28, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:

Also, why can't a father and daughter get married and enjoy all these benefits?



The only legal purpose of marriage is to establish next-of-kin status where no kinship existed previously. Fathers and their daughters already have kinship established in law, and hence have no need of marriage.




What a silly question. (And, we've explained this to you - ad nauseam - before.)




Oct 28, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:

 why cant you marry your pet to enjoy these benefits?



Because base animals cannot render legal consent to enter into a legal contract. (This, too, has been explained myriad times before.) Really, you're not a stupid person, so why ask such stupid questions?


Oct 28, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:

Just because the pet cannot sign a contract why should the pet owner be punished not to enjoy those benefits?



What an inane comment. Again.


Flag TPaine October 28, 2015 12:29 PM EDT

Oct 28, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:


Why do humans deserve benefits, rights, and priviledges and other animals don't? Just because we can reason is no reason. Why is reason the end all be all? What about humans that are mentally challenged and cannot reason? Also, why can't a father and daughter get married and enjoy all these benefits? As long as they don't reproduce who are they hurting? And why cant you marry your pet to enjoy these benefits? Just because the pet cannot sign a contract why should the pet owner be punished not to enjoy those benefits?



I'm getting tired of your argumentum ad infinitum. You're the one who is so madly in love with the DOI. Jefferson answered your questions at the beginning of the second paragraph.

We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness;


The rest of the DOI explains why the colonies are breaking away from King George III and becoming an independent nation.


Oct 28, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:

As Ben Carson said, they are free to follow their religions laws as long as they don't violate the principles of the DOI and the laws of the Constitution.



Dr. Carson is correct on this point. Followers of all religions have the right to follow their religious laws as long as they don't violate the Constitution as amended. For example, Muslims cannot use Sharia law as a reason they should be able to marry nine-year-old girls.


Oct 28, 2015 -- 12:57AM, El Cid wrote:

I don't deny that the main thrust of the last 50 years have been positive, but the last 40 years has seen a very gradual erosion of human rights, such as the right to life for the unborn, the gradual erosion of marriage and the family, and the beginnings of the loss of first amendment rights for a certain group, ie conservative Christians.



Even before Roe v. Wade rich women had no problem getting abortions. They could travel to Canada or Europe where abortions were legal. It was poor women that suffered. The had to go to what were called "Back Ally Abortions" that were done by people who often were not doctors and did not have sterile equipment. Many women died because of it. There would be far fewer abortions if all women had access to reasonably priced contraceptives. There is a divorce problem in heterosexual marriages. About 41% of them end in divorce. However only about 1% of homosexual marriages end in divorce. What 1st Amendment rights have conservative Christians lost other than the right to discriminate against certain groups?

Flag El Cid October 28, 2015 11:56 PM EDT

Oct 19, 2015 -- 3:01PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: Well that was a long time ago, I had forgotten, but I was just using it as an example of how our nation is abandoning its founding biblical principles but nevertheless you are the one that kept that subject on the forefront of this discussion.


tp: I've been trying to avoid the same sex marriage and have said so repeatedly. I'm not the one who keeps bringing it up. You're the one with the problem with it based on your theonomous beliefs.



Not really, I just keep explaining how people have a right to practice their religion and discriminate against behavior they believe is immoral which is part of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which even you admit should be allowed in some cases such as pedophilia. You are free to ignore my comments but you keep responding therefore I must respond due to your misunderstanding of one of the main purposes of our nation, which is the freedom to practice your religion as you see fit.


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:22AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Jews and African Americans experienced all those things in the 1950's thru the 1960's in America and their suicide rate did not go up significantly. I believe the evidence may point to additional causes rather than solely those factors for gays.


tp: So the psychologists and psychiatrists are wrong and you are right? Jewish and Black parents didn't refuse to accept their children's religion or race. Far too many parents of LGBT children  do refuse to accept it.



In some cases that is true, but I think that is generally a relatively small number, most of them are more likely to be oppressed by strangers.


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:22AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: But what if a brother and sister or a father and daughter want to be considered a married couple, ie a husband and wife?


tp: Marriage form a familial bond that is recognized legally. Members of a family already have a legally recognized familial bond.



But they cannot get married and have sex, why should this right be denied them?


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:22AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: On what basis is it wrong? It is plainly not wrong according to the laws of nature, animals take advantage of other animals incompetencies all the time.


tp: If you can't understand the immorality of letting people who don't understanding what they're doing you're beyond hope. Animals kill for food and to protect their group. Unlike some humans they don't do it for fun or to build up their ego.



But your only reason for not letting people who don't understand is just irrational sentimentality for humans. You have not provided any real objective reason to protect humans. No, actually some animals DO kill for fun, look it up cats, foxes and even hawks sometimes kill just for fun or at least appears to be for fun. And as I stated above animals take advantage of other animals all the time and in fact those that do, claim evolutionists, are usually the most successful species. So plainly such behavior is not against nature.


Oct 19, 2015 -- 12:22AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, whether she cried out and whether they were hiding out, is very relevant otherwise the text would not have mentioned it. And remember the OT teaches the EOR so plainly this is also a violation of that law.


tp: It doesn't say whether they were they were hiding out or not.



It implies it by saying "and they were found out". THEY were obviously hiding the fact that it occurred. 




ec: Its irrelevant. It says he attacked her and raped her.



No it doesn't in fact key words as I stated above imply otherwise.




tp: The woman in this case is not engaged or married as she is the other cases mentioned. Read Deuteronomy 22:22-29. Making a woman marry her rapist is totally immoral.




The laws in the Torah are not exhaustive, they felt they did not need to repeat a different law for a woman who was single. They understood wiht God's inspiration that rape is rape irrespective of marital status.

Flag El Cid October 29, 2015 12:06 AM EDT

Oct 20, 2015 -- 7:52AM, amcolph wrote:


ec: But what is your basis for knowing that your god gave you reason? Do you know if even your god can reason? If he can't reason then how could he impart it to humans? Also as a deist, you believe that he just got things going 13.7 bya, humans did not come onto the scene until much later, at the earliest maybe 2 mya, maybe as late as 50,000 years ago. So by that time the deist god had already started things and was no longer intervening in evolution, so it was just an unguided, impersonal irrational process. Reason is extremely unlikely to come from non-reason. 


amc: What nonsense.


One of your unloveliest tendencies is to tell other people about their religious beliefs: "If you don't agree with me then you must believe X, and X is wrong."


You have no idea what TPaine believes about how divine providence is realized in the world.  What is worse, if he tried to explain it to you and it didn't agree with what you think he must believe, you would blow him off.


It is a common rhetorical tactic for fundamentalists.  I think you must learn it in Sunday School.




No, I am just trying to understand what he does believe, ie where he is coming from. He rarely answers my questions. Other than with superficial answers, I am trying to get him to go deeper. He says he believes humans deserve rights because we can reason. How does that follow? Just because a being can reason does not mean it deserves or has rights. Serial killers can reason, yet we take away many of their rights.

Flag El Cid October 29, 2015 12:21 AM EDT

Oct 20, 2015 -- 1:03PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: But what is your basis for knowing that your god gave you reason? Do you know if even your god can reason? If he can't reason then how could he impart it to humans? Also as a deist, you believe that he just got things going 13.7 bya, humans did not come onto the scene until much later, at the earliest maybe 2 mya, maybe as late as 50,000 years ago. So by that time the deist god had already started things and was no longer intervening in evolution, so it was just an unguided, impersonal irrational process. Reason is extremely unlikely to come from non-reason.



tp: What is your basis for knowing that God had anything to do with the Bible? It is the holy book of one relgion out of those of 12 pther religions. How do you know your book is right and the others aren't? The 613 mitzvot in the Torah make him appear to be a narcissistic psychopath. there are 194 contradictions in the New Testament alone, Jewish scholars do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:
1. Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2. Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3. Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4. Jewish belief is based on national revelation. Link



I will answer your questions when you answer mine above. But there actually have been many well educated jews who disagree and actually converted to Christianity.




ec: God would not write or accept an imperfect book.



You or any scholars of the last 100 years have yet to demonstrate any signficant errors contained in it. Almost all those 194 "errors" are the result of either very superficial readings of the text or taking them out of context.


tp: Now you're telling me what Deists believe again. I suggest you find out what that actually is before you tell me about it because you look foolish when you are wrong about it. Why would Thomas Paine pray to a God he believed wouldn't listen to his prayer?




Well for one thing since the deist god has not sent us any revelation about himself, there is no rational basis for thinking that it would listen to any prayers. Unless you or him has some revelation from it that we don't know about. If so, I am all ears.

Flag amcolph October 29, 2015 8:08 AM EDT

Oct 28, 2015 -- 11:56PM, El Cid wrote:


tp: Marriage form a familial bond that is recognized legally. Members of a family already have a legally recognized familial bond.


ec: But they cannot get married and have sex, why should this right be denied them?.



I will remind you once again that we are talking about CIVIL marriage, not holy matrimony according to the rites of any religion.  The purpose of CIVIL marriage is solely to establish legal kinship where none existed previously.  All of the other attributes and functions of marriage come from someplace else.


My wife an I were married under a hoopah in a redwood grove in California by a Rabbi (her religion) who issued us a certificate--written in Aramaic, of all things.--which is framed and hung in a prominent place in our house.  As far as we are concerned, that is our marriage.


We also have a certificate, a 'marriage license' issued by San Mateo County which we got for technical, legal reasons.  We could have gotten married without one, but the advantages of dealing with government as a couple with legal kinship status rather than without are significant.


An incestuous couple who want to get married can no doubt find some crazy celebrant to do it, but they have no need whatever for a marriage license from the county which merely establishes legal kinship because they are legally kin already.


They can also have sex with being married or having a marriage license, so nothing is being denied them.




Flag amcolph October 29, 2015 8:28 AM EDT

Oct 29, 2015 -- 12:06AM, El Cid wrote:



No, I am just trying to understand what he does believe, ie where he is coming from. He rarely answers my questions. Other than with superficial answers, I am trying to get him to go deeper. He says he believes humans deserve rights because we can reason. How does that follow? Just because a being can reason does not mean it deserves or has rights. Serial killers can reason, yet we take away many of their rights.




His answers have not been superficial, you just don't understand them because you have no idea what morality really is.


You obey the arbitrary dictates of an entity more powerful than yourself who can bestow rewards and inflict punishments.  That is not moral behavior, it is merely expedient.

Flag TPaine October 29, 2015 2:21 PM EDT

Oct 29, 2015 -- 12:21AM, El Cid wrote:


I will answer your questions when you answer mine above. But there actually have been many well educated jews who disagree and actually converted to Christianity.



I've answered you question multiple times. To read the answers scroll down the thread. Many people well-educated intelligent people change their religions over their lifetime. Examples are Albert Einstein (Judaism to Deism), Andrei Sakharov (Christianity to Deism), Mahatma Gandhi (Hinduism to Jainism), Sana al-Sayegh (Christianity to Islam), William Holmes Crosby, Jr. (Christianity to Judaism), and Dharma Singh Khalsa (Christianity to Judaism). Many more cases can be found.


Oct 29, 2015 -- 12:21AM, El Cid wrote:

You or any scholars of the last 100 years have yet to demonstrate any signficant errors contained in it. Almost all those 194 "errors" are the result of either very superficial readings of the text or taking them out of context.



I think I can read and understand the Bible as well if not better than you can. You have to deny or rationalize discrepancies and errors in order to support your faith. I don't. I can see major differences in the birth stories of Jesus between Matthew and Luke. One reason for that could be that Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience and Luke was writing to a Gentile audience. I agree that some of the 194 errors are minor but many of them are not. Studying the Bible and reading books by experts in historical criticism is what made me convert from Christianity to Deism.


Oct 29, 2015 -- 12:21AM, El Cid wrote:

Well for one thing since the deist god has not sent us any revelation about himself, there is no rational basis for thinking that it would listen to any prayers. Unless you or him has some revelation from it that we don't know about. If so, I am all ears.



So in your belief God has to have a revelation written in a book. There are at least 14 holy books. How do you know the Christian Bible is the only one that is correct? What happens to you if you're wrong? Almost all the 14 books claim that God (or Gods) will punish you if you pick the wrong book. None of the 14 books give me the impression that God had anything to do with them. They were all written by men to support their religious beliefs.

Flag TPaine October 29, 2015 2:32 PM EDT

Oct 29, 2015 -- 10:29AM, TPaine wrote:


Oct 29, 2015 -- 8:28AM, amcolph wrote:


Oct 29, 2015 -- 12:06AM, El Cid wrote:


No, I am just trying to understand what he does believe, ie where he is coming from. He rarely answers my questions. Other than with superficial answers, I am trying to get him to go deeper. He says he believes humans deserve rights because we can reason. How does that follow? Just because a being can reason does not mean it deserves or has rights. Serial killers can reason, yet we take away many of their rights.



His answers have not been superficial, you just don't understand them because you have no idea what morality really is.


You obey the arbitrary dictates of an entity more powerful than yourself who can bestow rewards and inflict punishments.  That is not moral behavior, it is merely expedient.



+1


Saturday is the last day we'll be able to post on this site. I want to take this opportunity to tell you that I enjoyed reading your posts going back to when we were debating Friend!. I have been impressed by your knowledge and your writing ability for all these years. As Mr. Spock would say, "Live long and prosper."




Flag amcolph October 29, 2015 3:01 PM EDT

LOL!  I have always regarded you as the wheelhorse of these conversations and was glad when you showed up to do the heavy lifting. I always learned something from your posts.

Flag El Cid October 29, 2015 4:51 PM EDT

Oct 21, 2015 -- 10:43AM, amcolph wrote:



ec: Yes sometimes, but animals also rape and kill each other all the time. And cats and foxes play with and kill mice just for fun even when they are not hungry.


amc: Of course they do it for fun.  Such creatures do everything for fun.  That's how instinct is carried out. Domesticated cats hunt because it gives them pleasure in itself to do so.  There is no chain of reasoning: "I will hunt because I am hungry."  That is why they hunt even when they are not hungry.  As for "playing" with their prey, this is a safe procedure for dispatching a creature who, while small, might still inflict potentially dangerous wounds.



Well I admit that the term fun may not be exactly understood the way that humans as personal beings experience fun, but there are signficant differences in the behavior of cats and other animals when they are serious about finding food and when they kill for fun. Cats have been known to "play" with a prey and then leave it unharmed. And they have also been known to kill an animal and then just leave the carcass untouched. But when they are actually hunting for food and are hungry, they don't waste time and precious energy "playing" with the prey animal.




amc: They are not able to contain their appetites for abstract reasons like we are.  Consequently raping and killing are not possible for them, for there is no sin or death in their world




I agree that they are not able to contain their appetites when they are actually hungry, but when they do not have an appetite for food, they definitely will kill and play with their prey for some other purposes whether it is fun, pleasure or practice. Raping and killing is possible for them, but since they are not moral beings, they of course, are not doing anything morally wrong. And that is my point with Thomas. He claims that he gets his morality from reason and nature, and I am just pointing out to him that other animals (he seems to believe that humans are just another animal) do things that we consider horrible so why are they objectively wrong for humans to do such things and they are not for other animals when we are animals too. He has yet to come up with an answer that makes logical sense or follows from even his own philosophy. 

Flag El Cid October 29, 2015 5:37 PM EDT

Oct 21, 2015 -- 3:27PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: Nevertheless it is true, read the biography I referenced.


tp: I've read several biographies of Montesquieu and they all say he was born in a Roman Catholic family and was baptized in it as a child, but as an adult he left the church because he opposed their policies. Like Voltaire he became disillusioned with Christianity because of all the fighting and killing that went on between Christian sects and also like Voltaire became a Deist.



Not according the bio I referenced. He did question some of the church's teachings for a time but as he grew older he went back to the church. If he rejected Christianity why would he say in his "The Spirit of Laws" that "The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would, without doubt, have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive.." 




Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: I don't remember you answering this question, and you did not answer the questions I asked in the post just above this one either. You say I don't know what deists believe, well then enlighten me.


tp: I don't know why I should bother because I know you will just say that I am wrong, but here goes. Homo Sapiens are the only species on the planet that have the ability to reason. That ability had to come from somewhere. Reason tells me it didn't come from Tinkerbell, Peter Pan, or R2-D2. It wasn't brought to Earth by aliens in a flying saucer. None of the great apes we are descended from have that ability. Therefore, reason tells me it had to come from the Creator (God). We (who we call Enlightenment Deists) don't believe God just started the universe and went away. Why would we say prayers of thanksgiving to a deity that was no longer there?



None of that explains why humans should be treated any differently from other animals. Just because we can reason does not mean that we are any better than other animals. Because then you have to explain why reasoning is better than other behaviors and why.  And you have not provided any evidence that your god listens to prayers or hears them.


Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: It is embedded in almost all human consciences because we are all created in the image of the Christian God,  read Genesis 1:27. But it is based on humans being intrinsically valuable for that reason, but where does such value come from for the deist?


tp: No, you believe it was embedded by the Christian God. Hindus believe it came from their Gods, Sikhs believe it came from their God, Zoroastrian believe it came from their God, Shintoists believe it came from their Gods and so on. They all say that because that is what's in their holy books, and that their holy books are right and all the rest are wrong.



All of those other religions can be shown using logic, science, and historical evidence to have serious problems. For one thing since hinduism believes that ALL is god, then evil does not exist since all actions are ultimately being done by god, including he holocaust. Therefore the holocaust was not evil.




tp: We Deists believe it came from the Creator because there is no other logical cause. We believe that all holy books were written by priests as a way to control their followers and God had nothing to do with them.



I don't deny that your reasoning regarding a cause is solid, but since you know nothing else about this god, you don't know that it has endowed us with value. You don't even know if the deist god is a personal being, he could just be an impersonal force.


Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: Yes sometimes, but animals also rape and kill each other all the time. And cats and foxes play with and kill mice just for fun even when they are not hungry.


tp: And some humans torture and kill other humans because they don't follow what they believe to be the "true" holy book, or because their skin is a different color, or they have affection for the wrong gender. Just because we have the EOR doesn't mean everyone follows it.



Exactly so how do you know that what these people do is wrong since the EOR for a deist is just based on feeling not any knowledge that that is actually a moral law of God?


Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, the creation event is ultimately an illusion for hindus. Most hindus are pantheists where they believe that the entire universe including humans are all god and part of god. The appearance of distinct individuals is an illusion. The bible does not teach that water existed before creation. It says God first created the heavens and the earth, ie the physical inorganic universe, including water. There is scientific evidence for an early possibly worldwide ocean on the earth. This has also just recently been confirmed for Mars too. This is what probably the verse in Gen. 1 is referring to.


tp: Have you read the Rig-Veda? It tells the Hindu creation story as I explained it. I realize you feel it necessary to denigration all non-Christian religions, but your doing so damages your credibility. I suggest you read the book A History Of The World's Religions by David S. Noss and John B. Noss. You might actually learn something. I understand your need to fit the Bible to your beliefs, but doing so doesn't necessarily make your beliefs correct.



But you are not looking at the Rig-Veda in the light of the Upanishads. They point toward a deeper spiritual reality, they teach that at the heart of Vedantic teaching is that there is only one true reality, Brahman or an impersonal all pervasive being. Everything else is an illusion. 




tp: Its common knowledge that the earth was covered with water at one point and both the Abrahamic and Hindu religions agree with that. It has been confirmed that there was once liquid water on Mars (and may still be) but not that Mars was totally covered with water. Genesis makes no mention of planets because they had no idea there were any. It only mentions Earth, the sun, the moon, and stars.



Well we now know from God's other book that what the hebrews called stars also included planets from their perspective.



Oct 21, 2015 -- 12:41AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: No, verse 1 is an action performed by God from the perspective of an observer of God. Then there is a perspective shift to the surface of the earth, so that from verse 3 things occur from the perspective of an observer on the earth's surface. The light coming to the surface of the earth is the result of the clearing of the early opaque atmosphere of the early earth caused by debris surrounding the earth.


tp: And you fit your interpretation of Genesis 1:1 to fit your beliefs. People who hold different beliefs interpret it differently. Since none of us can prove exactly what the author intended when he wrote it, we have no way of knowing who's right. One of the problems with ancient holy books is that they can be interpreted in different ways to suit different beliefs. If God wrote those books they would be perfect and have only one interpretation.




No, it can be determined using grammatico-historical information and the fact that God says that we can learn about Him through studying nature to supplement His written revelation we can come up with the most likely correct interpretation, also the Holy Spirit helps us in our understanding. But of course, your salvation is not based on your belief of How God created the universe, but WHETHER He did it. The bible was only perfect in its original texts, but we can get a very good idea of what the original text said because of its protection by the holy spirit thru the church. And if you accept the infallible authority of hte bible then on most essential teachings there is only one interpretation. Others require more work for our amazing brains that God created for us to use.

Flag El Cid October 29, 2015 10:06 PM EDT

Oct 22, 2015 -- 11:42PM, TPaine wrote:


ec: While it is not a requirement, it is one of the main reasons marriage came into existence. And one the main reasons governments got involved in it. We were not founded as a secular government as I demonstrated earlier in this thread.


tp: You wrote, "While it is not a requirement, it is one of the main reasons marriage came into existence." That is my point. Reproduction is not a requirement for marriage. Historically, some of the reasons people were married had nothing to do reproduction. Women were actually sold by their fathers for what was called the "bride's price." In other cases the family had to provide a "dowry" to get the man to marry their daughter.In many cases marriages were a way for commoners to become members of the nobility.



Marriage often had mulitple reasons for its existence and almost always when possible it included the purpose to produce children. No one did those things for someone of the same sex.


tp: When the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation we became a secular nation. Article 6 states that there can't be religious tests for government employees and the 1st Amendment guaranteed the people to have the free exercise of religion despite what that religion that may be, but the government could not establish a religion or follow the beliefs of one religion over the beliefs of other religions. The United States government is secular whether you like it or not.



Freedom of religion is a Christian principle. So even your evidence for the US being founded as a secular nation supports my position. As far as at present, I agree that our nation now is a secular nation but it was not founded as one and even secular humanism borrows many of its moral principles from Christianity. But of course, its philosophical foundation does not support those principles.


Oct 22, 2015 -- 12:40AM, El Cid wrote:

ec: I don't think you are understanding what I wrote, because you didn't address any of my points in any rational manner. Do you understand what I am saying? Only heterosexual sexual intercourse can unite two persons, thereby reinforcing their personhood. All other sex acts do not, irresepective of reproduction.


tp: As I pointed out above, marriage wasn't always based on love or biology. It was often based on money or social status. These days in the United States it is based on both love and the rights married couples have that couples living together do not have, not biology.



No, you just demonstrated that in many cases it wasn't based on ONLY on biology, biology was always ONE reason for marriage. Because only sexual intercourse can unite two people biologically irrespective if the couple is fertile. As I stated before prior to the late 20th century, there was no such thing as gay "marriage".






Flag TPaine October 30, 2015 2:34 PM EDT

Oct 29, 2015 -- 5:37PM, El Cid wrote:


Not according the bio I referenced. He did question some of the church's teachings for a time but as he grew older he went back to the church. If he rejected Christianity why would he say in his "The Spirit of Laws" that "The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would, without doubt, have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive.."



If you read The Spirit of the Laws you would know that Montesquieu was comparing Protestantism to Roman Catholicism and Christianity to Islam. He said that Christianity was a better fit for democratic republics and Islam was more in tune with despotism. To understand his religious beliefs read his book The Persian Letters. You can find a summary of the book Here.


Oct 29, 2015 -- 5:37PM, El Cid wrote:

None of that explains why humans should be treated any differently from other animals. Just because we can reason does not mean that we are any better than other animals. Because then you have to explain why reasoning is better than other behaviors and why.  And you have not provided any evidence that your god listens to prayers or hears them.



Humans are the only animals that have the ability to reason. That gives humans the ability to know right from wrong. Humans are able to understand such concepts as the EOR and even your 10 commandments. All other animals have only instinct to go by. Its true that some animals kill other animals, however humans historically have often killed other humans, often for religious reasons, sometimes on a large scale. Examples are the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Sunni vs. Shia Muslim fighting that has been going on for 1300+ years, ISIS/ISIL, Al-Qaeda, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc. No one knows if God hears prayers, however it is likely that a being that has the ability to create the universe and everything in it would have the power to hear prayers. Besides, I feel better when I do pray.


Oct 29, 2015 -- 5:37PM, El Cid wrote:

All of those other religions can be shown using logic, science, and historical evidence to have serious problems. For one thing since hinduism believes that ALL is god, then evil does not exist since all actions are ultimately being done by god, including he holocaust. Therefore the holocaust was not evil.




Actually, using logic, science, historical evidence, and historical criticism of holy books it can be shown that all revealed religions including Judaism and Christianity have serious problems. You've proved that you know basically nothing about Hinduism. There are multiple Hindu sects, and the religion has multiple Gods and Devils. There is no ALL. Once again I suggest you read the book A History Of The World's Religions by Davis S. Noss and John B. Noss.


Oct 29, 2015 -- 5:37PM, El Cid wrote:

I don't deny that your reasoning regarding a cause is solid, but since you know nothing else about this god, you don't know that it has endowed us with value. You don't even know if the deist god is a personal being, he could just be an impersonal force.



Actually, no one knows anything more than what reason tells us about God. Revealed religions have books that claim they have the answers, but none of the authors ever met the God(s) they wrote about. What is written in them is only human belief. What we know is that God created a universe that runs by the laws of physics and other scientific laws. When we apply reason to the observation of nature we learn that everything in it was created for a reason and therefore everything has a value. Whether the Deist God is a personal or impersonal force is irrelevant. 


Oct 29, 2015 -- 5:37PM, El Cid wrote:

Exactly so how do you know that what these people do is wrong since the EOR for a deist is just based on feeling not any knowledge that that is actually a moral law of God?



As I've written above no religion actually knows that what we call moral law comes from God. We believe it does either based on reason or on the writing in an ancient book written by men who never met God.


Oct 29, 2015 -- 5:37PM, El Cid wrote:

But you are not looking at the Rig-Veda in the light of the Upanishads. They point toward a deeper spiritual reality, they teach that at the heart of Vedantic teaching is that there is only one true reality, Brahman or an impersonal all pervasive being. Everything else is an illusion.




There is no single Hindu belief. There are multiple sects with different beliefs. You should actually learn about the religion before you try to explain it.


Oct 29, 2015 -- 5:37PM, El Cid wrote:

Well we now know from God's other book that what the hebrews called stars also included planets from their perspective.




But to them they were all lights in the sky. They couldn't distinguish between stars and planets.

Genesis 1:16 God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.


Christians among most other religions up until the 17th century thought that comets were sent by the devil. Pope Calixtus III (1455-1458) even excommunicated Halley's Comet  as an instrument of the devil. Link


Oct 29, 2015 -- 5:37PM, El Cid wrote:

No, it can be determined using grammatico-historical information and the fact that God says that we can learn about Him through studying nature to supplement His written revelation we can come up with the most likely correct interpretation, also the Holy Spirit helps us in our understanding. But of course, your salvation is not based on your belief of How God created the universe, but WHETHER He did it. The bible was only perfect in its original texts, but we can get a very good idea of what the original text said because of its protection by the holy spirit thru the church. And if you accept the infallible authority of hte bible then on most essential teachings there is only one interpretation. Others require more work for our amazing brains that God created for us to use.



I believe that God created the universe based on studying nature, and I don't need a holy book to support that belief. How do you know that the original texts of the Bible were perfect since none of those manuscripts exist? There are only copies of copies of copies. Except for 7 of the 13 letters Paul wrote and the claim that John of Patmos wrote Revelation we don't know who the New Testament authors were. I certainly do not believe the Bible, or any other holy book for that matter, is infallible because they were all written by men and men are not infallible. However, based on the written reports I believe that Jesus of Nazareth preached the most positive message of all time.

Flag TPaine October 30, 2015 4:15 PM EDT

Oct 29, 2015 -- 10:06PM, El Cid wrote:


Marriage often had mulitple reasons for its existence and almost always when possible it included the purpose to produce children. No one did those things for someone of the same sex.



That doesn't refute the claim that often the wishes of the woman or girl involved were considered. Women should have the same rights men have. No male would accept being forced to marry the highest bidder, but women had no choice.



Oct 29, 2015 -- 10:06PM, El Cid wrote:

Freedom of religion is a Christian principle. So even your evidence for the US being founded as a secular nation supports my position. As far as at present, I agree that our nation now is a secular nation but it was not founded as one and even secular humanism borrows many of its moral principles from Christianity. But of course, its philosophical foundation does not support those principles.



Then why do you defend people like Gary DeMar who heads American Vision, a Christian Reconstruction organization that according to the Southern Poverty Law Center said:

Founded in 1978 by Gary DeMar, one of America's most prominent proponents of Christian Reconstructionism, American Vision produces a wide variety of "educational resources" designed to "restore America's Biblical foundation." Like R.J. Rushdoony, the founder of Reconstructionism (see Chalcedon Foundation), DeMar contends that the U.S. was founded as a "Christian nation" and that its democracy should be replaced by a theocratic government run by Christians who will strictly impose certain Old Testament prohibitions, including passages they interpret as opposing homosexuality and abortion.


and

While DeMar insists that homosexuals wouldn't be rounded up and systematically executed under a "reconstructed" government, he does believe that the occasional execution of "sodomites" would serve society well, because "the law that requires the death penalty for homosexual acts effectively drives the perversion of homosexuality underground, back into the closet."


and

Another "long-term goal," he writes elsewhere, should be "the execution of abortionists and parents who hire them."


If DeMar's interpretation of the Bible is correct it is one of the most evil books ever written.


Oct 29, 2015 -- 10:06PM, El Cid wrote:

No, you just demonstrated that in many cases it wasn't based on ONLY on biology, biology was always ONE reason for marriage. Because only sexual intercourse can unite two people biologically irrespective if the couple is fertile. As I stated before prior to the late 20th century, there was no such thing as gay "marriage".




If one reason for marriage is to produce children why should infertile men or women be allowed to marry? The can't do any more about having children than a same-sex couple can. In fact, a fertile lesbian couple can produce children by In vitro fertilization. I've shown proof that there was same sex marriage long before the 20th century.


This discussion ends tomorrow. The ability to post in the forums ends on Sunday.

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook