re: The decline of religious faith in America and what that means for our future

quote:

---

Take something totally immoral - if it is commanded by God then it becomes moral. I’ve heard the argument, but I just disagree with it. I consider killing innocent babies to be immoral. You on the other hand consider killing of babies - as long as God does it or commands it - to be moral and perfectly acceptable. That’s why religious faith is declining in America.

---

Even here you misunderstand. What is moral and not immoral is not based on what God commands, as if the command, itself, is the standard of moral perfection, and that if God commands something else, that the standard changes. No, that's not how it works. The standard of perfect moral righteousness if God's very character, which is unchanging. God's actions flow from His character, not the other way around.

The killing of babies (or anyone) is wrong for us because we have no authority to unjustly take life. We can't take the lives of anyone unjustly because we have no authority to do so. All people are created in God's image--not our own--and ultimately belong to God, and He, as the creator of all things, has authority over all things by His existence as God. Any authority humans have is derived from God. We have the authority to take life only in certain circumstances (in self defense; as part of a just war; and for capital punishment), and outside of those circumstances, we are not authorized to take life. But God can take life as He pleases. "He gives and He takes away".

If God is God, then He has the authority to do as He pleases with us. Yet, even so, He does not take our lives outside of the law. He has given us the law, which reflects His holy character, and we are supposed to obey it. Because we sin, we commit treason against the King, and we deserve death. So, God is just to take the lives of each and every one of us because of our rebellion against Him. Even more than that, we are guilty at conception because we inherit the guilt of our representative, Adam. We also inherit a sinful nature, which provides the desire for us to rebel against God even as children. We all are rebels and deserve the death penalty from God, the King. It's not murder for the King to execute treasonous rebels.

On the contrary: God is merciful because He sent His only son to die unjustly on the cross to save those rebels who sinned against their creator. We are saved through faith in the perfect obedience of Christ to the law and His death on the cross as a substitutionary sacrifice for us. Even though we do not deserve it, God reconciles us to Himself and actually makes us part of His family through adoption.

Cuckeye loves to be vague and play the semantics game. That’s his MO.

quote:

---

He's just trolling at this point

---

That’s what he’s always doing. But it’s nice to point out his logical fallacies occasionally before we ignore him.

quote:

---

When the opening statement of the Declaration of Independence says “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” I think it’s your responsibility to explain to me how America wasn’t founded on objective moral principles.

---

quote:

---

their Creator

---

quote:

---

their

---

That was easy.

What's next?

quote:

---

Don't let that be an excuse to wallow in ignorance.

---

Yea you really presented your case well with facts and logic

Classic Cuckeye

At least el Guacho is a funny troll

quote:

---

That was easy.

What's next?

---

I think you missed the point. The Founders had a worldview that was based on Biblical principles, including the existence of a God that created all people in His image. They weren't yet influenced by Darwinian thought.

The Founders based natural rights on the belief that as created beings by God, we are endowed or given by Him certain rights that other humans have no right to take away, and that's why those basic rights were protected by the Constitution. It's why those rights are not rights given by the government, but rights that are natural and inalienable (can't be taken away) that are to be protected by the government.

This is in contrast to the thought that we have no natural rights that should be protected, but that our rights are given to us by other men and can (rightfully) be taken by other men depending on what others want.

The Founders were saying that our state as being created by God and endowed with rights that we have no right to take away, that it would be immoral for government to do such a thing.

quote:

---

I think you missed the point. The Founders had a worldview that was based on Biblical principles, including the existence of a God that created all people in His image. They weren't yet influenced by Darwinian thought. The Founders based natural rights on the belief that as created beings by God, we are endowed or given by Him certain rights that other humans have no right to take away, and that's why those basic rights were protected by the Constitution. It's why those rights are not rights given by the government, but rights that are natural and inalienable (can't be taken away) that are to be protected by the government. This is in contrast to the thought that we have no natural rights that should be protected, but that our rights are given to us by other men and can (rightfully) be taken by other men depending on what others want. The Founders were saying that our state as being created by God and endowed with rights that we have no right to take away, that it would be immoral for government to do such a thing.

---

quote:

---

If the Supreme Court makes a ruling and says,” They have the right to do…” does that mean those making up the Supreme Court don’t also have those rights?

---

It certainly doesn't make it an objective ruling.