"Thankfully you have pointed out that none of this is true and there is no reason to praise Jesus. Thank you for that."
Wrong! I was only saying that some Christians don't preach the message of Jesus with love. You are putting words in my word again.
"That's part of it, but it is also the repeating of what I hear from Christians."
That is true. Sadly, some Christians don't do a good job of representing the faith or explaining difficult subjects like what happens to someone when he or she dies.
"Until you support your claim and refute my counter you have lost this debate."
Perhaps in your alternate world, not in this one. You've done nothing but dodge questions with semantics and haven't shown that people don't have a universal understanding of right and wrong. That would be obvious to anyone reading our exchanges.
"I am not especially interested in debating homosexuality with you. It was an example, and apparently a poor one given your woeful misconceptions."
Of course this debate is not about homosexuality. You brought it up to divert from objective morality. I told you society has resisted homosexuality more from fear than moral reasons. You said its bigotry, but bigotry is only the negative reaction toward homosexuality not the cause of the negative reaction. The cause of the negative reaction is fear.
Only recently was homosexuality no longer considered paraphilia in this country. Another paraphila is pedophilia. And you KNOW how society has generally feels about pedophiles.
People believe homosexuals are promiscuous and spread AIDS.
These sort of outlooks have led to the negative opinion and reaction toward homosexuals.
And concerning reproduction, I was only speculating a sociobiological reason that could have added to society's fear of homosexuality.
"If the society practices child sacrifice then it follows that the society considers child sacrifice to be moral."
Do you know why societies practice child sacrifice?
No normal society can consider such an evil to be moral. Most societies that practice such savagery only do so in the context of their religion, to appease some deity. The people where this evil is practiced only go along not to become non-conformist. But no one would ever want to see his or her child sacrificed.
And the Rocky Road Ice Cream was again TERRIBLE. OWN IT AND MOVE ON.
I have studied on the afterlife and can tell you that it is an extensive subject. That is why it is frustrating that your are reducing a difficult subject to nonsense. I mean, where did you get that the Bible said you will "burn" if you don't believe in Jesus. Do you know what the Bible means by "believe" and "perish" respectively, in what context and where in the Bible?
I think you just want to make outrageous statements for the fun of it, just to get a rise out of people. Either that, or you are insistent taking one of several views on the afterlife in Christianity (the literal eternal hell) to represent what all Christians believe.
Yes, how could Christianity have any bearing on ending slavery if the slave owners were Christian while keeping slaves?
Okay, by that reasoning, because Stalin and Mau killed millions of people, atheism killed millions of people. Therefore, atheists cannot be good people, since atheists like Stalin and Mau killed millions of people.
See how your logic adds up?
The frustrating thing is YOU DON'T KNOW THE DOCTRINE ON THE AFTERLIFE YET HAVE THE NERVE TO TALK AS THOUGH YOU ARE WELL INFORMED ON WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT THE AFTERLIFE. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ON HELL, OR THE RESURRECTION, OR THE NEW HEAVEN AND NEW EARTH.
YOU DON'T KNOW OF THE IDEA OF HELL ORIGINATED AND HOW THE IDEA HAS CHANGED OVER THE YEARS IN.
DON'T GET INTO SUBJECTS YOU DON'T KNOW OF, WITH MISINFORMED PRESUPPOSITIONS.
I'm not talking about gods of any religion. I'm talking about the ultimate God who has revealed Himself in time. There are objective arguments to conclude an ultimate God, so it is not my subjective and distorted belief.
"Everything we know of your God does not verify that God is holy, good, and merciful."
You don't know anything about God and therefore cannot reach that conclusion.
By saying we do not have objective morality, you answered "yes" to my questions. That would make you an immoral person in the eyes of the world that reasons that denying food to a starving child would be wicked in all circumstances and that raping a woman would be wicked in all circumstances.
As for your "side step" in bringing up those who cannot reason morality due to their mental state or other reason, the unusual doesn't determine the norm. If I state that all dogs bark, the statement is true even though there may be a few dogs that cannot bark for one reason or the other. When I say that people can reason right from wrong, the statement is true even though there are is a minority that cannot do so one reason or another. That there are some who are mentally impaired to reason that stealing, cheating, and killing are wrong only means they cannot do so because they are impaired, not that stealing, cheating, and murder have not been understood in a universal sense.
And people are afraid of homosexuality. Cultures all over have expressed some homophobia. And this is perhaps due to the social biology that you have been arguing for. Cultures have likely favored heterosexual relationships over homosexual relationships because heterosexual relationships lead to the next generation which would sustain the culture. Cultures have also likely done so because homosexuality blurs their understanding of gender essentialsim. You cannot just say that the world has been negative toward homosexuality because they are bigots. That is just a terrible argument.
And social deviance is about deviating from the norms of a society. If you had a society that practiced child sacrifice for example, opting not to participate in the practice would be deviating from the norm of the society. Child practice is not moral. Therefore it doesn't follow that social deviance is necessarily moral.
That social biology may lead to practices such as child sacrifice, which is generally an evil thing, points to the obvious truth that morality was not an invention of our social biology. If morality were simply based on social biology then we wouldn't be able to speak on morality since societies have developed practices that aren't always moral. Based on the fact that humans have a general consensus of right and wrong that transcends their culture speaks volumes for objective morality.
THE ROCKY ROAD ICE CREAM WAS A BAD IDEA. LETS NOT EVEN TOUCH THAT AGAIN.
Ultimately, when interpreted correctly, the Bible can be a good reference for morals.
The statistics you presented on prayers coming through is simply nonsense. I'm sure the stats doesn't cover that there are many prayers not answered until many years after they are said. What if the 30% percent fall into that category? If you read the Bible, you will find that many times people waited for for years before receiving an answer.
"Right? Yet nothing happens. Note that if we take the Bible less-than-literally here, the statement "nothing will be impossible to you" becomes "lots of things will be impossible to you," and that would mean that Jesus is lying."
Jesus was speaking directly to his apostles when he told them that the prayer of faith would accomplish anything they set their mind to. And it so happened that all the great miracles recorded in "the Acts of the Apostles" were fulfillment of those things Jesus had promised.
When Jesus said that anything asked in his name would be granted, he was telling the truth in that many outstanding results have been accomplished in the name of Jesus, since the apostles have passed away. There are many accounts of miracles happening after the apostles in St. Augustine's City of God. There have been many other miracles established since then in the name of Jesus, up to modern day, some of which I have personally witnessed. But since your fond of calling people liars to further your "hardness of heart," you will also say that I'm lying.
Jesus didn't mean that we had an unlimited wish-list. There is a text in James that addresses those who don't receive answers to their prayers: those who pray amiss, missing the will and purpose of God. You see many pray for stones to turn into bread instead of understanding why Jesus didn't do so, even though he had the power to.
Prayers are most powerful when they are humble and to better others. When we seek the kingdom of God first in our praying our prayers are more readily answered.
Speak for yourself when you say that prayers don't work, because prayers have always worked for me.
"The Bible also says burn in hell if you don't believe in God. What does that have to do with loving others?"
Common man, the Bible doesn't say that. If you want to have a sensible conversation, don't misquote or misrepresent the Bible.
"Christianity had nothing to do with abolitionism, they were Christians before they took slaves."
Christianity had no influence on ending slavery?" Common man, do the research before you say something that stupid.
"So, you must be saying that the only repentance that works is toward the people you have wronged and God has nothing to do with it."
Well, the Bible says the all of morality is summed up loving others in the same way that we love ourselves.
"The "Whites" have repented toward those that were enslaved and God has nothing to do with it."
Actually God had plenty to do with it in that abolitionism had Christian influences. And Newton converting to compose "Amazing Grace" shows that Christian influence.
"If you permanently destroyed a soul than that's one thing, but doing something to the temporary realm is another."
There is actually a teaching on the complex subject of the afterlife called annihilationism, which is where I lean toward. In the teaching, all wicked people are destroyed, and the context of forever is in that the effect is permanent.
"So, even if all the people you wronged still remember all the bad stuff you did, as long as you repent to God, everything is ok?"
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said everything is okay, but that reparation was the necessary in owning up to an evil consequence upon repentance.
Returning to the example of slavery, I said, that Whites today generally don't think like their prejudiced fathers is an example of what repentance means. And that Whites have generally stood by Blacks in making sure the enjoy the same civil rights that Whites do is an effort in reparation. It doesn't negate the evil of slavery but remedies for the evil effect of it.
Newton who wrote "Amazing Grace" did so out from remorse from being a slave trader. He turned from his ways and encouraged the abolition of slavery. Does that take away from what he did to the slaves while he was a trader? No. But his sincere actions must also be taken into consideration, that he realized and did his best to change and address that evil.
It has everything to do with what we are talking about and I know what I'm talking about. You are making statements on the afterlife without really knowing much about the doctrine on the afterlife.
How can you know whether it is just or unjust if you don't even know the doctrine(s) on the afterlife?
"I didn't argue there weren't souls."
You said we can't verify that a soul exists. Make up your mind so that we can have a conversation. Stop moving the post.
If you want to talk about eternal justice, we must first establish the premise of the soul. If we establish the premise of the soul, the deeds of the soul would have eternal consequences.
"Will you please make up your mind. Do souls get punished forever or do they come back to Earth?"
I have made up my mind long time ago. The Bible speaks of the resurrection and all souls returning to earth. You don't seem to know much about Christian doctrine, yet seem eager to speak evil of it.
