Dear CB friends please comment if you are experienced with discussing A B or C.: A is proving Spiritual Healing through Christ instead of arguing over proof of God.
B. is whether Govt is Christian or secular or both.
And C is using language of laws to communicate on common principles that exist without govt or religion.
If you already know of threads on these, please tag me or post links where I can read and catch up. Thank you!
========POST A:
Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
REPLY A:
As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.
We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God
Or we fail to resolve our differences.
Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.
POST B:
Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.
Reply B:
Maybe secular or nontheist.
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.
Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.
The First Amendment goes both ways:
With NO LAWS respecting either Establishment of Religion OR Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.
Neither can Govt Establish Nor Prohibit.
True separation means neutral.
It does not mean imposing either Atheism or Theism, but using agreed secular "nontheistic" terms that accomodate both.
Terms like Equal Justice Under Law accommodate those who believe in Social Justice, Equal Justice, Restoratie Justice, Jesus as Justice, Retributive Justice, Peace and Justice, Justice with Mercy, etc.
Justice is still a faith based term never seen or proven to exist.
But we agree to use this secular term.
It is neither atheist Christian or theist.
I would call it nontheist but it still allows Christians and Deists to tie it to God or Jesus as the Authority of Justice by those beliefs.
So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.
POST C:
.
there would be no need for the 1st amendment if that were true.
REPLY C:
Yes, the way I see interpret and apply the First Amendment is as self existent natural laws on self govt that don't depend on govt for these laws.
We naturally have the ability to exercise all the principles in the 1A. So if we follow these natural laws by universal authority of Justice or Jesus, then that covers everything else.
We don't even need the 1A to establish these laws that naturally exist and operate.
We just use the written terms and language in the 1A to communicate and agree on principles.
Similar to not depending on the Bible but living by God's word and laws that are represented and taught using it as a tool.
The natural laws are self existent and operate and govern humanity. With or without the 1A Bill of Rights or rest of the Constitution used as tools to check govt against abuse of political or collective imfluence and authority.
B. is whether Govt is Christian or secular or both.
And C is using language of laws to communicate on common principles that exist without govt or religion.
If you already know of threads on these, please tag me or post links where I can read and catch up. Thank you!
========POST A:
Has anyone provided a proof of God's inexistence?
Not even close.
Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.
Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life?
Not even close.
Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought?
Close enough.
Has rationalism in moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral?
Not close enough.
Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.
Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy of thought and opinion within the sciences?
Close enough.
Does anything in the sciences or in their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational?
Not even in the ballpark.
Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt?
REPLY A:
As stated before, neither existence or nonexistence of God can be proven or disproven. The meaning of God being infinite and eternal, beyond the limits of finite human perception and language, all this we refer to remains faith based.
We either agree with each other, based on our faith, that we are talking about the same concepts or manifestations of God
Or we fail to resolve our differences.
Either way, a more practical application of faith in Christ that CAN be proven to have direct benefits and effects measurable by science: we can focus on proving how spiritual healing works to restore health minds, bodies and relations. Since this spiritual healing is based on forgiving conflicts from the past, it also heals relationships between people. We could study this natural healing process. And use that to demonstrate how prayers in Christ work. Understanding the nature of the spiritual process takes the same steps as understanding God and Christ.
POST B:
Western Civilizations ARE atheistic. Separation of state and church remember? As far as I can tell, throughout history, religion has almost always been a hindrance to progress.
Reply B:
Maybe secular or nontheist.
Tolerating and including atheism is not atheist but universal or secular.
Plenty of Christians both left and right still support separating govt from church.
The First Amendment goes both ways:
With NO LAWS respecting either Establishment of Religion OR Prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof.
Neither can Govt Establish Nor Prohibit.
True separation means neutral.
It does not mean imposing either Atheism or Theism, but using agreed secular "nontheistic" terms that accomodate both.
Terms like Equal Justice Under Law accommodate those who believe in Social Justice, Equal Justice, Restoratie Justice, Jesus as Justice, Retributive Justice, Peace and Justice, Justice with Mercy, etc.
Justice is still a faith based term never seen or proven to exist.
But we agree to use this secular term.
It is neither atheist Christian or theist.
I would call it nontheist but it still allows Christians and Deists to tie it to God or Jesus as the Authority of Justice by those beliefs.
So the govt and Constitutional laws can still be interpreted as consistent with Christianity and Deist beliefs equally as Atheists or Nontheists can interpret it as nonreligious.
POST C:
.
.
there would be no need for the 1st amendment if that were true.
REPLY C:
Yes, the way I see interpret and apply the First Amendment is as self existent natural laws on self govt that don't depend on govt for these laws.
We naturally have the ability to exercise all the principles in the 1A. So if we follow these natural laws by universal authority of Justice or Jesus, then that covers everything else.
We don't even need the 1A to establish these laws that naturally exist and operate.
We just use the written terms and language in the 1A to communicate and agree on principles.
Similar to not depending on the Bible but living by God's word and laws that are represented and taught using it as a tool.
The natural laws are self existent and operate and govern humanity. With or without the 1A Bill of Rights or rest of the Constitution used as tools to check govt against abuse of political or collective imfluence and authority.
