Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[NotfooledbyW]

i. A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it. 190627 {post•34}. ding Jun’19 Soloaa: You mean like right and wrong? dvng 190627 Saloaa00034

ii. A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it. 190627 {post•35}. alang1216 Jun’19 Valoaa: It appears from all that people of faith post here that they are not seeking truth, they're starting from a place of faith and it is that faith that provides their truth. When truth is already known and doesn't need to be validated, nothing is unimaginable. vlvng 190627 Valiaa00035

iii. Separation of Church and State? 240811 {post•270}. Meriweather Aug’24 Ssocass: Same response. Atheist philosophy has no belief in God or the next life. People of faith hold the philosophy of salvation, redemption, and a continuation of life. mrwthr 240811 Ssocas00270

iv. Separation of Church and State? 240811 {post•271}. Donald H Aug’24 Vsocas: What could you possibly have in mind that wouldn't be common to atheists too, having to offer the state? dnldh 240811 Vsocas00271

v. Separation of Church and State? 240812 {post•301}.

NotfooledbyW Aug’24 Vsocas: 1787 August 10. (Jefferson to Peter Carr). "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Jefferson described himself as “a real Christian,” although he was certainly aware that his beliefs were unconventional. “I am of a sect by myself,” he said.

Jefferson believed that human reason was the arbiter of religious truth and rejected key tenets of orthodox Christianity, including the Bible’s divine origins, the deity of Christ, original sin, and the miraculous accounts in Scripture.

vi. A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it. 190627 {post•41}. ding Jun’27 aloaa: The definition of Natural Law which is also known as the Law of Right and Wrong and the Moral Law is a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal; it exists independently of human understanding and is very much a foundation of all religions. dvng 199627 saloaa00041

vii. A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it. 190719 {post•289}. ding Jul’19 Saloaa: If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation. dvng 190713 Saloaa00289

viii. Separation of Church and State? 240812 {post•301}.

NotfooledbyW Aug’24 Vsocas: Paragraph vii. above is a beautiful assembly of beautiful paragraphs that Saint_Ding has blessed us with. But much of it is meaningless Gobble Dee Gook of a faith based person trying to find some scientific sociologically relevancy. Such as Saint_Ding says “….each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted” but Jefferson doesn’t; I don’t. Saint_Ding is confused perhaps being raised Catholic in the Evangelical hoodwinking wing of Christian Biblical Worldview by tying all who do not feel the Kingdom of God as he does; to Marxism.

The very last sentence in the above paragraph vi. tells me that Saint_Ding lovingly grasps the concept of Jeffersonian and Madisonian separation of church and state; but then his voting ideological preference goes politically to the white evangelical culture war side that is seriously
biblically driven to join church and state together. Always in a position to Marxism!

Jefferson’s rational worldview provided the guidance for we the people who most benefited from his rational creative genius.

We are all free to be in a ‘sect of one’ or choose to be in a sect of many of our own choosing. The ultimate sect of one is an individual with freedom of conscience where he has a natural right to believe what his conscience dictates to believe. One singje agnostic person is equal in status to all the Christians who go to Trump rallies, storm the Capitol and vote to MAGA.

Thomas Jefferson was farther away from the Catholic Church than any American atheist of today. Jefferson lived in a world dominated by European church states wherein pure ‘rejection of God’ atheism was rarely found to exist. Too many of the Bible, believing Christians who knew of Jeffersons heresy easily labeled him as an atheist. Saint_Ding labels Jefferson a Christian as part of the American Christian Heritage and other false Christian claims.

nfbw 240812 Vsocas00301

 

[Donald H]

i. A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it. 190627 {post•34}. ding Jun’19 Soloaa: You mean like right and wrong? dvng 190627 Saloaa00034

ii. A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it. 190627 {post•35}.
Ok alang1216 Jun’19 Valoaa: It appears from all that people of faith post here that they are not seeking truth, they're starting from a place of faith and it is that faith that provides their truth. When truth is already known and doesn't need to be validated, nothing is unimaginable. vlvng 190627 Valiaa00035

iii. Separation of Church and State? 240811 {post•270}. Meriweather Aug’24 Ssocass: Same response. Atheist philosophy has no belief in God or the next life. People of faith hold the philosophy of salvation, redemption, and a continuation of life. mrwthr 240811 Ssocas00270

iv. Separation of Church and State? 240811 {post•271}. Donald H Aug’24 Vsocas: What could you possibly have in mind that wouldn't be common to atheists too, having to offer the state? dnldh 240811 Vsocas00271

v. Separation of Church and State? 240812 {post•}.

1787 August 10. (Jefferson to Peter Carr). "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

Jefferson described himself as “a real Christian,” although he was certainly aware that his beliefs were unconventional. “I am of a sect by myself,” he said.

Jefferson believed that human reason was the arbiter of religious truth and rejected key tenets of orthodox Christianity, including the Bible’s divine origins, the deity of Christ, original sin, and the miraculous accounts in Scripture.

vi. A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it. 190627 {post•41}. ding Jun’27 aloaa: The definition of Natural Law which is also known as the Law of Right and Wrong and the Moral Law is a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct. As determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be objective and universal; it exists independently of human understanding and is very much a foundation of all religions. dvng 199627 saloaa00041

vii. A lot of Atheist and agnostics just don't get it. 190719 {post•289}. ding Jul’19 Saloaa: If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation. dvng 190713 Saloaa00289

viii. Separation of Church and State? 240812 {post•}.

Paragraph vii. above is a beautiful assembly of beautiful paragraphs that Saint_Ding has blessed us with. But much of it is meaningless Gobble Dee Gook of a faith based person trying to find some scientific sociologically relevancy. Such as Saint_Ding says “….each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted” but Jefferson doesn’t; I don’t. Saint_Ding is confused perhaps being raised Catholic in the Evangelical hoodwinking wing of Christian Biblical Worldview by tying all who do not feel the Kingdom of God as he does; to Marxism.

The very last sentence in the above paragraph vi. tells me that Saint_Ding lovingly grasps the concept of Jeffersonian and Madisonian separation of church and state; but then his voting ideological preference goes politically to the white evangelical culture war side that is seriously
biblically driven to join church and state together. Always in a position to Marxism!

Jefferson’s rational worldview provided the guidance for we the people who most benefited from his rational creative genius.

We are all free to be in a ‘sect of one’ or choose to be in a sect of many of our own choosing. The ultimate sect of one is an individual with freedom of conscience where he has a natural right to believe what his conscience dictates to believe. One singje agnostic person is equal in status to all the Christians who go to Trump rallies, storm the Capitol and vote to MAGA.

Thomas Jefferson was farther away from the Catholic Church than any American atheist of today. Jefferson lived in a world dominated by European church states wherein pure ‘rejection of God’ atheism was rarely found to exist. Too many of the Bible, believing Christians who knew of Jeffersons heresy easily labeled him as an atheist. Saint_Ding labels Jefferson a Christian as part of the American Christian Heritage and other false Christian claims.

Further on the separation of church and state: 200 years ago there was no need because the two were the same and disagreed on practically nothing in America.

200 years in the future there will be no need once again because the Christian Americans will be so few as to make the question irrelevant.

To Trump's credit, he has speeded up the process with his proclamations of turning to dictatorship at least temporarily.

 

[BreezeWood]

No, they aren't. They are diametrical opposites.

what are, nature and communism ... you are thinking of texas and drowning illegals in the rio grande.

 

[BreezeWood]

Incorrect. The underlying premise of Marxism is satisfaction of material needs and primitive instincts. The underlying premise of natural rights is that they come from the Creator. Marxists see no duty or obligation to the Creator. The founding fathers of freedom and liberty did.

for you that is king george and desert christianity -

neither marx nor the founding fathers fostered in the least way your interpretation of nature and natural.

 

[Foxfyre]

Science challenged religious beliefs in the 'Dover vs. Kitzmiller' court over religion's pseudo-science of I.D.

That resulted in one warning shot across religion's bow, sufficient for the church.

And now, as Meriweather maintains, religion can't be discussed as an alternative to modern science.

But you are free to try if you think you can prove otherwise. I can either let it go or not.

That wasn't science doing the challenging. That was anti-religious activists doing the challenging. It requires critical thinking to know the difference between the two.

 

[ding]

what are, nature and communism ... you are thinking of texas and drowning illegals in the rio grande.

Natural rights and communism are diametrically opposed. I come from an immigrant family. Maybe you are confusing drowning Christians.

 

[ding]

for you that is king george and desert christianity -

neither marx nor the founding fathers fostered in the least way your interpretation of nature and natural.

That's exactly what I would expect a Marxist to say.

 

[BreezeWood]

That wasn't science doing the challenging. That was anti-religious activists doing the challenging. It requires critical thinking to know the difference between the two.

have you considered re-enrolling in supplementary education ... miracles are possible even for the slow learners.

 

[ding]

have you considered re-enrolling in supplementary education ... miracles are possible even for the slow learners.

Marxists are subversives. They attempt to subordinate Christianity because Christianity is a threat to Marxism.

 

[Donald H]

That wasn't science doing the challenging. That was anti-religious activists doing the challenging. It requires critical thinking to know the difference between the two.

Anti-religious activists basing their case on proven science, if you wish?

Christian ID'ers had their day in court but they weren't permitted to get away with their fraudulent attempt to invent their own science.

 

[ding]

Thomas Jefferson was farther away from the Catholic Church than any American atheist of today.

Incorrect. Thomas Jefferson and Catholics:

1. Believe in the existence of a creator.
2. Believe that the creator is moralistic.
3. Believe that the creator is providential.
4. Believe that natural rights come from the creator.

Atheists believe none of that.