Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Ok, first I have to ask where in the bible did you find this line in the sand? Are you saying it does not matter how many people of other races die horrible deaths as long as 0 Jewish people have, that would remove the last barrier to faith for you?
How would I or you know. All I know is that there are thousands upon thousands who prefer one sex for a long time then another later on, some even switch back.
All this stuff is pure assumption and conveniently assumed in accordance with your world view. I on the their hand am taking them at their word. None of this matters anyway. Even if orientation was not a choice, it does not make it normal, nor does it mean acting on the desire is not a choice. We all have to restrain our sexual (and countless other) desires most of the time or what is currently merely awful would devolve into insanity. And none of this no mater the truth will force me to re-open the never ending debate again. This will end the discussion of that topic for me in this thread with you and I intend to repeat this statement to anyone who brings it up for now.
Not saying that at all. Where on earth did you come up with that?
Reagan and Churchill did (even the Bush's did "an also ran") but we do not do so with enough regularity today to even matter. It sure has not has not intimidated:
You must have the decoder ring.I think I understood what you were saying. No biggie.
I did not post what sex had the most aids, I don't see that is relevant. What is spreading it is.
That homosexuality increases............Oh no I don't.
Yes, but that is not what I was referring to as sensationalism. It was the claim you made that insinuated I or any Christian thinks atheists lack morals.
This would come down to subjective popularity. The idea that things evolve is very old but it was not always popular. I don't know where the line between popularity% and the requirement to develop social ethics based on it is. BTW I don't really call what Hitler did social Darwinism. He more or less took the idea of survival of the strong at the expense of the weak that any observation of nature can justify and extrapolated. That has been called social Darwinism in our time but the exact same idea could have existed without the label 4000 years ago.
Sure:
Yes and no. I do not like the country so much that I grew up in. It is still far better than most others but it was the nation as it pre-existed me that was so extraordinary. You can even see our entire cycle predicted in Taylor's history of Governments. This can get very complex. We have a crime rate, but can easily be seen as a function of greater personal liberty and the legal context that all men are presumed innocent, or Sweden's prosperity as mainly because they are sitting on huge untapped natural resources. The things you can say is the west has generally be founded on two primary things. Jerusalem, and Athens. I usually tack on Rome to those two but you get the drift. Good or bad Christianity has been at the heart of the western world.
I did not blame the immigrants though they are getting to be a burden. Secularism arose in the late 50's and you can track the downfall of just about every moral statistic from that time. Some are many times over worse. I have given hundreds and links to thousands of them but if you want to see the difference pick any weeks TV programming from 1950 and compare it to 2010. Short of porn and live dissections I don' think we can go any lower on broadcast programming. If anything is a moral barometer television is among the best.
It depends on what you mean by morality. If you mean ethics that a person can use preference and opinion to create then yes they can exist without God. If you mean objective moral duties and values that are true even if you or I do not agree with them then no.
I have seen many dozen hours of the best atheist evolutionists argue about morality from evolution. I am not coming to the issue blind. I need to know there is something meaningful in it to invest the time to read all of that stuff. There IMO is about a 95% chance that even if everything in the genetically theories the article assumes it still does not answer my questions because nature does not contain "shoulds". It does not contain a moral property in a single atop without God. If you want me to read it, please show me it does answer at least one of my questions. I get too many requests to read things that turn out not to answer or counter what I claim to get to them all and I find biology especially boring.
I never asked for them because that is not what was claimed. It was claimed evolution is the basis for law so I asked for one nation (beyond Hitler's horrific half attempt at it) of one. Of course many nations have based laws on non Christian foundations, I never suggested otherwise.
I am not debating that laws cannot exist without God. However most of those countries had a Christian period that is so intertwined with even their modern identities you can't call their political foundations secular.
You mean the 30 pages it linked to? If so please post the part that answered the question. I do not have time to read 30 pages of stuff.
Hey I admitted to be hyper technical. Since I could not remember what the argument was about I was leaving myself an out in it's premise. I do not doubt that even morality without God has more value than no morality without God. We just went through a weeks debate to arrive at where I started. With God we have objective foundations for actual moral truth, without him we have opinion based preferential ethics but without him that is the best we can do and should do it. Do we have an accord, matey?
Possibly. There are a few tangents where I know we won't agree but I am too tired to go back and find them. My original post where I quoted you was just debating the worth of subjective morality to begin with. So as of right now I think both our posts are in agreement.
Yes and that is what atheist do, they are intelligent enough to know what is right and what is wrong, where as the religious need a god.
Then I'll wait until you find the time. All of the pages answer in detail your question.
