Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As a small technical point I will cede I could have used different phraseology than "by definition" to express the truth that the concept of morality springs from religion.
Were you around in the 14th. century to witness the birth of morality? Again, ever read the classics? They predate the 14th. century by a heap of years. To continue to argue this absurd point weakens your argument considerably.
When the Bible was written not just some "form of morality" was injected into it. It was and is the inspired Word of God.
And if you had carefully read my last post I asked not whether you had read the Bible but whether you had seriously studied it.
BTW, congratulations on owning a Bible. It's a start. Small seeds sometimes do grow in poor soil but it may take a long time.
It's been a long day, and I'm finally home from BTR and IAD. I'm impressed that there are so many here with so much to say. Since we have veered into the Bible, and the truth of God, there is an important aspect to consider: there is no proof. That's right, no proof at all. Why? Because scripture tells us that God doesn't require a follower who KNOWS his truth because he has seen it and had it "proved" to him. Instead, he requires one who TRUSTS, one who has FAITH. I can't convince cjh that God is his creator, or that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, or that the gospel lays out the only plan of salvation. So, if this is what we are arguing now, we can say our peace and sit down.
Men cannot change hearts, only God can do that. He can use a man to begin the job, but it is God who always seals the deal.
We can however, debate the constitution and the intention of the founders. Somewhere it was mentioned that the right to freedom of religion and the establishment clause amount to a separation of church and state. I suppose there is some support for that idea. The problem I see is that the establishment clause is currently being interpreted in a way that the founders could never have expected or intended. As I see it, there is a tremendous difference between naming "an official religion of the United States", which was the meaning which was intended by the founders (it is very clear, and unambiguous) versus the idea that a teacher leading her class in prayer constitutes making that an "official" endorsement of a particular religion, which is NOT what was intended. The teacher and the students have as much right as anyone in our country to the free practice of religion. Many may not like that, but that is what was intended. A Christmas tree on a public area is not a sactioning of an official religion. If it were, you could be routed from your homes and forced to stand around it and sing.
Yes, times have changed a great deal from when I was in the fourth grade compared to a fourth grader in the 1990's. I think there is a direct connection between the departure of our nation from the moral moderating force of faith and the negative changes (from a Biblical perspective) in our society. Very shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Madelaine Murry O'Hare, we began to see a breakdown in the family. We felt justified to follow our every desire, and soon, we were completely unashamed of any chosen behavior. Slouching Toward Gommorah, by Robert Bork, will give you a firm foundation in understanding this trend. It explains the breakdown of the moral and cultural restraints that helped to guide our daily behavior for most of our country's history.
So, if we decide to steer this thread back to a more civil, less strident tone, like we had earlier, I may have more to add. At this point, I'm emphatic that no one will be convinced in our current attempts to prove or disprove scripture. There are lots of website where there are attempts to dissemble scripture, saying "ah HA! You SEE? This is obviously wrong, and you are a fool to believe!!" What people fail to realize is that Satan is VERY clever. Although he is not God's "equal" he is much more clever than we are, and he will use that cleverness, that apparently "perfect sense" argument, to mislead as many people as possible. You can beware the dark side, skywalker, but there is no need to beware "Luke".
Is there any more futile an act than to spend more than a minute trying to convince an atheist that God exists? Okay, maybe it's more futile to try and pull a Skyhawk with a hand towbar down the runway, expecting it to fly, but the God argument is a really close second.
How one can say as in one of the posts that God is cruel and evil is so off-base considering that God sacrificed His only Son so that we may live. The death and destruction written about in the Bible should be viewed as the evil brought into the world by man not living as God would have... but rather doing as Satan would have man do.
Those that say they are atheist always have alot to say about God and religion.....So much as to prove they really are not atheist but are squirming in their own dread of want they know is to come for themselves. God is loving and will forgive all if only a person will accept the gift of salvation- the gift being Jesus. All one has to do to recieve this gift is "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."