Quote from: taxed on April 21, 2020, 02:36:58 PM
You're the one who declared he knows what God is, and that he's supernatural.  I didn't make that idiotic statement.
To be clear, are you saying man has figured everything out with nature and the universe?  Or are we still learning how things work?

Now, now, I never said I know what God is.  I said that if God exists he is a supernatural being, and I defined supernatural as being able to transcend laws of physics, biology and other sciences as we currently understand them.  Otherwise, how do you explain miracles?  Those are, again by definition, events that cannot occur according to our understanding of how the physical universe operates (e.g., rising from the dead, healing someone by touching them, a virgin birth, and so on).  Observable phenomena lead physicists to conclude that the universe originated with the Big Bang, but we don't know how that started or what was before it.  If God created the universe, then he is somehow "beyond it" for lack of a better term. 

Second question:  no, humans have certainly not figured out everything with nature and the universe.  But we are learning more all the time, and the rate of growth of our knowledge is increasing.  One aspect of the history of science is that we have discovered rational explanations for things that were previously explained by religion and superstition - the germ theory of disease, weather, cosmology, geology and geophysics (Christianity used to teach that the earth was roughly 6000 years old), and many many many more.

God tells your heart what is Right, the law tells your brain.

Meaning, if one listens to God, we know the difference in Right and wrong, our laws are based on Gods law, and these laws as a Republic, affirm what our heart tells us.

Quote from: Mjolnir on April 21, 2020, 05:59:52 PM
Now, now, I never said I know what God is.  I said that if God exists he is a supernatural being, and I defined supernatural as being able to transcend laws of physics, biology and other sciences as we currently understand them.  Otherwise, how do you explain miracles?  Those are, again by definition, events that cannot occur according to our understanding of how the physical universe operates (e.g., rising from the dead, healing someone by touching them, a virgin birth, and so on).  Observable phenomena lead physicists to conclude that the universe originated with the Big Bang, but we don't know how that started or what was before it.  If God created the universe, then he is somehow "beyond it" for lack of a better term. 

Second question:  no, humans have certainly not figured out everything with nature and the universe.  But we are learning more all the time, and the rate of growth of our knowledge is increasing.  One aspect of the history of science is that we have discovered rational explanations for things that were previously explained by religion and superstition - the germ theory of disease, weather, cosmology, geology and geophysics (Christianity used to teach that the earth was roughly 6000 years old), and many many many more.

Did you not say if you believe in God then you believe in something outside of science? Or can God exist in reality?

Not everybody believes in God. There are several Christian denominations that require affirmation in place of an sworn oath. Removing the phrase "so help me God" makes the oath more inclusive.
Thank you Mjoinr for an articulate contribution.

Quote from: Tory Potter on April 24, 2020, 02:14:09 PM
Not everybody believes in God. There are several Christian denominations that require affirmation in place of an sworn oath. Removing the phrase "so help me God" makes the oath more inclusive.
Thank you Mjoinr for an articulate contribution.

List these so called "Christians" that require affirmation in place of an sworn oath. I guarantee you, they aren't Christians!

Quote from: Solar on April 24, 2020, 02:56:57 PM
List these so called "Christians" that require affirmation in place of an sworn oath. I guarantee you, they aren't Christians!

Mennonites, the Society of Friends (Quakers) and Jehovahs Witness.
However, whether one is Christian or not has no bearing. Public office is open to all faiths and people with no faith.

Quote from: Tory Potter on April 24, 2020, 04:13:30 PM
Mennonites, the Society of Friends (Quakers) and Jehovahs Witness.
However, whether one is Christian or not has no bearing. Public office is open to all faiths and people with no faith.

You just contradicted yourself, and no, not one mentioned is Christian.

Quote from: taxed on April 21, 2020, 08:17:50 PM
Did you not say if you believe in God then you believe in something outside of science? Or can God exist in reality?

I am saying that God cannot be explained by science, and by definition transcends science.  That is not the same thing as being able to exist in reality.  But it does require a belief in the supernatural.  I have to admit I am puzzled by your confusion on this question of the supernatural.  Are you saying that God is subject to physical laws of the universe as we understand them/

Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2020, 02:34:03 PM
Our Founders took an oath to God to protect this country. They never defined God, just that all law is based on Gods Law, the Laws of Nature.
Point is, for a culture to exist and prosper and find a cohesiveness in a belief, it needs to have faith in a supreme being, the belief that we are not above the law.

Does that make sense to you?

I like your distinction between following one's heart and following the law.

Also, I agree with you that a society has to have a point of cohesion to flourish.  I think, and I believe the Founders thought, that for the United States this point was a commitment to the ideal of the rule of law, to the Constitution as a governing document, a set of rules to follow for self-governance.  The Rule of Law above all else.  Without that commitment, the
Constitution is just a piece of paper, just as without a belief in God, the Bible is just a book of stories  The Founders were keenly aware of the historically unique opportunity for the colonies to attempt to establish for themselves their own system of governance, one committed to freedom from tyranny, and one not based on either hereditary or religious rule, as had been the case for most of history.

They did not base the Constitution on God's law, for how could they?  Sick of Silence suggested that our values are based on the Ten Commandments.  But though some may find it comforting, this is a silly suggestion.  There are numerous versions of the commandments, as well as a host of other commandments in the Bible.  Only two are actually law in the U.S., those having to do with theft and murder; but those are almost universal among human societies across the globe and in no way unique to either Judaism or Christianity.  The Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18, for example, dates back to Hinduism in the 13th century B.C., and is echoed in
Confucian, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Islamic and Jainist texts.

More importantly, there is no consensus among Christians in the U.S. about which passages in the Bible to follow.  The most common phrase I hear from my Christian friends in describing their religion is that they have a "personal" relationship with God, meaning they interpret the Bible according to their beliefs.  A very good friend of mine is a Southern Baptist, who believes that the Bible is literally true.  I asked him about passages regarding the taking of slaves, of killing those who work on the Sabbath, of stoning children who disrespect their parents, and so on.  His reply was that these passages do in fact represent God's word, but that, "we are not smart enough to understand them."  Countless wars were fought among Christians over the "correct" way to worship, and this is one of the things the Founders sought assiduously to avoid by making the Constitution areligious.

You presented a great example of this in a recent post in which you stated that Mennonites, Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses were not Christian, though all those groups self-identify as such.  In your view, they are not Christians.  In their view they are.  So how can one build a consistent moral theory on Christianity when the religion itself is fractured into countless sects and differing beliefs?  The answer is that you cannot.  Not to mention that the Constitution also grants religions freedom to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. etc.

It is absurd to assert that one must be Christian, or even just to be religious, to be moral.

Quote from: Mjolnir on April 24, 2020, 07:53:08 PM
I am saying that God cannot be explained by science,

Why? Is it not science that we don't yet understand? (or actually never will?)

Quote
and by definition transcends science.  That is not the same thing as being able to exist in reality.  But it does require a belief in the supernatural.  I have to admit I am puzzled by your confusion on this question of the supernatural.  Are you saying that God is subject to physical laws of the universe as we understand them/

If something is real, but we don't understand it, how is that "supernatural"?

Quote from: Mjolnir on April 24, 2020, 08:46:05 PM
I like your distinction between following one's heart and following the law.

Also, I agree with you that a society has to have a point of cohesion to flourish.  I think, and I believe the Founders thought, that for the United States this point was a commitment to the ideal of the rule of law, to the Constitution as a governing document, a set of rules to follow for self-governance.  The Rule of Law above all else.  Without that commitment, the
Constitution is just a piece of paper, just as without a belief in God, the Bible is just a book of stories  The Founders were keenly aware of the historically unique opportunity for the colonies to attempt to establish for themselves their own system of governance, one committed to freedom from tyranny, and one not based on either hereditary or religious rule, as had been the case for most of history.

They did not base the Constitution on God's law, for how could they?  Sick of Silence suggested that our values are based on the Ten Commandments.  But though some may find it comforting, this is a silly suggestion.  There are numerous versions of the commandments, as well as a host of other commandments in the Bible.  Only two are actually law in the U.S., those having to do with theft and murder; but those are almost universal among human societies across the globe and in no way unique to either Judaism or Christianity.  The Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18, for example, dates back to Hinduism in the 13th century B.C., and is echoed in
Confucian, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Islamic and Jainist texts.

More importantly, there is no consensus among Christians in the U.S. about which passages in the Bible to follow.  The most common phrase I hear from my Christian friends in describing their religion is that they have a "personal" relationship with God, meaning they interpret the Bible according to their beliefs.  A very good friend of mine is a Southern Baptist, who believes that the Bible is literally true.  I asked him about passages regarding the taking of slaves, of killing those who work on the Sabbath, of stoning children who disrespect their parents, and so on.  His reply was that these passages do in fact represent God's word, but that, "we are not smart enough to understand them."  Countless wars were fought among Christians over the "correct" way to worship, and this is one of the things the Founders sought assiduously to avoid by making the Constitution areligious.

You presented a great example of this in a recent post in which you stated that Mennonites, Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses were not Christian, though all those groups self-identify as such.  In your view, they are not Christians.  In their view they are.  So how can one build a consistent moral theory on Christianity when the religion itself is fractured into countless sects and differing beliefs?  The answer is that you cannot.  Not to mention that the Constitution also grants religions freedom to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. etc.

It is absurd to assert that one must be Christian, or even just to be religious, to be moral.

And of what discipline to you adhere to, if I may ask, Mjoinir?
Are you a Bible believing Christian espousing it is the infallible Word of God?
Maybe an agnostic or atheist?

Quote from: Mjolnir on April 24, 2020, 08:46:05 PM
I like your distinction between following one's heart and following the law.

Also, I agree with you that a society has to have a point of cohesion to flourish.  I think, and I believe the Founders thought, that for the United States this point was a commitment to the ideal of the rule of law, to the Constitution as a governing document, a set of rules to follow for self-governance.  The Rule of Law above all else.  Without that commitment, the
Constitution is just a piece of paper, just as without a belief in God, the Bible is just a book of stories  The Founders were keenly aware of the historically unique opportunity for the colonies to attempt to establish for themselves their own system of governance, one committed to freedom from tyranny, and one not based on either hereditary or religious rule, as had been the case for most of history.

They did not base the Constitution on God's law, for how could they?  Sick of Silence suggested that our values are based on the Ten Commandments.  But though some may find it comforting, this is a silly suggestion.  There are numerous versions of the commandments, as well as a host of other commandments in the Bible.  Only two are actually law in the U.S., those having to do with theft and murder; but those are almost universal among human societies across the globe and in no way unique to either Judaism or Christianity.  The Golden Rule of Leviticus 19:18, for example, dates back to Hinduism in the 13th century B.C., and is echoed in
Confucian, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Islamic and Jainist texts.

Yes they did! The Declaration of Independence declares that "the laws of Nature and Nature's God" are the source of man's rights. The natural rights listed and protected by the Bill of Rights existed before government, and in no way depend on government for their existence. The U.S. Supreme Court has declared this fact. These are known as absolute rights. Absolute rights belong to us due to the nature of our existence, are "unalienable" and "self-evident."

America was founded as a republic - a "nation of laws." In a republic the government is formed by - and constrained by - laws.

QuoteMore importantly, there is no consensus among Christians in the U.S. about which passages in the Bible to follow.  The most common phrase I hear from my Christian friends in describing their religion is that they have a "personal" relationship with God, meaning they interpret the Bible according to their beliefs.  A very good friend of mine is a Southern Baptist, who believes that the Bible is literally true.  I asked him about passages regarding the taking of slaves, of killing those who work on the Sabbath, of stoning children who disrespect their parents, and so on.  His reply was that these passages do in fact represent God's word, but that, "we are not smart enough to understand them."  Countless wars were fought among Christians over the "correct" way to worship, and this is one of the things the Founders sought assiduously to avoid by making the Constitution areligious.

You presented a great example of this in a recent post in which you stated that Mennonites, Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses were not Christian, though all those groups self-identify as such.  In your view, they are not Christians.  In their view they are.  So how can one build a consistent moral theory on Christianity when the religion itself is fractured into countless sects and differing beliefs?  The answer is that you cannot.  Not to mention that the Constitution also grants religions freedom to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. etc.

No, they do not identify as Christians, but followers of God, only Christians see themselves as Christians.
I don't really care about religion, or what religion anyone is, nor do I favor one over another, though I do take issue with certain sects that claim hierarchy over others and dismiss them out of hand with prejudice and ridicule for their ignorance.

QuoteIt is absurd to assert that one must be Christian, or even just to be religious, to be moral.

Glad we could agree on something. I don't know why you even thought I considered such a thing. I'm Conservative, not religious by any stretch of the imagination.

So, the issue in the OP is, does the absence of "so help me God" marxist or the recognition that a citizen is exercising their First Amendment rights?

Quote from: Tory Potter on April 27, 2020, 07:46:27 AM
So, the issue in the OP is, does the absence of "so help me God" marxist or the recognition that a citizen is exercising their First Amendment rights?

The citizen didn't decide. Government did under Marxist control or Marxist complaint had it removed.

Quote from: Tory Potter on April 27, 2020, 07:46:27 AM
So, the issue in the OP is, does the absence of "so help me God" marxist or the recognition that a citizen is exercising their First Amendment rights?

Let me see if I can clear this up as to why God is so important to our judicial system, for without God, we have no law.
Let us go back in ancient history, yes, our Founders were well versed in history, which is why we have a Republic, something kids are no longer taught for a reason, the left controls our education system, and they hate the idea of God having power over leftist behavior in their pursuit of destruction of Principle.

I'd link to the statement below, but it comes from memory

Natural Law, Principles of Legality

Calvin's natural law theory is based on the sovereignty of God. In natural law terms, the 'sovereignty of God's doctrine prescribes that the normative standards for positive law originate from God alone.
God is the sole measure of the 'good'.