Politics and religion - where should the two intersect?

[christofu92]

AMAMZING!!!!!!!!!!!

[boanerges144]

Great answer!

[chrisryan417]

funky, no offense, but that is the comment of a simpleton or a hard line cynic. Inherently, they are only the same in as much as they offer a framework whereby people can live their lives. A society in which they become the same is in trouble.

[WorshipInTruth]

Yes, religion should not be politicized. But politics needs God.

[fireariestwenty21]

the bible says a fool hates correction plain and simple

[shtizzle]

hasnt anyone heard of the separation of church and state? religion is the downfall of humanity. its the reason were at war. nothing good has ever come from religion. if there is some type of heaven as long as you follow the golden rule youll be there. i dont think puting money in a collection tray and having wierd cult-like rituals makes you a good person. just respect everyone and dont worry about the afterlife. we need to focus more on our future and our kids future

[Dooger1026]

@shtizzle You do not know The Constitution very well. No where in The Constitution are the words "seperation of church and state." This has only become an accepted theme since the 1940's (47 I think), when Progressives created the concept through judicial law making instead of "original intent" interpreting, which is their job. The original intent of the 1st Amendment was not to seperate church from government but to keep government from imposing a specific religion upon society, Learn history!

[drumrnva]

@Dooger1026 Yeah, those words were never in there. They were from a letter written to Baptists in Danbury, CT. The writer expressed a "reverence" for the 1st amendment. He believed that government was not to interfere with religion. What was his name again...hm...seems like he was connected with government somehow.

[y0nd3r]

no.

[nethaneld]

@y0nd3r This isn't a yes or no question lol.

[LeksServices]

I know what we need. We need more religious laws in this country! Certainly!

Sharia law, in the United States of America FTW!

{The crowd stands and applauds uproariously as religion has finally usurped total control of government, and people start chanting 'Sharia Law! Sharia Law! Sharia Law!'}

Yeah. Just the world you want to live in, right? RIGHT?

Oh, wait ... This is precisely why government and religion CAN NOT meet.

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

The reason to two cannot intersect is that religion does not stand up to scrutiny.

If you were to propose a new tax was needed you have to present a case for that action.

If any aspect of that case is based on an unfounded assertion it will not stand up to scrutiny.

[peacechild61]

"religion does not stand up to scrutiny"you say, Grand Supreme...well, watch the full range of Ravi Zacharias speaking about God and spirituality,and about the Bible as being so accurate(99.6%) that we can trust in it for our reason to believe in a higher power,meaning that is , historically,politically,philo­sophically,prophetically,the Bible is the ONLY Book of its kind that backs its followers with actual TRUTH....watch "Ravi Zacharias on the Bible "vid

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

Laughable.

Give me one example of truth in the bible.

Not a single historian from the time of Jesus makes even the slightest mention of his existence, the census at the time of his birth never happened, and don't even suggest that any of the tripe in the old testament actually happened.

[peacechild61]

go back to contemplating ur navel, GSD, you obviosly know nothing and you have never bothered to examine the historic accuracy of the Bible...I have...

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

I asked you to provide an example. You have not.

You can call me ignorant until you're blue in the face but if you want to prove it you have to offer evidence, or at the very least, refute the examples I gave of biblical falsehoods.

As for going back to contemplating my navel I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about.

[peacechild61]

the onus is on you to prove all things to yourself, not on me, I have not the time or interest, but ur claim no historians ever mentioned Jesus is wrong, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, wrote of Him,amongst others, google it, and make ur own conclusions,,and I don't remember calling you ignorant.GSD

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

No. The onus is on you. You are the one making the assertions. You claimed I know nothing, that would be when you called me ignorant.

Josephus made a passing reference to a Jesus, not only was it a common name, but the passage itself is considered unreliable at best, and fraudulent at worst!

Pliny was 10 when Jesus was executed and lived nowhere near the same area until middle-age. His reference was to christians, and provides no information on Christ.

[agnostaxian]

peace, you are exactly right. I love listening to atheists like Grand who say that Jesus never existed or that they Bible is not history. To say that Jesus never existed among scholars of the historical Jesus is like saying the apollo moonlandings of the 60's were staged at a CBS studio- laughable. The gospels and escpecially acts have huge historical support in general. Maybe many atheists are not the intellectual "grandsupremedaddyos" that they make themselves out to be.

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

I'm not disputing historical truths in scripture. But knowing one part is true does not support the other parts.

You could use that argument to support a belief that the events of Saving Private Ryan were accurate, after all, there really was a WW2, a massive beach landing in Normandy, a disastrous paradrop operation called 'market garden'.

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

You need to investigate further to establish if the characters were real. In both cases, if the stories told are accurate, there should be at least a reasonable amount of evidence to support the fact. And in both cases, there is not.

[agnostaxian]

Grand, have you studied any scholarly literature on the historical Jesus?

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

Josephus and Pliny the Elder are probably the best 1st hand sources I've been able to find and are the most referenced at least, other sources tend be more trouble than they're worth when you consider likely agendas and translational issues, but if you can expand my reading I'd be grateful.

[agnostaxian]

Grand, I did my masters thesis on the historical Jesus and my Doc dis on early Christianity, studying hundreds of scholars and dozens in depth and we actually can know alot about Jesus with a high degree of historical probability through what is called the historical-critical method. A good intro. book that outlines these priciples is EP Sanders "The Historical Figure of Jesus". Every historian will tell you that there is no "fly on the wall" objectivity (especially with ancient historians)

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

I'll give it a look thnx

[funkyplayer4212]

"Religion and politics are one and the same. They are just blind assertions glued together with irrational fears and false promises in order to earn some money, and to gain more power off the poor and powerless." And to answer the title of this video...The only place religion and politics should intersect is the trash can.

[curiosityversusfaith]

Ravi: 'Do we frame our culture within our world view in the religion that influenced it - Yes'

Sorry Ravi, this is such a misleading, obscuring and dangerous call. And it is typical for many theological ideas - unprecise, ambiguous and obscuring and thus dangerous - meaning so many things and nothing.

[SuperPatrick777]

why don't you try listening and get rid of your christian predjudice .

[curiosityversusfaith]

Sorry SuperPatrick777, but I was and am listening very carefully and critically.

What's wrong with beeing critical and commenting? Nobody is perfect - not even Ravi!

If you have an argument - present it and try to convince. And let's stay reasonable.

[JRJSRJ]

CVSF Name a society that has NOT framed its culture within its worldview. Ancient or modern. Present your facts if you have them and prove Ravi wrong. You make asserstions that you deem unchallengable and want the argument to be about your assertion, instead prove your argument true. You wont be able to. Even atheist Russia's worldview changed from when the religious Czars ruled it, now its changed again. Provide your proof and stop your generalizations which atheist love to hide in.

[curiosityversusfaith]

As long as theologians are talking about metaphysical entities like Gods, Demons, Angels, stating propositions that can't be tested or using unprecise language such as 'framing our culture' etc. they will have to bear the misery that is growing from their very own semantic seeds.

There is nothing to prove when something Ravi said is misleading to me - it is misleading to me - that's it. Maybe he can add something to make it less misleading.

[GrandSupremeDaddyo]

Atheists love to hide in generalisations?

Isn't that quite a generalisation you're making?

Or am I just generalising?

After all, I am an Atheist, you know what we're like!

[arktheball]

Haha I am a thiest, specifically christian, and that was well said sir, well said.

[curiosityversusfaith]

Ravi: 'What's happening, is a monopoly of those who do not give you the freedom to express your belief'

Sorry Ravi, but you are twisting the facts! Nobody challenges freedom of belief and speech not in the least! There is no institution that holds a monopoly like you insinuate! If you suggest 'framing our culture' by telling us, to abstain from critical thinking towards supernatural ontologies (theologies, religions), then sorry, that's something what science never will do.

[cromptonator]

@curiosityversusfaith

By saying that science will never give consideration to the supernatural you are contradicting the first part of your argument, which is that nobody challenges freedom of speech and belief. If an organization won't listen to theologians, that organization is challenging their freedom. Furthermore, listening to religious people does not mean you are abstaining from critical thinking. Part of critical thinking is being open to other ideas.

[curiosityversusfaith]

@cromptonator

You are right - all this (metaphysical and scientific) creativity is very usefull and necessary for our advancement. Everybody assumes and believes many things all the time and people can believe what they like. And it is everybody's freedom to not listen!

However, claiming that not listening is a challenge to freedom of others appears absurd to me. On the other hand, I agree, by not listening one might miss opportunities to benefits and advancements.

[planes3333]

@cromptonator

Exactly I am a Chistian and have read the bible. I am also reading the Quoran (in my spare time) so I can have an understanding of different belief systems!

[kamajiboy]

Jesus Alone Can Save

[manu191357]

Ravi:

You are also miss-picturing the situation of morals and human rights! Most of the bronce-age 10 commandments didn't fall from heaven, but were developed by people and later refined further against catholic (christian) power. And just think - it was the christians that led us into the Dark-Ages - it was the spirit of the enlightenment that had to bring us back to reason inspite of that religion.

So don't insinuate, that it is religion, that's giving us morals and ethics!

[SuperPatrick777]

ballderdash

[manu191357]

Is this your argument?

Not convincing to me!

[manu191357]

SuperPatrick777:

I have spent some time reading your claims. Not a single one is supported by at least some kind of argument or by intelligible evidence.

Wy don't you just try it - communication is more than a one-way street and its regulations are simple. If you want to achieve something then put some effort into producing credibility and reliability - otherwise you lose it.

[SuperPatrick777]

no one as blind as those who don't want to see , but remember one thing and remember it good , your soul is at stake .,[the pleasure is simply not worth the pain .

[manu191357]

Nice poetry! But I thought we were exchanging thoughts not threats!

Here is one for you.

Joh 8,7: So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

[manu191357]

Ravi:

Naturalism doesn't make any claim about the supernatural - that's the point. Thus, naturalism can't be a threat to supernatural ontologies.



The out-dated religious perceptions of our world (e.g. 6-day creation, ...) are not compatible with scientific knowledge. And that's the problem. As long as religion keeps out from making claims about the natural world, no conflict is to expect.

[SuperPatrick777]

the conflict is alway's going to be here as long as you keep spouting that evelution is true [ which is not ] .

patrick .

[luker4459]

I thought religion was a personal thing. Why should it be forced upon anyone?

Teaching it in schools and involving it in politics IS forcing it on people.

[asmith868]

No one should "Force" religion on someone else but what SHOULD happen is "education" of the religion. If you want to say teaching religion is 'forcing' it on someone, then we can say that teaching math is 'forcing' it on someone. Make sure not to equate 'forcing' with 'teaching/educating"

[luker4459]

Math is useful. Religion is not.

[asmith868]

That statement flies in the face of human experience and reality. Even if religious beliefs of God were proven false, the therapeutic aspect to religion is something that is demonstrably proven

[luker4459]

Religion itself flies in the face of reality.

It breeds intolerance. It encourages people to reject science in favour of bronze age myth. It holds us back and encourages us to remain in the dark ages. It creates job opportunities for conmen who take advantage of peoples gullibility. It creates reason for war. It's anti-free speech. Its the ultimate ball and chain of our civilisation. Its not a tool used for good.

Ask the women of islam whether they think religion is useful.

[asmith868]

I do agree with you that a lot of religions do fly in the face of reality. Many make bold claims and, unfortunately, do horrible things in the name of their beliefs. I completely agree with you about Islam (which is another topic :)). Even if were to grant its doctrine some time to be involved, its treatment of people (specifically women as you mentioned) are, in my opinion, immoral.

However,it seems to me your 2nd paragraph does not represent mere Christianity, but that of the radicals.

[luker4459]

"2nd paragraph does not represent mere Christianity, but that of the radicals."

Do you think creationists are radicals? There is a hell of alot of them, and they are trying to force their crackpot ideas into the education system.

[asmith868]

These things are very much in controversy within the christian camp as well. Some believe the bible allows for billions of years, and a local flood. The only one the bible doesn't mention is evolution, which doesn't mean its against it.

In response to the crackpots, I do agree. There are a lot of people misrepresenting doctrine and abusing gullible ppl who aren't well versed in the facts. But because you find ppl who are crackpots, doesn't do anything to disprove Christianity.

[luker4459]

"These things are very much in controversy within the christian camp as well"

Why? It clearly states these things in the bible. If the bible is wrong about the most fundamental of things, then why on earth should anyone take the rest of it seriously?

Christianity doesn't need disproving because it doesnt have any proof to start with.

[SuperPatrick777]

you mean you wish that was the case ,

patrick .

[luker4459]

Please provide me with a single piece of evidence accepted in the scientific community as evidence of creation. Just one.

[SuperPatrick777]

the bible does not allow for a local flood or billions of years appart for those trying to appease secular scienetists ,

patrick .

[SuperPatrick777]

the bible does not allow for billions of years or a local flood ,

patrick .

[asmith868]

Honestly, if you want to really get at Christian theology, go to its heart. Don't dismiss it because of 'popular' front men. Thats like me saying "Dawkin's is a jerk so evolution is dumb" (i don't claim that statement to be tru :)) If you want to truly discredit something, become an expert on it. To dismiss it because of bias/prejudices is the opposite of open-mindedness, in my opinion. If Christianity is a load of crap, researching its real flaws should be easy. Let me know what you find

[luker4459]

I think the question i have is absolutely valid and deserves a straight answer.

The bible claims that the earth was created in 6 days, 6000 years ago and that there was a global flood correct?

We can demonstrate this to be absolutely false, so i would like to know what reason does one have to trust the rest of the bible when the only parts of it that CAN be verified by science all fail?

This is not a strawman argument like your dawkins analogy. This is legitimate.

[asmith868]

Point me to where you found the 'absoluteness' to your claim. I've never heard any scientist, or scholar or philosopher make such a claim! I'm not trying to be a jerk, honestly i'd like to see it so I can know for sure myself.

[luker4459]

Type in age of the earth into google. Talkorigins is a good site and points to a number of peer reviewed scientific papers which all independently conclude that earth is much much older than 6000 years.

[asmith868]

Thanks man, i'll look into it.  :)

[luker4459]

Even by searching on youtube you will find videos which explain how those scientists came to those conclusions

[SuperPatrick777]

science has proved nothing about creation ,

patrick .

[luker4459]

I think its worth mentioning that the reason science has proved nothing about creation is not because there are no scientists willing to investigate - its because the evidence simply is not there.

Many scientists would love to find evidence of creation, but its just not there.

[asmith868]

There's nothing in the christian bible that rejects science and nothing in science has ever truly rejected Christianity. The only thing science can't prove (or disprove) is God's existence. Yet, with today's technology and sciences, much has been found to have theological implications. That's not anti-science, it's just looking to where the evidence leads. I encourage you to take a look into christian doctrine and find anything that supports what you just claimed about it, and let me know :)

[luker4459]

6 day creation? 6000 year old earth? Evolution? Global flood?

[SuperPatrick777]

what you are saying is simply not true , the freedom in the western world is built on a judea / christian framework , it has foundational laws [ absalute ] , not like the reletive upside down laws of atheism which has proved to be more dictorial then any looney religous cult etc .

[luker4459]

Way to avoid the question.

[SuperPatrick777]

i am not trying to avoid your question ,this site does not alway's allow you to reply ,the reply/ remove section is not alway's there as you may of experieced yourself ,

anyway back to your question , proof , well evedence for a creator is all around you ,from the universal laws to moral laws [ both absalute ] ,there is none in evelution [ just chaos ] , everything in life / creation is intelegence / infomation based there is no exceptions GOD is that ultimate inteligence and power .

[luker4459]

But i asked for a single piece of evidence accepted in the scientific community as evidence of creation. I said science finds no evidence of creation because the evidence is not there. You said that wasnt the case - so wheres the scientific evidence?

How on earth do you come up with morals as proof of a creator?

[SuperPatrick777]

what sort of evedence do you want ? GOD'S hand around your neck ,try reding my answer more closely

[luker4459]

Scientific evidence. The only evidence that has ever produced anything of value.

Your entire doctrine relies on the reliability of the word of man - the least reliable evidence of all.

[SuperPatrick777]

it is recorded history , the inspired word of GOD and not one jot or tittel has been disproved .

[luker4459]

Everything in the bible that CAN be verified by science have all failed. Global flood, 6 day creation, 6000 year old earth.

[SuperPatrick777]

it is faily obvious why , most scientists are GODless and are only interested in finding so called evedence that matches their preconceved ideas , scientists are only human and can be just as corrupt as anyone else .

[luker4459]

Science works by gathering a set of facts, and then grouping them into a set of rules called a theory. That theory is validated when predictions can be made about what should happen, or what they should expect to find if the theory is correct.

If it cant be tested and independently verified by other scientists (the mechanism science uses to ensure IMPARTIALITY), then its not science. This is why creationism is not part of science - not because the scientists are biased. Get it?

[SuperPatrick777]

evelution has no facts ,so were do you get your theory , at best you gather facts and come out with a twisted theory and find predictions to match your preconcieved ideas , their whole foundations are wrong because the heart is wrong , in the end you have only two choices , creation or blind chance and it is obvious what most scientists of today will choose .

[luker4459]

Evolution has no facts? Do you honestly think that? Because it really is a dumb thing to say and further sets in concrete your total willingness to accept things without question.

Here you are trying to say that evolution has no evidence and its all fabricated by preconceived ideas when in reality its religion who fits that description, not science and you need to realise that just because you dont understand something, doesnt mean its false.

[SuperPatrick777]

you bet i do , and i don't accept things without question [ i am too cynical for that ] , and of course do not uderstand everything about life but i do have reason and i have a good understanding about right and wrong and truth and falsehood ,and evelution does not make any sence what so ever ,it totally goes against natural law / to be con't

[luker4459]

Why does evolution not make any sense? It makes perfect sense when you examine the evidence across a number of different scientific fields. All of it is consistent with evolution and the almost everyone who denies evolution does so without even knowing the facts.

So please tell me why evolution does not make sense?

[SuperPatrick777]

facts !! that is the sixty million dollar question , it goes against all observational evedence [ entropy for one ],animals and all living things are made according to there " kinds " , they do not go out side of that '

[luker4459]

1) The observational evidence is what lead to and solidiifed evolution as an accepted theory.

2) Entropy has nothing to do with evolution - i bet you dont even know what it means.

3) What does the number of copies of the bible being sold have to do with anything? Please explain.

4) Creationism has no evidence thats why scientists dont want to hear about it. "God did it" does not cut it.

5) Please explain how the bible is more reliable than scientific research?

[SuperPatrick777]

what observational evidence ??????,everlution is a mathemathical impossibility ,

entropy has got everything to do with it unless evelution is out side of univesal laws , if the bible was found to be false in one jot or tittle it would of disapeared to obscurity along time ago ,instead it has grown stronger with time it's word is sharper than any two edged sword ,it has been scrutanised with a fine tooth comb ,it is 99 point five percent accurate to the oringinal greek and hebrew /to be con't

[SuperPatrick777]

con't , and the odd five percent is only sermantics, eg i will give you five hundred pounds ,i will give you five hundred pound , the bible talks about several points on science with amazing accuracy ,eg ; the balance of the earth , the equator , the earth being spirical , the earths water system , gravity, the stars differing in their glory ,and would you belive , the heavenly body's orbiting each other and traveling from one end of the heaven's to the other ,[ i wonder where einstein

[luker4459]

I'm not even going to comment on your claims that the bible is scientifically accurate because thats a crock of shit and the whole reason why science and religion dont align.

What i want to know from you is why you think entropy has anything to do with evolution. Please explain and stop avoiding the question.

"if the bible was found to be false in one jot or tittle it would of disapeared to obscurity along time ago"

It has been - but you get around that problem by "interpereting" it

[SuperPatrick777]

every thing in universe is breaking down total heat death , heading for total entropy [ total chaos ] , evelution is the opposite [ moving up ] , of course you seudoscientists are as per usual are changing the goal posts and saying that evelution does not work upwards at all and is even more random than before ,the theory is worse the a fairy tail and has caused more massacres then all religion put togeather , you people have a lot to answer for .

[luker4459]

"every thing in universe is breaking down total heat death"

That is called a hypothesis. Nobody knows what the fate of the universe will be yet.

Evolution on the other hand is not a hypothesis - it is an accepted, tested, predictable scientific theory (do you know what a theory is?). What i find hilarious is your attempt to use a scientific unknown to disprove a scientific known.

Evolution is driven by the environment. When the environment changes, animals adapt to it or die out.

[SuperPatrick777]

thank you ,you have just shot youself in the foot with a laws rocket ,

thank you .

[SuperPatrick777]

a hypothesis A ,[ really ? ] , evelution has so much evedence

[SuperPatrick777]

do yourself a favour and try reading the bible for a change you may learn something . , huh you may even gain some wisdom .

[manu191357]

Looks like your God is a book!

[luker4459]

"seudoscientists are as per usual are changing the goal posts and saying that evelution does not work upwards at all and is even more random than before"

No. Evolutionary theory has remained mostly unchanged since darwin hypothesised it. The only thing that has happened since then is the constant stream of evidence piling in to support it in all sorts of different fields.

Where is the evidence to support creationism? Is the bible all you have?

[SuperPatrick777]

evelution has so much evidence supporting it that nobody has produced [ woops] found any , if something is true then nobody can deny it , evelution is lightyears from that catagory and a blatent and willfull denial to except GOD .

[luker4459]

The irony is that your religious tripe has evolved just like the evolution of life which you so ignorantly and blindly deny. It has evolved over the centuries to plug every gap that a logical and inquisitive mind can throw at it with baseless assumptions and circular arguments.

[SuperPatrick777]

typical of your type , name calling , just like secular scientists .

goodnight .

[luker4459]

That one hurt didnt it?

I hope you wake up one day.

[SuperPatrick777]

tut tut , silly man

[luker4459]

Evolution has caused more massacres than all religion?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok im done talking to you, you're as dumb as a brick.

[SuperPatrick777]

lot's of laughs A ? ,

the laughter of fools .[ as soloman said ] .

[luker4459]

What evidence do you have for god that doesn't consist of "he/she/the bible says so"?

You're not in the evidence business, you're in the obedience business. You're like a dog. Some religious zealot says something, and you lap it up like a little doggy without having the precence of mind to say "how do you know that?"

[SuperPatrick777]

con't /

get his idea's fro ??? it is a well known fact he studied the bible and was well impressed with jesus [ very impressed ] ,and as for scientists not wanting to know , well that is the usual cop out i have come to expect .

[luker4459]

Please also show me evidence to support your idea that einstein goes his ideas from the bible.

I think you're full of shit again and just believing anything you hear if it sounds good without checking its accuracy and then like a parrot just repeating it to others like its a fact. A common trait among creationists.

[SuperPatrick777]

cannot get through to you can i , like jesus once said " don't throw you pearls at swines " , [ what wisdom] .

[SuperPatrick777]

con't /

and as far as religion is concerned most are what you say but i am afraid the bible does not fit that discription , it is recorded history and has stood the test of time and as i have said before it is a thorn in secular scientists sides and alway's will be , as jesus said " heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away " .

[luker4459]

"it is recorded history"

No its not. Thats why science finds no evidence of 6 day creation, 6000 year old earth, and a global flood.

It has not stood the test of time at all.

"it is a thorn in secular scientists sides"

Thats true, but only because they have to constantly waste their time engaging in debates with people who refuse to acknowledge the facts and instead cling on to their faith.

[SuperPatrick777]

you will never find the evidence for that because you will never look for it because of your prejudice and fear of the truth , the bible has not stood the test of time ??? boy you are kidding arn't you over six billion sold , a book that does not say one flattering thing about the human race , and you bet it is recorded history the only reliable source as well , and the last thing secular scientists want to do is discuss anything with creation scientists [ i wish they would ] to be con't

[SuperPatrick777]

con't / creation scientists would welcome it .

[luker4459]

By the way - there are thousands and thousands of scientists of all kinds of religions who would love nothing better than to validate their faith.

Science does not equal godless atheism. That is YOUR preconceived idea.

[SuperPatrick777]

one ,there is only one faith worth validating and that is the bible , it has been a thorn in scientists side for ages and alway's will be , other faiths are no threat to them ,

second , fanatics like dawkins and hitchens are fighting like tigers to eliminate judeo / christian influence [ especially in science .

[SuperPatrick777]

thirdly , science [ good science ] does not , evelution does .

[SuperPatrick777]

science has proved NOTHING concerning evelution and never will , leave the origins, destiny and morals to GOD and stick to things that are testable and repeatable .

[luker4459]

Given that you dont even know how to spell evolution properly, im inclined to beleive that you wouldnt know the first thing about the theory. Have you never been curious as to why its so widely accepted? Maybe do a bit of research?

So how on earth, given that you dont understand why its an accepted theory, can you possibly claim that it is unproven? All that shows is your complete willingness to accept/deny things blindly. No wonder you subscribe to religion.

[roryphelan]

He seems to think morality cannot exist without religion. Do you think this is correct?

[youtubbinh]

He would say that morality can't exist without God.

God creates the moral law.

The moral law dictates within us what is good and bad.

[roryphelan]

And why does he think that humans did not create the moral law?

[youtubbinh]

I don't know Ravi too well to answer this question. I assume he has a very good and long explaination.

I believe though that the moral law is the same in all of us.

Now if it is in all of us, it begs a question as to why it is there in the first place.

I think if human was to make the moral law there would be differences between group of people. Even though we are bad and at times make excuses for our action, we all know within what is right and wrong (even a terrorist knows this).

[roryphelan]

are you saying there are no differences between groups of people in this world?

if we all know within what is right and wrong, why do we need a book to tell us so?

Do you think terrorists, who blow themselves up for example, are thinking they are doing the wrong thing?

if everyone did believe the same thing, served under the morality of one big societal group,

how does it prove that we are right in what we do and what we think of as right or wrong?

[youtubbinh]

if you ask a killer like the terrorist or hitler to put down their justification for the killing of others, I believe that they all know that killing another person is wrong.

Similarly, if I kill a hitler or Stalin, I know I already did a wrongful thing. It is possible that if I can provide a justification for killing them, then I may live as though I didn't do something bad.

As for the Book, it remind us that we sin, it disregard our justification. For example, 5.) don't kill.

[roryphelan]

ok. this word you use, 'justification', it is an interesting one.

I want you to think about the act of blowing yourself up.

if you thought it was wrong, why would you do it?

[ABAisSCIENCE]

I think Ravi would say man is a sinner with morals only based on the culture which is pure chance & not moral at all, thus the real question is what can make a man righteous before God.

Look into Psalms 51:17 "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

[roryphelan]

That is a good point

but who says the bible is not one of these 'morals only based on the culture which is pure chance & not moral at all.'

just because it says its not, doesn't mean it is...

Was the bible written in a vacuum? Did it not have its influences? Was it not written by mortal men who also inhabited a socio-cultural context?

Perhaps I should point out at this point that I do not believe in a supernatural god i.e. one that parts the red sea,that I think religion is man made.

[ABAisSCIENCE]

After Abraham killed Chedolaomer I heard that Hammurapi wrote some moral codes for Sumeria, but keep in mind that prior to Hammurapi making his laws the cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, and other cities were tinder due to God so maybe God influenced those lands making moral codes.

As to the Torah in 1,400 B.C. all the documents of the world prior to 1930 A.D. do not give as many rights to women as the first five books of the Torah.

Keep in mind Jewish women lead the feminist movement in Europe.

[roryphelan]

So the Torah is the one true objective voice that trumps all? because in some ways it makes 'allowances' for women? Im sorry if I sound snarky, I actually do not know about these allowances, could you give me an example or two, if you have the time.

[kamajiboy]

Jesus is worthy of our praise

Jesus alone can save

[roryphelan]

I do not eat green eggs and ham

I do not like them, Sam-I-am

[roryphelan]

I thought Ravi was more impressed with the bible.

I'm from Ireland, I'm from a catholic background, and if someone told me that the bible held within it some kind of feminist text, i'd laugh in their face to be honest. I would have thought there is an implicit subjugation of women in that text.

I do not see significance in ur 1st paragragh.would you mind outlining the point you are making there?I keep reading it and I don't see how it disproves the idea I put forward in my previous comment

[ABAisSCIENCE]

Proverbs 31:10-31

vs. 13 "She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands."

vs. 16 "She considereth a field, and buyeth it; with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard."

[roryphelan]

this is interesting. Is there much written from the woman's perspective?

[ABAisSCIENCE]

Do you know how many people were illiterate in the past?

We live in an amazing time.

The Guttenberg printing press aside from the Bible changed the world more than anything else in the world.

Knowledge is power Jewish women led the feminism movement in Europe and America.

[roryphelan]

what are you saying? could you spell it out for me?

[ABAisSCIENCE]

People behave based on their conditioning. Do you not know this?

[roryphelan]

ok. People behave based on their conditioning. and what is your point about that exactly, in relation to what we were already discussing?

[ABAisSCIENCE]

Hammurapi means "patriarch that heals" meanings come by actions. Just like Sodom (pronounced 'soot dumb') meaning asshole got its' meaning based on a story even though it was judged for various sins so homosexuality was not the whole cause of God's judgement.

Ever notice Amraphel whose name means "god heals" & reigns over the same land as Hammurapi only earlier in timeframe.

Judgement of a few cities that Sumeria judged in war prior to God might have influenced codes of conduct in Sumeria.

[StandUpForISRAEL]

modern day C.S. Lewis

[seawolf117]

Politics and religion should never intersect. I don't think it's right for college professors to make it their goal to knock god out of their students, but I also don't think it's right for Zacharias to be misleading by making the implication that the founding fathers were Christians when he probably knows better. Creationism is a belief shared by Deism, which was popular in colonial America. Deism lacks a personal god, making it ideal for separation of church and state. Jefferson was a Deist.

[smithavariah]

great to hear ravis arguments.

He is a blessing ...

keep the videos coming!

[gusb232]

Wow This is the first time I have agreed with Ravi; Religions benefit from Secular Goverment. 'Mr. Jefferson Build up that wall!'