O’Rourke: Churches Should Lose Tax-exempt Status

[JimL]

Tass you are not listening, even if Christians give in to cultural pressure it does make it right. Even if Christians don't rightly understand the law of God that in no way changes His law. If all Christians, tomorrow, decided that adultery was perfectly moral that doesn't magically make it moral or less sinful..

And the reverse would also be true. Even if god decided tomorrow that adultery was perfectly moral that wouldn't magically make it moral. It's considered immoral for a reason not because god says so.

1. I don't care about deterring others, just preventing the murderer or rapist from hurting anyone, again.
2. What is the cause and effect concerning the states without the death penalty? Why does not having the death penalty lower murder rates? How?

Is that what god did to Cain when he slew his brother? Thou shalt not kill.

And China is gaining wealth and power because of capitalism. Point made.

Regulated capitalism is a good thing, unregulated, not so much.

No, technology (born through free markets) has given us a reach and power no country has had in history. And we are still the greatest power on earth, militarily China is not even close.

What's your point?

But again, the religious in Norway would be happier than the non-religious in Norway. And like I said the happiness index is bunk. Who cares, who says happiness is the goal?

The Declaration of Independence, not to mention common sense.

[seer]

And the reverse would also be true. Even if god decided tomorrow that adultery was perfectly moral that wouldn't magically make it moral. It's considered immoral for a reason not because god says so.

Nonsense Jim, we have been through this before. He can not just decide that adultery is moral because His law is a reflection of His immutable moral character.

Is that what god did to Cain when he slew his brother? Thou shalt not kill.

For whatever reason God was gracious to Cain, He did however institute the the death penalty in the Mosaic Code...

Regulated capitalism is a good thing, unregulated, not so much.

We agree

What's your point?

That we are the greatest country in earth because of free markets. Socialism never made anything great - it only sucks off of capitalism.

The Declaration of Independence, not to mention common sense.

The DoI doesn't say that happiness is the goal only that you are free to seek it. Really Jim, in your life is your personal happiness the dominate goal of your life?

[NorrinRadd]

I believe that is the first time I have ever seen the word patriarchalists used in a discussion.

I have tired of the "complementarian" circumlocution, though I still occasionally deign to lower myself to use it. Someone over at Patheos -- maybe Scot McKnight, but I'm not sure -- documented that it was probably egalitarians who first used the "complementary" language, because we don't mean that "equal" means "same" or "indistinguishable." A few on the "other side" do admit that "complementarian" is just a nicer term for "patriarchalist."

[NorrinRadd]

Utter dung, invented to accommodate the 'wisdom' of this age.

[Tassman]

Tass you are not listening, even if Christians give in to cultural pressure it does make it right. Even if Christians don't rightly understand the law of God that in no way changes His law.

And just what is God’s Law, it has varied enormously over the course of Judeo/Christian history?

1. I don't care about deterring others, just preventing the murderer or rapist from hurting anyone, again.

If such people are removed from society and incarcerated then they are not in a position to re-offend. Execution is merely vindictive and vengeful.

2. What is the cause and effect concerning the states without the death penalty? Why does not having the death penalty lower murder rates? How?

This is what the statistics from many countries indicate…as previously linked.

And China is gaining wealth and power because of capitalism.

China is a Communist dictatorship. And the unfettered capitalism of the US is of little benefit to the bottom half of society.

No, technology (born through free markets) has given us a reach and power no country has had in history. And we are still the greatest power on earth, militarily China is not even close.

The history of great empires is that they decline and their place taken by an emergent power. China is currently emerging just as the 20th century saw the US overtake the British empire.

But again, the religious in Norway would be happier than the non-religious in Norway.

Not according to the Happiness and Human Development Indices. A happy life is about more than just shallow pleasure. It encompasses your health, your prosperity, and safety for you and your family. In these areas the US is well down the list compared to secular nations such as Norway.

who says happiness is the goal?

The DOI for one. It refers to three examples of "unalienable rights", namely "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ".

[JimL]

Nonsense Jim, we have been through this before. He can not just decide that adultery is moral because His law is a reflection of His immutable moral character.

Yes, we have been through this, and your answer is always illogical. That a possible god couldn't decide otherwise is naught but to say that a possible god doesn't have free will, that a possible god couldn't choose is a god that isn't omnipotent, and can't be defined as good, because such a god has no power to choose. Your idea of god is that of an unthinking, unreasoning, determined entity. A person is good, not because they do the good, but because they choose to do the good, if their choices are absolutely determined by their inherent nature, then their choices may be good, but they themselves are basically nothing but a program.

For whatever reason God was gracious to Cain,

So then, morality is dependent upon reason?

He did however institute the the death penalty in the Mosaic Code...

So said Moses anyway. Yes the bible has many contradictions.

We agree

And along with regulated capitalism, the governments concern to provide for the general welfare is important.

That we are the greatest country in earth because of free markets. Socialism never made anything great - it only sucks off of capitalism.

The greatest country on earth is the country where the people who make up that country are the happiest, not the country with the most wealthiest people in it. We are one of those countries, certainly not the greatest, and it has been changing for the worse because the wealthiest people in it are controlling it to their personal advantage.

The DoI doesn't say that happiness is the goal only that you are free to seek it. Really Jim, in your life is your personal happiness the dominate goal of your life?

Of course happiness is the dominate goal, which is why the pursuit thereof is in the DoI, and why you want to go to heaven.

[seer]

Yes, we have been through this, and your answer is always illogical. That a possible god couldn't decide otherwise is naught but to say that a possible god doesn't have free will, that a possible god couldn't choose is a god that isn't omnipotent, and can't be defined as good, because such a god has no power to choose. Your idea of god is that of an unthinking, unreasoning, determined entity. A person is good, not because they do the good, but because they choose to do the good, if their choices are absolutely determined by their inherent nature, then their choices may be good, but they themselves are basically nothing but a program.

Jim God can do anything that is within His ability/nature to do. He for instance can not lie, does that make Him less powerful? Perhaps, but it would make Him less trustworthy. And again Jim, just because He can't lie by nature or be unjust by nature doesn't mean He is determined in all aspects of His nature (as we also have discussed). And if you require freewill for goodness in all cases then in your materialistic world no one chooses good - it is all determined. If you think otherwise show how free will is possible in materialism.

So then, morality is dependent upon reason?

Well God certainly reasons based on His moral character. He is both just and forgiving.

So said Moses anyway. Yes the bible has many contradictions.

Show me the contradiction. How is being gracious to Cain a contradiction?

The greatest country on earth is the country where the people who make up that country are the happiest, not the country with the most wealthiest people in it. We are one of those countries, certainly not the greatest, and it has been changing for the worse because the wealthiest people in it are controlling it to their personal advantage.

Stop whining...

Of course happiness is the dominate goal, which is why the pursuit thereof is in the DoI, and why you want to go to heaven.

Dominate according to whom? And of course going to heaven will make one happy, or being in the presence of God will fulfill the Christian. Yet we may have to reject many things in this life that makes us happy. An attractive, willing lady with and a twelve year old Bunnahabhain would do it for me, but I must resist. But in your world there is no objectively right way to be or act. Happiness is completely subjective, what floats your boat may not float a Maoist's boat. So appealing to what makes you happy is like telling us your favorite food. How is that meaningful? But according to the Christian there is a right way to be, and that being happy results in acting in accordance to the way we were created to act.

[Tassman]

Dominant according to whom?

In your case “dominant” according to selfish escapists who want to go postmortem to their fictional heaven and live forever with an imaginary deity. For those of us in the real world “happiness” is about maximizing one’s health, prosperity, and safety for our family and loved ones in the here and now.

[seer]

In your case “dominant” according to selfish escapists who want to go postmortem to their fictional heaven and live forever with an imaginary deity. For those of us in the real world “happiness” is about maximizing one’s health, prosperity, and safety for our family and loved ones in the here and now.

And Christian's don't want health, prosperity, and safety for their families? The problem with arguing with a moral relativist like you Tass is that you have no rational justification for your ethical positions. You call Old Testament law "primitive." But that makes no sense - logically what makes modern moral views more correct than primitive? You can not make a case without first begging the question. There are no universal right or wrongs in your world so all morality, at bottom, is about personal preference. You might as well be arguing that vanilla ice cream is superior to chocolate.

[JimL]

Jim God can do anything that is within His ability/nature to do. He for instance can not lie, does that make Him less powerful?

Yes, it makes god less powerful.

Perhaps, but it would make Him less trustworthy.

Makes him less powerful nontheless. Not omnipotent. Lacking free will. Determined.

And again Jim, just because He can't lie by nature or be unjust by nature doesn't mean He is determined in all aspects of His nature (as we also have discussed).

Of course it does, you can't both have and not have free will.

And if you require freewill for goodness in all cases then in your materialistic world no one chooses good - it is all determined. If you think otherwise show how free will is possible in materialism.

We are directed whether by free will or determination to act according to our collective best interests. To our good!

Well God certainly reasons based on His moral character. He is both just and forgiving.

So, what makes right, god or reason?

Show me the contradiction. How is being gracious to Cain a contradiction?

Hypocrisy.

Stop whining...

Not an answer.

Dominate according to whom? And of course going to heaven will make one happy, or being in the presence of God will fulfill the Christian. Yet we may have to reject many things in this life that makes us happy. An attractive, willing lady with and a twelve year old Bunnahabhain would do it for me, but I must resist. But in your world there is no objectively right way to be or act. Happiness is completely subjective, what floats your boat may not float a Maoist's boat. So appealing to what makes you happy is like telling us your favorite food. How is that meaningful? But according to the Christian there is a right way to be, and that being happy results in acting in accordance to the way we were created to act.

I think Tass says it clearly enough in the above post #398.

[seer]

Yes, it makes god less powerful.

So one is more powerful if he or she lies?

Makes him less powerful nontheless. Not omnipotent. Lacking free will. Determined.


Of course it does, you can't both have and not have free will.

Actually that doesn't follow. If a science invented a pill that prevented you from ever lying again would that prevent you from being free in other areas or your life and personality?

We are directed whether by free will or determination to act according to our collective best interests. To our good!

Jim that is not what we were talking about! You said that good was not good if it was not freely chosen. That does not follow...

So, what makes right, god or reason?

It is not either or. God's moral nature coupled with His reason and His omniscience (knowing all long term consequences of every moral act). And remember Jim your ethical opinions are also grounded in your moral nature and reason. If you were not inclined to moral thinking by nature you wouldn't have moral opinions.

Hypocrisy.

Why is it hypocrisy? Be specific.

Not an answer.

Jim I'm not half a Commie like you.

I think Tass says it clearly enough in the above post #398.

And you make about as much sense as him, see my reply....

[JimL]

So one is more powerful if he or she lies?

No, one has no power, if one has no choice.

Actually that doesn't follow. If a science invented a pill that prevented you from ever lying again would that prevent you from being free in other areas or your life and personality?

You can't both have and not have free will.

Jim that is not what we were talking about! You said that good was not good if it was not freely chosen. That does not follow...

No, I said god was not good if he didn't freely choose to be good. What a one does may be good, but he himself can't be defined as good unless he freely chooses good.

It is not either or. God's moral nature coupled with His reason and His omniscience (knowing all long term consequences of every moral act). And remember Jim your ethical opinions are also grounded in your moral nature and reason. If you were not inclined to moral thinking by nature you wouldn't have moral opinions.

Does a moral omniscient being reason?

Why is it hypocrisy? Be specific.

It's unjust.

Jim I'm not half a Commie like you.

Unfortunately, whatever half a commie is, you are worse for supporting and defending a treasonous enemy and underminer of democracy.

And you make about as much sense as him, see my reply....

Thank you for the compliment.

[seer]

No, one has no power, if one has no choice.

So in materialism you have no choice - so you have no power? Hitler had no power?

You can't both have and not have free will.

That is not an answer Jim. If there was a pill that prevented you from lying - how does that prevent you from being free in other areas? Be specific please. Would it prevent you from freely choosing pizza over steak for instance?

No, I said god was not good if he didn't freely choose to be good. What a one does may be good, but he himself can't be defined as good unless he freely chooses good.

So we can call no human good since we are all determined in materialism?

Does a moral omniscient being reason?

Yes, I assume that He uses His knowledge to come to conclusions, as well as His intuitive moral sense. Just as you use your knowledge and inherent moral sense.

It's unjust.

Why? According to your personal notion of justice? Remember Cain was ignorant of God's law against murder at that point. But you moved the goal posts - you went from hypocrisy to being unjust. Make up your mind James

Unfortunately, whatever half a commie is, you are worse for supporting and defending a treasonous enemy and underminer of democracy.

So you just had to bring it all back to Trump? Weak Jim, weak...

[Tassman]

And Christian's don't want health, prosperity, and safety for their families?

They seem more concerned with personal salvation and eternal life than with the health, prosperity, and safety of their communities and loved ones.

The problem with arguing with a moral relativist like you Tass is that you have no rational justification for your ethical positions.

The problem with arguing morality with the likes of you, seer, is that your so-called morally eternal, unchanging divine laws are NOT eternal and unchanging. They have varied enormously over the course of Judeo/Christian history.

There are no universal right or wrongs in your world

Nor are there universal right or wrongs in your world, just subjective interpretations of the bible according to the social values of the day.

[Tassman]

That is not an answer Jim. If there was a pill that prevented you from lying - how does that prevent you from being free in other areas? Be specific please. Would it prevent you from freely choosing pizza over steak for instance?

If a deity is defined as omnipotent and omniscient but is limited in any area at all, such a the inability of choosing to lie, then that individual ceases to be an omnipotent and omniscient deity. Such an entity is reduced to being NEARLY an omniscient and omnipotent deity but not quite 'cutting the mustard'.