O�Rourke: Churches Should Lose Tax-exempt Status

[Charles]

What?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+1&version=NIV

[seer]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...+1&version=NIV

I know the passage well, but what is your point?

[Charles]

I know the passage well, but what is your point?

Go back and see if you can spot the contradiction: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post685104

You claim: "Well Jim there is no evidence that anything beyond this universe exists and this universe is finite." Quite different from the passage you know "well".

[seer]

Go back and see if you can spot the contradiction: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post685104

You claim: "Well Jim there is no evidence that anything beyond this universe exists and this universe is finite." Quite different from the passage you know "well".

Sheesh Charles we speaking of anything physical, like a multiverse or a cyclical universe.

I was answering this by Jim L:

The believers argument is that the universe had to be created, had to have a beginning, because otherwise, if it is eternal, its cause and effect nature would go on ad-infinitum, an infinite regression, which is an impossibility.

[Charles]

Sheesh Charles we speaking of anything physical, like a multiverse or a cyclical universe.

[seer]

Right, and I was making the point that there isn't any evidence for anything PHYSICAL before this universe, that gave rise to this universe. What don't you get?

[Charles]

Right, and I was making the point that there isn't any evidence for anything PHYSICAL before this universe, that gave rise to this universe. What don't you get?

Here is what you said: "Well Jim there is no evidence that anything beyond this universe exists and this universe is finite."

There is no point in claiming that you are only talking about what is "PHYSICAL" when you say "ANYTHING".

[seer]

Here is what you said: "Well Jim there is no evidence that anything beyond this universe exists and this universe is finite."

There is no point in claiming that you are only talking about what is "PHYSICAL" when you say "ANYTHING".

Charles go back and look at the context:

Post 509: An infinite regression of past physical events that led to this present universe.

Post 510:Yes it could be a cyclic series of big bangs and crunches or a infinite series of events within a multiverse that give rise to smaller bubble universes within the larger multiverse.

Post 512: Jim's argument is that if an infinite regression of physical events is impossible so would God's thoughts if they too were an infinite regression. If not an infinite regression then the claim is that God thoughts would be static, impossible to act on.

In context Jim was defending the possibility of an infinite regression of physical events, I made the point there there is no evidence of such. Get it now?

[Charles]

Charles go back and look at the context:



In context Jim was defending the possibility of an infinite regression of physical events, I made the point there there is no evidence of such. Get it now?

[seer]

1. I was answering Jim's point about the infinite regression of physical events. PERIOD.

2. I was not originally making point about God, but about the physical regression. Jim jumped to the idea that I was including God in that when I never said that.

3. I made the point I wasn't, and that God would not be open to such scientific investigation in any case to clear up his misunderstanding.

Remember Jim said:

The believers argument is that the universe had to be created, had to have a beginning, because otherwise, if it is eternal, its cause and effect nature would go on ad-infinitum, an infinite regression, which is an impossibility.

I said:

Well Jim there is no evidence that anything beyond this universe exists and this universe is finite.

Why would any one assume that I was saying that there was no evidence for God when he was speaking of the infinite regression of physical events?

[JimL]

And how do you know that? If God knows everything - if He knows your name, my dog's name, etc... what is that knowledge but thoughts?

Because if they, i.e. a gods thoughts, are eternal, then there can be no process called "thinking". Thinking is a process that takes place in time and the resultant thoughts/reasons/actions are therefore temporal in nature as well. If you want to argue that a god thinks and reacts to temporal events then said gods nature would need be defined as temporal as well. Also, with respect to knowledge, if a god knows your name, your dogs name etc... and has known those things as well as all things eternally, then not only is he not thinking or reacting to temporal events, that eternal knowledge would simply mirror temporal events.

[Teallaura]

So, you're admitting that there is no evidence of a god. Wow, that's amazing, seer. I know how difficult it is, and how much courage it takes, for a believer to finally admit that to himself. Good man.

Er, Jim, quantum physics kinda rests on there being something beyond the universe.

[JimL]

Er, Jim, quantum physics kinda rests on there being something beyond the universe.

That depends upon what it is that you are defining as the Universe, Tea. What, if anything, is beyond this universe, may be nothing more than more universe which may itself be eternal and infinite..

[Tassman]

What does any of this have to do with whether adultery is sin or not? It was a sin when Edward did it and a sin when Trump did it.

You can read the same thing I did. Kidnapping is a sin (in both testaments) a sin that drew the death penalty in the Old Testament. And most of the slavery in the West was based in kidnapping.

Nope, I never said that slavery (or all forms of slavery) were in the category of a universal moral wrong. Men often sold themselves into slavery or indentured servant hood for benefit, like not starving. But man-stealing which constituted the basis for slavery in the US is.

This is what you think nowadays. It is NOT what Christian slave-owners thought two hundred years ago. The bible has always been viewed through the lens of current social mores and moral attitudes.

And that is the point isn't, it is all relative and the Jews were no more correct than the Nazis.

Tass stay on topic. You were making the argument that the death penalty was vengeance, it is not, a life for a life is perfectly just. And turning the other cheek is how a Christian should personally act, not taking the law in his own hands.

right?

Not rules for the State. If the State took no retaliation, as turning the other cheek suggests, we would have to let the murder go free of consequences. A State initiated death penalty is not necessarily immoral.

[seer]

Tass, that has nothing to do with the fact that Christians still think that adultery is a sin. And who were Christians supposed to vote for Hillary? Don't be daft...

This is what you think nowadays. It is NOT what Christian slave-owners thought two hundred years ago. The bible has always been viewed through the lens of current social mores and moral attitudes.

What are you taking about? I can show the salve owners the texts on manstealing - whether they repent is on them. We know that greed is a powerful motivator.

Right and when one group of organic algorithms slaughters another group of organic algorithms - no biggy.

right?

Again Tass, you brought up turning the other cheek, and that has nothing to do with what the State does or doesn't do. And an eye for an eye, in context, is about not taking personal action. And a life for a life is just, as you already agreed. And what is the big deal - we are merely assemblages of organic algorithms...