[FrenchPatriot]

God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

Our literature is rife with criticisms of God’s laws denouncing them as immoral.
This is mostly done by non-believers and secular law makers and even many believers. The whole world has rejected the morality of God’s law.

Satan shall deceive the whole world. That is scripture.

Believers say that God’s laws are moral; yet very few believers are trying to push for adoption of God’s laws by secular governments.

If believers believed that God’s laws are moral, it follows that they would be trying to have them implemented by governments. Strangely, they do not.

Can a believer believe in God yet not believe in his laws?

No believer is living by God’s law.

If believers believe in God’s laws, should believers be living by them?

Law without punishment is impotent law.

Should believers demand that secular law use God’s punishments where those few laws are basically identical?

Regards
DL

[ShepherdsDog]

Survey says.....

[martin14]

[Gunnair]

Man,it 's like the neighbours yappy little dog that just barks for the sake of barking.

[Wada]

The God I've read about in the Bible had no morals.

[sandorski]

Wada Wada:

The God I've read about in the Bible had no morals.

Indeed. In fact, it seems quite indistinguishable from any other "god" of the period. The only remarkable thing about it is that people still adhere to its' poorly conceived "teachings".

[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

Wada Wada:

The God I've read about in the Bible had no morals.

Indeed. In fact, it seems quite indistinguishable from any other "god" of the period. The only remarkable thing about it is that people still adhere to its' poorly conceived "teachings".

Why? What has led you to the conclusion you have cornered the market of good sense here? Fact is your preaching doesn't offer them anything - just your belief that nothing exists for them outside their narrow reality. You cannot prove they are wrong in what they believe and most people with some form of religious faith recognize the laughable arrogance evangelical atheists indulge in when they chase down religious folk and offer the same old same old of angry denials without proof.

Evangelical Atheists seem to be the biggest bunch of bitchy Buzz Killingtons that I've come across in their need to attack faith whenever and wherever they see it even if its just walking by and not bothering them.

[Zipperfish]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Why? What has led you to the conclusion you have cornered the market of good sense here? Fact is your preaching doesn't offer them anything - just your belief that nothing exists for them outside their narrow reality. You cannot prove they are wrong in what they believe and most people with some form of religious faith recognize the laughable arrogance evangelical atheists indulge in when they chase down religious folk and offer the same old same old of angry denials without proof.

Evangelical Atheists seem to be the biggest bunch of bitchy Buzz Killingtons that I've come across in their need to attack faith whenever and wherever they see it even if its just walking by and not bothering them.

I predict the response will be "fail."

[sandorski]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Why? What has led you to the conclusion you have cornered the market of good sense here? Fact is your preaching doesn't offer them anything - just your belief that nothing exists for them outside their narrow reality. You cannot prove they are wrong in what they believe and most people with some form of religious faith recognize the laughable arrogance evangelical atheists indulge in when they chase down religious folk and offer the same old same old of angry denials without proof.

Evangelical Atheists seem to be the biggest bunch of bitchy Buzz Killingtons that I've come across in their need to attack faith whenever and wherever they see it even if its just walking by and not bothering them.

I predict the response will be "fail."

It could be, but I'll refrain this time.

I can't "Prove" that someone who claims Abduction by Aliens wasn't abducted or that someone hasn't seen Bigfoot. Sorry, someone's anecdotal "evidence" means bupkiss.

You claim the Atheist position is "arrogance". What is more arrogant? :

1) Accepting Reality based on what can be observed

2) Claiming connection to a Supernatural force which gives commands that must be obeyed by all, but no evidence can be offered to verify the existence of it. You simply must accept it, or else.

[Zipperfish]

sanfailski sanfailski:

Zipperfish the Mighty Zipperfish the Mighty:

I predict the response will be "fail."

It could be, but I'll refrain this time.

I can't "Prove" that someone who claims Abduction by Aliens wasn't abducted or that someone hasn't seen Bigfoot. Sorry, someone's anecdotal "evidence" means bupkiss.

You claim the Atheist position is "arrogance". What is more arrogant? :

1) Accepting Reality based on what can be observed

2) Claiming connection to a Supernatural force which gives commands that must be obeyed by all, but no evidence can be offered to verify the existence of it. You simply must accept it, or else.

fail.

Seriously, though..."accepting reality based on what can be observed" would be an agnostic position (from the Latin "not knowing"): Anything beyond what can be sensed is simply not known and no claim can be made upon it. Atheism ("no god"), OTOH, is a positive refutation of a God or gods. Since a God or gods may exist outside of the observable universe (we cannot prove otherwise), and since atheists refute that god, then atheists, quad erat demonstratum, are accepting a reality beyond which they can observe.

You lose because I used quad erat demonstratum in argument.

[sandorski]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

sanfailski sanfailski:

Zipperfish the Mighty Zipperfish the Mighty:

I predict the response will be "fail."

It could be, but I'll refrain this time.

I can't "Prove" that someone who claims Abduction by Aliens wasn't abducted or that someone hasn't seen Bigfoot. Sorry, someone's anecdotal "evidence" means bupkiss.

You claim the Atheist position is "arrogance". What is more arrogant? :

1) Accepting Reality based on what can be observed

2) Claiming connection to a Supernatural force which gives commands that must be obeyed by all, but no evidence can be offered to verify the existence of it. You simply must accept it, or else.

fail.

Seriously, though..."accepting reality based on what can be observed" would be an agnostic position (from the Latin "not knowing"): Anything beyond what can be sensed is simply not known and no claim can be made upon it. Atheism ("no god"), OTOH, is a positive refutation of a God or gods. Since a God or gods may exist outside of the observable universe (we cannot prove otherwise), and since atheists refute that god, then atheists, quad erat demonstratum, are accepting a reality beyond which they can observe.

You lose because I used quad erat demonstratum in argument.

Fail.

Atheism = Not Theism (Theism = Belief in God)
Agnosticism = Not Knowing

[ShepherdsDog]

There are even subtler differences of agnosticism. There is atheistic agnosticism and theistic agnosticism. Both believe it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a deity, so they really don't worry about it and feel that those who go on about it are silly shits, wasting their time and the time of others.

[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Why? What has led you to the conclusion you have cornered the market of good sense here? Fact is your preaching doesn't offer them anything - just your belief that nothing exists for them outside their narrow reality. You cannot prove they are wrong in what they believe and most people with some form of religious faith recognize the laughable arrogance evangelical atheists indulge in when they chase down religious folk and offer the same old same old of angry denials without proof.

Evangelical Atheists seem to be the biggest bunch of bitchy Buzz Killingtons that I've come across in their need to attack faith whenever and wherever they see it even if its just walking by and not bothering them.

I predict the response will be "fail."

It could be, but I'll refrain this time.

I can't "Prove" that someone who claims Abduction by Aliens wasn't abducted or that someone hasn't seen Bigfoot. Sorry, someone's anecdotal "evidence" means bupkiss.

You claim the Atheist position is "arrogance". What is more arrogant? :

1) Accepting Reality based on what can be observed

2) Claiming connection to a Supernatural force which gives commands that must be obeyed by all, but no evidence can be offered to verify the existence of it. You simply must accept it, or else.

You are argue points from what is clearly a very limited understanding of what religion and faith is. If you want to try and score points from your very limited macro approach, good luck. Faith is not a simple as you make it out to be, though I suspect you do so to help you make a case that against a more nuanced set of beliefs, would fall utterly flat.

[sandorski]

Gunnair Gunnair:

sandorski sandorski:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I predict the response will be "fail."

It could be, but I'll refrain this time.

I can't "Prove" that someone who claims Abduction by Aliens wasn't abducted or that someone hasn't seen Bigfoot. Sorry, someone's anecdotal "evidence" means bupkiss.

You claim the Atheist position is "arrogance". What is more arrogant? :

1) Accepting Reality based on what can be observed

2) Claiming connection to a Supernatural force which gives commands that must be obeyed by all, but no evidence can be offered to verify the existence of it. You simply must accept it, or else.

You are argue points from what is clearly a very limited understanding of what religion and faith is. If you want to try and score points from your very limited macro approach, good luck. Faith is not a simple as you make it out to be, though I suspect you do so to help you make a case that against a more nuanced set of beliefs, would fall utterly flat.

Then spit it out, what is it?

[Gunnair]

sandorski sandorski:

Gunnair Gunnair:

sandorski sandorski:

It could be, but I'll refrain this time.

I can't "Prove" that someone who claims Abduction by Aliens wasn't abducted or that someone hasn't seen Bigfoot. Sorry, someone's anecdotal "evidence" means bupkiss.

You claim the Atheist position is "arrogance". What is more arrogant? :

1) Accepting Reality based on what can be observed

2) Claiming connection to a Supernatural force which gives commands that must be obeyed by all, but no evidence can be offered to verify the existence of it. You simply must accept it, or else.

You are argue points from what is clearly a very limited understanding of what religion and faith is. If you want to try and score points from your very limited macro approach, good luck. Faith is not a simple as you make it out to be, though I suspect you do so to help you make a case that against a more nuanced set of beliefs, would fall utterly flat.

Then spit it out, what is it?

To what end? Who lined you up as judge and jury for faith? How are you even remotely qualified?