"Christian values in America are under attack, these days"??

Great Debates
141

Well, thank you for witnessing. I don’t agree, and hold that the definition you have put forward is self-contradictory. If God is all-loving, then he is incapable of stopping the harm that comes to people. If God is all-powerful, then his love is not sufficient to cause him to stop the harm that comes to people.

The “problem of pain” demolishes the tri-omni definition of God.

This, too, is a highjack that doesn’t advance this thread, and I apologize for perpetuating it. Let me just append “In My Opinion” to what I’ve written here, and also note that, while I disagree with your faith, I have learned, over the years, to respect it.

i.e., I don’t agree with the articles of your faith, but I don’t have any serious beef with your values. I actually share a great many of your values.

142

So

It’s kind of like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich that got run over by a car?

143

Noticed you left out omnibenevolent. God is supposed to care, right? So what’s the deal with infant terminal cancer?

So he can’t fix, won’t help, or doesn’t know about suffering in little kids with Non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

It’s beyond our understanding, right? Then why use any Earthly logic to describe good things that happen as gods mercy?

144

Who is to say the generations to come are succeeding the previous? You have no clue what direction the world is headed so to say a view of the world is fallacious would be a fallacy of its own.

145

Because he’s all mysterious. And shit.

146

Sounds like Glenn Beck.

147

Do you mind mentioning that they also refused to provide contraceptives— and that many of the arriving minors had been raped on the journey? And the problem is that they were reviving government funds to provide comprehensive healthcare, and then providing something other than that?

148

Sure. But in your second example, they defiantly don’t have the right to receive government funding for what they provide.

149

Yeah, ITR Champion, would you mind sharing your feelings about anchor babies, while we’re at it? What should happen to a person born in the U.S. because his minor mother was raped and the a Catholic charity illegally refused to provide emergency contraceptives? Should they get shipped back to Mexico? If so, how soon? Who pays for it?

150

You’re ignoring the second half of my question: “have they been refusing to defend the religious freedom of Catholics while defending the religious freedom of other groups in parallel situations?” If they are suing Catholics or Catholic organizations for acting in ways that inhibit people exercising their rights when those people have not freely accepted this restraint, but when people of other religions or organizations formed to further other religions’ aims have done that same, the ACLU has defended them, that would be anti-Catholic.

As it stands, it looks to me like the ACLU is anti-religion-overstepping-its-bounds without regard to which religion is doing so, i.e., by imposing its rules on non-practitioners; you can argue that the Church wasn’t doing that, but that’s not the same as claiming the ACLU didn’t genuinely believe the Church to be doing that.

Admittedly, this problem is more likely to come up with some religions than with others; it is my understanding that the vast majority of Christians in the U.S. (particularly if Mormons and JWs count as Christians, which I would say they do) belong to churches that have as a point of belief that everyone is or ought to be Christian, or that the laws and doctrines of Christianity are intended for or applicable to all humans, whereas other religions may not have that belief.

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
The ACLU, naturally, filed a harassing lawsuit aiming to cut off federal funding for this charitable effort, because the Catholic Charity groups weren’t providing abortions.
[/quote]

… to that population, when that was among the services they were tasked with providing to that population if they wished to participate in the program. It’s not like the charities wore saying “we don’t believe in abortion” and the government or the ACLU was punishing them merely for holding that belief.

(Also, the Washington Times?)

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I do not know whether the ACLU has similarly harassed members of other religious groups in parallel situations, or whether any other group has even been in a parallel situation, but obviously attempting to force Catholic charities to perform abortions is anti-Catholic bigotry.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not so obvious that I see it.

No he(?) isn’t. He’s saying that providing certain services or types of care to anybody is against their religion. It should in principle only happen to come up with non-Catholics because receiving those services is also against the Catholics’ religion, but the Church-run organizations aren’t denying the services because they only serve Catholics.

151

I have. The article I linked to does not say that the Catholic charities at the center of the case signed a contract which required them to provide abortions. It says they contracted with the federal government. It does not say that the contract in question involved anything about abortions. In fact it says, “Legal experts say that despite the contract agreement, federal law protects USCCB’s religious rights”.

152

This is irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

153

No where does the Bible say God is always benevolent (it does say the He is merciful, but it also describes Him as jealous and frightful). The Old Testament lays ground for understanding God’s power. Our world is greatly populated. There is a need for researchers for several hundred (if not, thousands) of people who have to create jobs. A job to create a job… (stated there sounds minute, but the complexity of thousands of people trying to create new jobs (with a growing population and no restriction) is great and surely not a great foreshadowing. If this doesn’t sound right maybe you’ll consider this… there are those who still exist who would unquestionably murder an infant (Sharon Tate and her unborn child). Which sounds better? Cancer in your youth when pain will most likely be minimal or brutal murdering.
I don’t know how the greater scheme of life works for sure, but somewhere I’m certain there is a balance that must maintain certain equilibrium. Where this may sound simple the witnessing of terrible things like being rapped and maimed (or murdered) creates complexity.

If he were to fix everything in the blink of an eye then we wouldn’t exist with purpose. Something God tells us is very important to each individual life (read Romans through to James in the New Testament - lots to read, but with the worry you’ve expressed here I don’t think it’ll be a too tough for you). Somethings are beyond our understanding. Astrophysics is a foreign language to me and I don’t quite know why pairing one’s socks and folding them together is mandatory for some people - I assume my shoes hide this indiscretion, but there may be some walking around making mention of wicked tyrants, refusing to pair their socks (I hope you’re laughing a little here). If there were one person who knew everything ever known to any and every person ever to have and still in existence there would still be one thing he/she wouldn’t truly know… why. What would God put us here or keep us here if he was unhappy with us? Why would God allow bad things to happen to such good people and why isn’t marijuana mentioned in the bible? Again I hope you got a little chuckle.

We use “Earthly logic” (mainly verbal communication) to connect with each other and in ways connect with the spirits and to come to know the Holy Spirit. Whether or not that was intended to have happened before creation is unknown and irrelevant because putting masters of various intellect aside you have missing links; malicious misinformation (or the destruction of good, truthful information); and an eternity of unknowns that separate us from the past. We can only go so far before records fade or history books become vague on times, dates, and cultural structures. Defining God’s mercy isn’t something we do when mentioning good things. This is when your mind comes to accept the existence of true evil or have become enslaved by persecution (remember - forgive as we are forgiven; you could say God will grant mercy in times of repent if we are able to forgive other’s wronging). The darkest evil (truly) can only be refuted by God’s mercy. Faith hope and love are the most important things in life (Einstein describes God in an awesome manner - try searching Albert Einstein’s proof of God and you should find a generous reconciliation of Einstein’s rebuttal with his college professor). I hope this wasn’t too painful to read if read at all. I truly hope this helps you find a relationship with God and the acceptance of Christ. God bless you

154

One mean this one from Snopes? Sorry, it’s been discredited. Perhaps you haven’t seen some of Einstein’s letters on his personal religious matters.

155

No… I am talking about the account of Einstein describing God in terms of life and death.

Einstein is asked if he believes in God and he replies, ‘sure’. Then he was asked if people were good or bad. Then if God created man. If God were giver of life and death and so on to describe death as evil and then question God’s purpose for death if not evil in self. Last he ask if Einstein has ever seen God and how could we be certain he isn’ evil or if he exist at all if we have never seen him.

Einstein cleverly rebukes by questioning if there was such thing as ‘cold’. The professor answers yes. Einstein reminds him that cold only exists in the absence of heat. You can have more heat, super heat, mega heat or no heat, but there was nothing we call ‘cold’. The lowest recorded temperature is -458 degrees (measured in heat). That cold was not the opposite of heat but rather the absence of it. He goes on to give the same intellect to the comparison of light and darkness. Stating that we only have darkness in the continual absence of light. Einstein continues with the following great argument:

‘Your philosophical premise is flawed to start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed.’ When asked how he replies… ‘You are working on the premise of duality,’ the student explains… ‘You argue that there is life and then there’s death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can’t even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but it has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, just the absence of it.’

Continuing he states that teaching evolution would make the professor a preacher in that he teaches opinion and not fact. Finally getting the professor to accept faith as the tie between man and God and as the means to perpetual life Einstein concludes with this…

‘Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?’ Now uncertain, the professor responds, ‘Of course, there is. We see it every day. It is in the daily example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.’

To this the student replied, ‘Evil does not exist sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God’s love present in his heart. It’s like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.’

156

That account is false. It never happened. It is just a clever story someone made up to justify religious belief.

157

You say no, but then go on and talk about the very story that Snopes uses as an example that discredits the one attributed to Einstein.

Give me a credible link anywhere where Einstein is supposed to be claiming what you stated with the college professor where he is rebutting him, and giving him his proofs of God.

158

You obviously didn’t bother to read the snopes link. As others have said, it never happened.

159

You want to give a cite for this story? Because it sounds to me like a bit of Christian fiction about the foolish atheist professor and smart Christian student with Einstein crammed in somehow.
Einstein very clearly stated that he used God as a metaphor and that he did not believe in the Western God.

By the way, evolution is fact, not opinion. Saying otherwise is the basest of ignorance. If you’d like to be tutored in this subject I can open a new thread where many will help you to understand reality.

160

BTW, the bible says a lot of things. Psalms 145:17 describes God as omnibenevolent here and in other various places with that being one. E.g., the New American Standard Bible, translates it as follows: The LORD is righteous in all His ways And kind in all His deeds.

But he isn’t always good in your eyes? Is he just good some of the time, most of the time? If so, why call him God?