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