CreateDebate


Trumpet_guy's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Trumpet_guy's arguments, looking across every debate.
trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I agree. That was part of the whole point of the New Testament, and what the physical miracles Jesus did were symbolic of. Changing the human heart to be blameless before men in such a way that it was proof.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I agree Christian's need to actually be "little Christ's" more and really don't apply what they preach alot. 1st Century church Apostle Paul addressed this.

1 Corinthians 15:34 KJV

Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I'm guessing you believe in old earth creationism? Why do you believe it, and how would you prove God to an unbeliever?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

What would you call substantial proof? What would convince you that God exists?

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Why do you say you know Christianity is not true? Just seeing how you think.

Except it wasn't just decomposing bodies and it wasn't just "avoid them" and slight aversion. During the Middle Ages when the Black Plague happened people had NO CONCEPT of disease control and because of this people thought sickness was caused by an unbalance of "humors" or quadrants you can think of. Later a singular doctor had an idea of disease "jumping" but he still had no idea how disease worked because he started the famous Plague Doctor suit with the beak. Which he would wear EVERYWHERE and carry the disease with him, spreading it along with whatever doctors believed his theory and used his suit.

With that being said the Mosiac Law came 2000+ years before the Black Plague and is the first ever recorded use of the quarantine. Ever. And the wording used isn't "yeah you should probably do this if you want". No it was "we are all going to die if you don't do this". There's also alot more than just avoiding dead bodies and obvious disease, you should actually read it sometime.

Anyways my point is NOT that there's irrefutable evidence of God, my point is outright saying there is 0% chance of an existential power existing is just not true and intellectually dishonest and actually a logical fallacy (argument from ignorance).

You fuckwits make a conscious, subjective decision to believe in a bunch of bullshit written mostly from word-of-mouth myths concerning some other barbaric fuckwits from 4000 years ago in one of the most deprived and violent parts of the planet, on nothing more than faith, without a single shred of evidence.

For "backwards fuckwits from 4000 years ago" they seem to have some pretty comprehensive understanding of disease control, more so than any other nation at the time. Like separating people from the camp when they were sick, washing when someone touched something dead or diseased. Pretty good considering hand washing wasn't even a thing till the 1800's. Almost like a transcendent being with advanced knowledge on the subject gave it to them.

Thank you for ignoring the important paragraph:

Separate but the same person at the same time. This is confusing for many but have you ever read a book called Flatland? It presents a two-dimensional world. In this world all things that exist are two dimensional and observe it's own world in one dimension. Meaning shapes would appear as lines and you would discern distance and separation of bodies by shading. If a three-dimensional object was to go through this world, for example a hand, it could exist in multiple parts of the world, appear as separate entities, but still exist as a single object in reality. This is a good way to understand the Trinity. It's still incomplete but its much better than the egg or states of matter illustrations that are used.

The trinity is, as the religious claim, indivisible. So

You argument relies on false premise. It's forcing a view that the religious do not have, unless you are limiting your view to the Unitarian view, which is not the representative majority of Christianity. Your view of the Trinity is that they do not share separate person in anyway. Separateis the important part of the trinity that is partly but not entirely explained in the above paragraph.

Makes no sense.

Thank you for stating this again without explaining why this makes no sense.

2 points

I've read all your arguments. If someone brings up a real point your argument reduces to name-calling.

If God paid the price for our sins, then whom did he pay it to?

I guess you're operating based on the assumption the Trinity doesn't exist with this one? Meaning either God had to pay to a higher power or He is irrational? I would adknowledge your argument if the Trinity wasn't evident throughout Scripture but it is.

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one, this is known as the trinity. The three in one. Separate but the same person at the same time. This is confusing for many but have you ever read a book called Flatland? It presents a two-dimensional world. In this world all things that exist are two dimensional and observe it's own world in one dimension. Meaning shapes would appear as lines and you would discern distance and separation of bodies by shading. If a three-dimensional object was to go through this world, for example a hand, it could exist in multiple parts of the world, appear as separate entities, but still exist as a single object in reality. This is a good way to understand the Trinity. It's still incomplete but its much better than the egg or states of matter illustrations that are used.

With the Trinity, God the Son pays the price set by God the Father and meets the requirement He Himself set.

2 points

I believe this is under the fallicy of "false premise". How was Jesus conquering death rebellion against God? Have you ever read the Bible? Like ever? Christ's death was the Father's will, that's the entire point of His prayer in the garden. Christ's "conquering death" was fullfilling the payment for sin, which is death. Since Jesus is of infinite worth because He is God, he can pay an infinite payment for an infinite amount of people. It's not going against God's will, it's actually God will.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
2 points

I've done research on it, I'm just giving a non-descript version of it. Still not really concerning to present day Christians since we'll be raptured

No, not really. The Muslim Messiah is very similar to the Christian Anti-Christ and so it doesn't really surprise me Islam is going to create a Beast to destroy Christians, similar to the Beast in the Book of Revelation. Both the antichrist and the Beast are defeated in the Book of Revelation, and Christians will be raptured before the Beast anyways.

Easter does not celebrate the death of Christ but the Resurrection which happened after the Passover. Passover starts this Monday, Jesus dies on Friday, and is then resurrected three days later on Sunday (Easter). If Jesus would have simply died then it would have meant nothing.

1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

Tis a joke, there was no real logical argument. I can't take debates like this seriously

2 points

Cats are either evil or dumb and have no purpose. That is all. No false assumptions here. Am I kidding or not? That's for you to decide. But if you decide cats aren't dumb, you're dumb. No ad hominem here.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

Most eastern religions believe sex between two people who love each other (in any way, married or non, hetero or homo, monogamous or polygamous) as moral and polygamy is supported. Eastern religions were very much like Native Americans in their sexual standards, who were very loose with their sexual standards.

https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/for-native-americans-sex-didnt-come-with-guilt-21347/

Unless you're talking about the middle east and Islam...which piggy backs off the Judeo - Christian faith.

Milo wishes he wasn't gay because he believes its morally wrong and detrimental to society but doesn't think it's mental disorder, which is sorta what I believe as well. It's more nurture than nature.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

There is no correlation to religiosity and morality even according to you. That only demonstrates my point.

It's doesn't really prove anything as you said but it doesn't prove your point either. My point is that a CLAIM to religion does not mean a thing. But following the Judeo - Christian values does. For example, the most fought over Christian moral, sexual chastity, was proved by Joseph Unwin in Sex and Culture when he was able to prove sexual restraint and monogamy leads to the success of a society. This was later proved in the University of British Columbia. This is just one of many morals only the Judeo - Christian worldview really supports. You could say Islam but they really just piggy-backed off the Judeo - Christians.

Crime has gone down, less discrimination, and people are more educated. Strike 2 for religious morality.

Well this isn't really a strike for or against either religion or non-religiosity. Crime spiked between the 80's and 90's then went back to where it is now. If non-religiosity is related to less crime then why did the spike happen when religiosity has had a downward trend since the 70's?

You want religion in school and not science. Your judgement is compromised.

1) Wanting a religious view in schools doesn't mean you want science out of schools, this is a major assumption.

2) This person was addressing bathroom policy, not science, so I don't know why this came up anyways. If you wanna argue religion vs. science, that's fine. Just don't combine arguments.

This aside, morality is not dependent on religion. It's an arbitrary concept based on a person's values. But societies do tend to flourish when the society, as a whole, follows Judeo - Christian morals. Even the Bible addresses this point. The God of the Bible always tells people to follow "HIS statutes" and "HIS commandments", but you can find times when God gave up the Israelites to other standards besides His own. And the people suffered for it. The Biblical argument is not "you can only be moral if you believe in God", but God's morals cause individuals and societies to flourish.

2 points

Already argued this in another debate so if you've already seen this, oops:

The argument that God is the evil one usually still goes based on a system of right and wrong, and merely places God as the evil one instead of Satan. However the argument used (God killed millions of people) to prove this misunderstands the context of the proof texts.

For example, criticts point out that God commanded the genocide of millions "just because they were in the promised land". However, if you start to look at the context of the events, it starts to make a little bit more sense. In Genesis when God was talking with Abraham, God promised the land to Abraham (Genesis 15:18) but couldn’t give it to him yet because the iniquity of the current occupants “wasn’t full” (Genesis 15:16). God wasn’t just going to kick out a nation because his people were special. In fact, God specifically said the Hebrews weren’t special (Deuteronomy 7:7). At all. God was using the Hebrews as a form of judgement, just as God would use other nations to judge Israel later.

But just how bad were these people, really? Well in the book of Judges it shows us a glimpse of what these people were like. In Judges chapter 19, it tells the story of a man that walked into a town of Benjamites. An old man sees the stranger and quickly tells him to get out of the street. Some time later, the men of the street surround the house and demand that the old man release the stranger. Fearing for his life, the old man shoves his concubine out the door instead. The men rape her continously until she collapses and dies in the morning.

This is the kind of behavior that was taking place in the Promised Land before the Hebrews claimed the land. The Benjamites did what they did because they were influenced by the previous inhabitants, who were the group of people that God told the Hebrews to wipe out. This rape wasn’t an isolated incident in the surrounding area, this was a regular occurrence that was a cultural norm that took place before the Israelites conquered the land, and the Benjamites were judged just as the previous inhabitants were.

This incident also gives us some incite into how people were when God decided to flood the whole Earth. People weren’t just a little mean or a little selfish, the entire world was filled with murder, rape, and absolute selfishness and hate. Or as the Bible puts it “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” God wasn’t being unjust, bloodthirsty, or homicidal. God let mankind continue until God had no choice but to judge the people except for a select few who wanted to follow Him. Even God’s commandments of violence were out of justice and love.

It depends on which line of argument you're using. If you're using the Bible as an authority then no.

You can view Satan as underdog that lost and is not truly evil, sorta like how those who won wrote the history books, but even this logic really doesn't follow.

The argument that God is the evil one usually still goes based on a system of right and wrong, and merely places God as the evil one instead of Satan. However the argument used (God killed millions of people) to prove this misunderstands the context of the proof texts.

If you start to look at the context of the events, it starts to make a little bit more sense. In Genesis when God was talking with Abraham, God promised the land to Abraham (Genesis 15:18) but couldn’t give it to him yet because the iniquity of the current occupants “wasn’t full” (Genesis 15:16). God wasn’t just going to kick out a nation because his people were special. In fact, God specifically said the Hebrews weren’t special (Deuteronomy 7:7). At all. God was using the Hebrews as a form of judgement, just as God would use other nations to judge Israel.

But just how bad were these people, really? Well in the book of Judges it shows us a glimpse of what these people were like. In Judges chapter 19, it tells the story of a man that walked into a town of Benjamites. An old man sees the stranger and quickly tells him to get out of the street. Some time later, the men of the street surround the house and demand that the old man release the stranger. Fearing for his life, the old man shoves his concubine out the door instead. The men rape her continously until she collapses and dies in the morning.

This is the kind of behavior that was taking place in the Promised Land before the Hebrews claimed the land. The Benjamites did what they did because they were influenced by the previous inhabitants, who were the group of people that God told the Hebrews to wipe out. This rape wasn’t an isolated incident in the surrounding area, this was a regular occurrence that was a cultural norm that took place before the Israelites conquered the land, and the Benjamites were judged just as the previous inhabitants were.

This incident also gives us some incite into how people were when God decided to flood the whole Earth. People weren’t just a little mean or a little selfish, the entire world was filled with murder, rape, and absolute selfishness and hate. Or as the Bible puts it “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” God wasn’t being unjust, bloodthirsty, or homicidal. God let mankind continue until God had no choice but to judge the people except for a select few who wanted to follow Him. Even God’s commandments of violence were out of justice and love.

First, .9 repeating isn't "essentially" 1 - it IS 1 - thus, there aren't two answers at all - only 1.

So there is only one answer. Thus was my point.

If one person says gay marriage should be illegal and another person says it should be legal - clearly those are not different expressions of "one answer".

Just because opinions differ does not mean the answer has multiple possible answers. For example, if homosexuality itself creates dysfunctional and in itself wrong, the question doesn't even arise. Should we kill a murderer or not and allow a possible escape? (alluding to the Joker) The answer is control yourself and don't commit murder in the first place ( the answer to the "One Bad Day" concept).

So, you think randomized, controlled, peer-reviewed studies of large cohorts are less reliable than talking to a couple of friends? Have you read through the studies? The definitions of "bad behavior" is purposely ambiguous to allow researchers to confirm their own bias. The peer-reviewed studies are usually condemned both on the religious and non religious side. People you know and can communicate with are much more reliable because you KNOW them.

Maybe you don't have too many friends - because I know a lot of people (including myself) that are products of very dysfunctional heterosexual marriages... Congrads you're alive and can hold a job. But the point I care about goes past what researchers can see. Are you selfless to the point of fault in relationships? Can you handle and control your emotions in extremely stressful relationship situations (no way to present those in an controlled experiment) and seek out to be sacrificial for the other person? This is very personal and I'm not faulting you or assuming anything but I do have alot of friend that have come from dysfunctional homes and most have tendencies that cause harm to relationships. The relationships they hold may be able to survive, but I wouldn't say they'd be better off coming from the home they did. The "sins of the father" is a very real concept.

I am actually having a problem finding any that don't fit that description. How about killing people. Let's start with that.

There is a difference between senseless killing and justice. People cherry pick circumstances and verses to prove this argument. What they fail to remember is that God did not give the Israelite's their promised land till the sin of the current inhabitants of the land was past a certain point. The previous inhabitants of the land worshiped Moleck (spelling maybe wrong) and would ritually sacrifice children through burning and had sexual orgies with all genders that included animals which would lead to widespread STDs, not even mentioning the relationships problems. The Israelite's being used by God as judgment was not senseless as you portray it. Next example?

your argument that one answer is possible proves nothing if one answer is not only possible but how God decided morality then all other actions besides the one answer would be wrong and in turn morality would be objective

The Bible describes very well exactly what a subjective morality would look like. "Here are some rules to live by. Break those rules when I say to".

Which ones?

It isn't a strawman, it is called reading comprehension.

See above

You are begging the question. You are presupposing a single answer so that you can presuppose what that answer is so that you can presuppose the answer leads to God. You don't need to bother with the part where you tell us that there can be one answer. No one said there can't be one answer. The guy said that you have to prove objective morality exists before you can claim it is responsible for something. If there is only one answer then morality is objective.

Actually it does matter. From the biblical standpoint morality has never ever presented morality as some magical law or contract that the deity abstractly made that man had to follow. It has always been presented as God's instruction manual to his creation from the deity that created their body. It was actually atheists and agnostics that straw-manned arguments to put morality as some abstract law, that many Christians stupidly use. Morality has always been the balance between the good of society and the individual, and is why the founding fathers of American wrote the form of government that they did. It very much DOES matter that there is a single answer because that means a form of good can exists besides what God describes as how our body and psychology works.

Ah - brings me back to my very first post

My point still holds, you're purposefully not acknowledging concepts. Yes 1/9 is equal to 0.111 repeating it is repeating implying infinity. If you remember from your high school Calculus course, as the number approaches infinity the difference 0.9 and 1 increasingly gets smaller until it reaches infinity and is essentially nothing, and in turn 0.9 repeating is essentially 1. Seems like there is two answers, but if you lay everything out and define terms, there is only one answer. The same principle applies with morality. Use solid logic, define terms, you get one answer.

Baloney

Social studies are almost always biased, both religious and those trying to oppose the religious view. However, pay attention to your friends. I guarantee anyone that has lived in an unstable home has emotional baggage that influences their decisions with relationships. Sexual standards try to minimize the possibility of marital instability that comes from sexual jealousy, and ensuing lack of interest in the spouse that comes from extra-marital affairs.

In the same way multiple answers doesn't assume a single answer, multiple answers doesn't exclude the possibility of a single answer. I wasn't avoiding the argument I just through that was common sense

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

If 1/3 = 0.333 repeating, does 3/3 really equal 1 or does it equal 0.999 repeating? There is a singular answer to this question which is 1. But if you do not know geometric series, advanced uses of pre-calculus, or calculus, the answer SEEMS to be both, but this is from a lack of knowledge. The same principle can be applied to morality. There is a singular answer to questions, it just requires an understanding of psychological, biology, and general sciences. For example adultery and/or fornication. The modern idea of morality is nihilistic when it comes to sex. But sex before marriage increases chances of divorce dramatically unless the person you have sex with ends up being your spouse, which is unlikely if the standard doesn't exist. Why get married, why not just have sex with whoever you want whenever you want? The only time children do not have development problems or harmful emotional dispositions is when a man and woman are married and marital problems are relatively low. People can argue morals from a nihilistic view but that doesn't excuse or make the the psychological ramifications of their actions disappear.

Knowledge about all of the psychological and biological principles in the Hebrew Law is a very convincing argument for God. Cultures had bits and pieces of morals that make sense biologically and psychologically but no culture has the wealth that the Hebrew Law has.

2 points

Just because opinions are different does not mean there is not a definite answer. Just because a question is question is complicated and people disagree does not mean there is not one single answer

Any system has its own assumptions that it makes. Both science and religion have their own assumptions, and this is nothing new. Heck, even the math physics is based on has its own assumptions. It took 400+ pages in Mathamtica Principia to prove 1+1=2. It's simply up to the observer to decide which assumptions he or she is OK with having, and which parts of the system they'll believe since science and religion are contradictory in the way they function but not necessarily contradictory in content.

First of all, many claims of contradictions spawn from a lack of thought. For example, do people really think the author of Genesis would have two conflicting creation accounts in the same work? Especially because Genesis 1 and 2 are not divided into chapters in the Hebrew text, but is one lone string.

Moving on, most other contradictions are either perspective (Gospel account contradictions, etc.) or numerical (troop numbers). A majority of these contradictions are numerical, and result from the sometimes cryptic nature of Hebrew numerical system as it deals with higher numbers in the hundreds and thousands.

With this being said, are troop numbers really a cause for concern? Do I even need to mention the dead sea scrolls?

Wouldn't people blame a divine appearance on hallucinates or illusion?

Dude, "divine appearances" are hallucinations or illusions.

If your god really wanted to make us believe, like really really wanted us to believe, why not do something that will convince everybody?

I'm done.

Who says He hasn't?

Romans 8:20&21;20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Even if He did, wouldn't people just make up some excuse like they do with Christ's crucifixion and resurrection? Wouldn't people blame a divine appearance on hallucinates or illusion?

The denials of Christ today are no different than those of when Jesus was alive.

Christians have a duty to spread the message itself and represent or be a "witness" through their life. The actual "conversion" is left to God and in fact, it is all through Christ "lest anyone should boast".

This stems from the beginning. The choice between The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and The Tree of Life was both literal and symbolic. The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil represents relying on our own mind, thoughts, and feelings while the Tree of Life represents relying on God's mind, thoughts, and feelings. When Eve partook of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil she was relying on her own thoughts and mind and is why she was so easily tricked. This is also Adam's fault because he also failed in his role to protect Eve from any and all danger. Eve then failed in her role as a "lifesaver" (more accurate translation than "help-meet") and in fact help give Adam death by handing it to Adam to eat.

From then on we have had to use our own knowledge rather than God's with only his creation and a few divinely inspired books to guide our knowledge. The question "how can God allow evil" is seperate from the "punish[ing] [of] humans and angels".

Evil is is in two separate categories: natural and moral. God is the direct cause of natural evil. God is not the direct cause of moral evil (Galatians 2:17) but is indirectly responsible (Isaiah 45:7). God uses both kinds of evil for our benefit although may times we don't see it as such (Isaiah 45:32-3).

God does not punish us for natural evil because we are not the cause of it . Does, however, judge our reaction to natural evil and moral evil as well because we are the cause of moral evil. Because God is not the cause of moral evil, he can rightly judge us as such.

This is a few excerpts from Joseph Story's commentary on the 1st Amendment in regards to religion. For those who don't know who he is, he was appointed Supreme Court Judge by James Madison (author of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights). If anyone knows what original intent was, Joseph Story did.

"How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free government, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;--these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience."

"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic."

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

This is a few excerpts from Joseph Story's commentary on the 1st Amendment in regards to religion. For those who don't know who he is, he was appointed Supreme Court Judge by James Madison (author of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights). If anyone knows what original intent was, Joseph Story did.

"How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free government, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;--these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience."

"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic."

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

Sigh......"let the earth bring forth", "let the waters bring forth". Sound familiar? God caused other things to make other things. It how the world works today BTW. The Big Bang Theory is not "mindless" creation, it is in fact very organized and patterns have been examined in the universe to suggest this. The theory of evolution is also not mindless, and the "after their kind" was not a creative restriction, but was a way for us to identify the different kinds. As new kinds evolved they were given categories and different kinds came about "after their kind".

Sigh...you do realize that the Bible was first written in Hebrew, not English right? The word day in Hebrew, yom, has several definitions. Among these is an unspecified amount of time.

It supposes to be the "Word of god" where I assume that the expectation that it is a literal truth comes with it.

While I do believe Genesis is literal if the correct vocab is used, are you really going to lump Psalms and Proverbs into the literal category as well?

2 points

Thanks :)

I will admit that the best evidence for Satan being a literal being is the Book of Job... That being said, the Book of Job is a poem, and the only book in Old Testament that has been considered to be entirely allegorical, that I know of. Like I said, satan is Hebrew for "adversary." For example: Numbers 22:22 "And God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord stood in the way for an adversary against him. Now he was riding upon his ass, and his two servants were with him." In Hebrew, it says satan instead of adversary

Haha I haven't even gotten to my best piece of evidence yet. Anyways, something I noticed that hasn't been addressed. When "adversary" is used there is this small word called "an" in front of it. When "Satan" is used, obviously there is no "an" in front of it. I thought this was another "for the sake of translation" thing, but "an" is actually apart of the Hebrew as well. So when "adversary" is used, it is just than, an adversary. However, when Satan is used it can be translated as an the Christian concept of Satan or more descriptively "THE adversary".

Human qualities were given genders throughout the Bible...

However it is obvious that the author is personifying the trait. In the terms of Satan, this is no where clear at all.

The Book of Job is a definite characterization of Satan and it is here Satan is definitely used as a being rather than a consciousness. Many Jews who write on the topic Satan, acknowledge Satan as a being in Job, but never address this! Why? Because it would destroy their interpretation.

The reason the mention of Satan in Job is important is because:

1) Satan is an actual being in the book

2) it is the first book written in the Hebrew bible, and pre-dates Genesis

Genesis 1:7-12

7 And the Lord said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

8 And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

9 Then Satan answered the Lord, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

12 And the Lord said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the Lord.

Here, Satan is directly speaking to God himself. He is not referred to as the downfalls or obstacles of person, but a being speaking directly to God. No where does the "consciousness" interpretation work with this passage. Reason being, the Hebrew translation or definition of Satan is adversary or obstacle. How could God serve as an obstacle or adversary to Himself? He can't, and God is addressing an actual being, and this was also the first writing of the Hebrew bible. This is never addressed by modern Hebrew scholars.

Down-votes without arguments are disgusting

I think this is a more problem of the 5th amendment rather than the 1st amendment, here's why.

This is a few excerpts from Joseph Story's commentary on the 1st Amendment in regards to religion. For those who don't know who he is, he was appointed Supreme Court Judge by James Madison (author of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights). If anyone knows what original intent was, Joseph Story did.

"How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free government, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character. Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;--these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience."

"Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty. Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty. He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic."

"Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

And as for the third point, it deserveth to be a little stood upon, and not to be lightly passed over; for if any man shall think by view and inquiry into these sensible and material things to attain that light, whereby he may reveal unto himself the nature or will of God, then, indeed, is he spoiled by vain philosophy; for the contemplation of God’s creatures and works produceth (having regard to the works and creatures themselves) knowledge, but having regard to God no perfect knowledge, but wonder, which is broken knowledge. And, therefore, it was most aptly said by one of Plato’s school, “That the sense of man carrieth a resemblance with the sun, which (as we see) openeth and revealeth all the terrestrial globe; but then, again, it obscureth and concealeth the stars and celestial globe: so doth the sense discover natural things, but it darkeneth and shutteth up divine.” And hence it is true that it hath proceeded, that divers great learned men have been heretical, whilst they have sought to fly up to the secrets of the Deity by this waxen wings of the senses. And as for the conceit that too much knowledge should incline a man to atheism, and that the ignorance of second causes should make a more devout dependence upon God, which is the first cause; first, it is good to ask the question which Job asked of his friends: “Will you lie for God, as one man will lie for another, to gratify him?"

Bacon, Francis. The Advancement of Learning [Book I]. 1605.

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

I should have clarified what I meant. I don't mean homosexuality in general, I mean the Christian response in a republican society.

2 points

Personally I believe it depends on when and what Christians are thinking for themselves. It depends on what subject matter they are thinking for themselves. Some topics yes they can, some topics are up to interpretation (gay marriage, creation, worship ideas) while others are not (salvation, baptism, morality).

trumpet_guy(503) Clarified
1 point

LOL not really. They weren't fanatical at all.


1 of 21 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]