O’Rourke: Churches Should Lose Tax-exempt Status

[seer]

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.

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

[seer]

I don't follow - how does that lead to infinite regression? Is this related to omniscience?

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.

[seer]

That’s not what I said. What I said was that social values among Christians re divorce and remarriage have changed significantly over time. In short, your so-called God-given unchangeable moral values on this and many other things demonstrably change.

Again Tass, no, adultery is still sin. But like all sin it can be forgiven.

But the Christians who owned slaves for centuries disagree. They justified their slave ownership by scripture. See above re God’s so-called unchanging morality.

Nonsense Tass, I gave you clear texts from both the Old and New Testaments. And not everything in Scripture has to do with God's moral law.

It is all relative in your world too, witness the changing moral attitudes re slavery over the millennia.

No Tass, in my world there are universal moral truths to be discovered. Whether we get them right all the time or ignore them for selfish reasons does not change their existence. Just as the laws of logic are universal whether we get them right or misunderstand them.

How silly you are. Human significance is NOT “merely a matter of opinion”. It has evolved as an essential part of our genetic make-up.

That is just stupid - if it is an essential part of our genetic make-up then why did the Nazi slaughter the Jews?

Except that you as a Christian are compelled to “turn the other cheek” in all instances.

So you agree that a life for a life is just. Good...

[JimL]

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.

Exactly. And again, you only have the two alternatives, either eternal or temporal.

[Teallaura]

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.

Okay, got it. Well, the gist, anyway.

I'm not reading 20 pages of this and I don't expect you guys to rehash it for me.

I still owe Lurch a look at some stuff...

[Teallaura]

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.

Exactly. And again, you only have the two alternatives, either eternal or temporal.

Ah, okay. Thanks guys!

[seer]

Exactly. And again, you only have the two alternatives, either eternal or temporal.

Again Jim, if God's thoughts are eternal what does that lead to?

[Tassman]

Again Tass, no, adultery is still sin. But like all sin it can be forgiven.

What I said was that social values among Christians re divorce and remarriage have changed significantly over time. E.g. adulterer and divorcee Donald Trump was voted into power with the support of the Christian Right. Whereas a generation ago Edward VIII was forced to abdicate his throne by the Church of England over the issue of marrying a divorcee. See the shifting standards of scripturally based public moral values among Christians?

Nonsense Tass, I gave you clear texts from both the Old and New Testaments. And not everything in Scripture has to do with God's moral law.

How do you know you’ve understood the texts correctly? Christian slave-owners thought they’d got the scripture right. They fought a civil-war over it.

No Tass, in my world there are universal moral truths to be discovered. Whether we get them right all the time or ignore them for selfish reasons does not change their existence. Just as the laws of logic are universal whether we get them right or misunderstand them.

It is demonstrably untrue that "in your world" you have universal moral truths in scripture, e.g. against slavery. Christian slave-owners justified their behavior with scripture for centuries. You can’t both be right.

That is just stupid - if it is an essential part of our genetic make-up then why did the Nazi slaughter the Jews?

As far as the Jews were concerned their lives were just as significant as those of the Nazis that slaughtered them.

So you agree that a life for a life is just. Good...

Why would you think a “life for a life” is good when Jesus enjoined you to “turn the other cheek” and NOT to demand an "eye for an eye"? Yet another example of scripture being in conflict with changing social values.

[seer]

What I said was that social values among Christians re divorce and remarriage have changed significantly over time. E.g. adulterer and divorcee Donald Trump was voted into power with the support of the Christian Right. Whereas a generation ago Edward VIII was forced to abdicate his throne by the Church of England over the issue of marrying a divorcee. See the shifting standards of scripturally based public moral values among Christians?

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.

How do you know you’ve understood the texts correctly? Christian slave-owners thought they’d got the scripture right. They fought a civil-war over 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.

It is demonstrably untrue that "in your world" you have universal moral truths in scripture, e.g. against slavery. Christian slave-owners justified their behavior with scripture for centuries. You can’t both be right.

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.

As far as the Jews were concerned their lives were just as significant as those of the Nazis that slaughtered them.

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

Why would you think a “life for a life” is good when Jesus enjoined you to “turn the other cheek” and NOT to demand an "eye for an eye"? Yet another example of scripture being in conflict with changing social values.

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. 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.

[JimL]

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

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.

[JimL]

Again Jim, if God's thoughts are eternal what does that lead to?

It leads to them to not being thoughts which are the result of a temporal process called thinking.

[seer]

It leads to them to not being thoughts which are the result of a temporal process called thinking.

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?

[seer]

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.

You missed the point, God is not physical and hence could not be proven by scientific inquiry. But if these past universes or a multiverse are physical you would need physical evidence.

[Charles]

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

Romans 1

19 For what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts.…

[seer]

Romans 1

What?