God created Man or Man created God? [Archive] - Ron Paul Forums / Liberty Forest

Liberty Star

06-10-2009, 08:24 PM

Intent here is to discuss Church-State or God-State relationship in America, I'm not sure where such a topic belongs so I'll post here.

Not always but many times answer to above question aligns with people's view on role of God in politics. I really want to know answer to B, but answers to both A and B would certainly help understand the religion dynamic in America today:

A- God created Man or Man created God?

B- On Church-State relationship, do you believe in:

complete separation between the two as a purely secular state or

a symbolic marriage (In God We Trust) with occasional flirtation with God on some key issues (abortion, polygamy/homosexuality etc),

or a regular marraige bond that encompasses all or as many American socio-political/governmental iaspects as possible?

This news prompted the question:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3395/3611592261_f1d8496acd.jpg?v=0

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Exclusive: Blessing Sotomayor Hearing Room With Prayer and Oil

The Christian group "Faith and Action in the Nation's Capitol" has made its way to Capitol Hill and Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor might be interested in what they did. They blessed the doors of Senate Hart Building Room 216 with prayer and oil because they believe this will be the room most likely used for her confirmation hearing which begins July 13th.

http://blogs.cbn.com/thebrodyfile/archive/2009/06/09/exclusive-blessing-sotomayor-hearing-room-with-prayer-and-oil.aspx

Ofcourse this is rather symbolic gesture, more serious implications of public view would be on issues like foreign policy, abortion, polygamous/homsexual marriages etc.

There is somewhat divergence of opinion even within Libertarian movements on where these boundaries ought to be and nothing wrong with that, I thought it would be interesting to know to what extent opinions here vary on this issue.

EDIT:
After posting this, I was having some second thoughts if such a discussion could focus on "wedge issues" that divide rather than unite in a common pursuit of libertarian ideals. But I'm hoping that this community is mature enough to examine and respect individual differences in personal beliefs while still agreeing on principle of human liberties and on role of Religion in political system.

And to be politically correct, "Man" should be read as "Man/Woman".

Theocrat

06-10-2009, 08:47 PM

God created man (Genesis 1 & 2). I do support an institutional separation of Church and State, but I do not support an influential separation between Church and State.

Kludge

06-10-2009, 08:50 PM

AotA

Bman

06-10-2009, 08:51 PM

God created man (Genesis 1 & 2). I do support an institutional separation of Church and State, but I do not support an influential separation between Church and State.

Well you certainly can bring your ideas to the table. Just don't go around shooting Doctors if/when you lose.

Liberty Star

06-10-2009, 08:54 PM

God created man (Genesis 1 & 2). I do support an institutional separation of Church and State, but I do not support an influential separation between Church and State.

To be devil's advocate ( some pun intended :-) ), you think God's own word used to substantiate a belief about God's existence would be logically convincing for any God skeptics here?

Just couldn't help it :) Thanks for your view.

Well you certainly can bring your ideas to the table. Just don't go around shooting Doctors if/when you lose.

What did you mean? That was totally uncalled for in response to Theocrat's view.

Reason

06-10-2009, 08:56 PM

lol

Bman

06-10-2009, 09:03 PM

What did you mean? That was totally uncalled for in response to Theocrat's view.

I bust balls. It's what I do.

idiom

06-10-2009, 09:04 PM

While God, or something created man, Man often creates God through their own theology.

I really hope those who have created their own gods who differ from actual instances of God(s) never gain influence in any government.

Theocrat

06-10-2009, 09:05 PM

To be devil's advocate ( some pun intended :-) ), you think God's own word used to substantiate a belief about God's existence would be logically convincing for any God skeptics here?

Just couldn't help it :) Thanks for your view.

Yes, it is logically coherent to use the Bible to prove God's existence. However, I don't think many skeptics will adhere to such a proof (because of their contrary presuppositions against the word of God at the outset), so I prefer to use the transcendental proof of God's existence, which, roughly stated, is that the proof of God's existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything in an objective way with absolute certainty. In order for skeptics to disprove God, they have to presuppose God first in order to do so. But the moment they presuppose God, then they reveal the true character about themselves, insofar as they show their suppression about Him in their hearts (Romans 1).

Brian4Liberty

06-10-2009, 09:17 PM

You seem to mixing apples and oranges. How does a pole about creation include gay marriage? Or is it two poles in one? And how does blessed oil relate to marriage again?

;)

sevin

06-10-2009, 11:08 PM

God created man (Genesis 1 & 2).

Man created God (Genesis 1 & 2). After all, a man wrote those books.

Theocrat

06-10-2009, 11:25 PM

Man created God (Genesis 1 & 2). After all, a man wrote those books.

Men wrote as they were inspired by God's Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16). Who are you to limit God's power and will to superintend His own words by using men as His instruments? For you to reject that element of the Scriptures is to miss the entire reason for the Scriptures to exist and have been preserved in the first place.

Besides, just because a man writes something doesn't mean it can't be true. You wrote the above post. Does that mean I should reject it on the basis that it was written by a human?

Dr.3D

06-10-2009, 11:27 PM

Some men create their own god. They tend to make up one they would like to have and then try to tell everybody else what they know about god.

sevin

06-10-2009, 11:30 PM

Men wrote as they were inspired by God's Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16).

That's like saying the Communifest Manifesto is right because on page so-and-so it says, "This book is right."

Besides, just because a man writes something doesn't mean it can't be true.

Yes, but just because something is in a book doesn't mean it is true.

pinkmandy

06-10-2009, 11:32 PM

Bman

06-10-2009, 11:34 PM

Men wrote as they were inspired by God's Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16).

This is true. It happens everytime I write.:p

Theocrat

06-10-2009, 11:40 PM

That's like saying the Communifest Manifesto is right because on page so-and-so it says, "This book is right."

Yes, but just because something is in a book doesn't mean it is true.

No, the Bible is true because what it says about God is true, being evidenced in human experience and history. The Bible points to a Being outside of its pages, and it testifies about what God has done, Who He is, and what His purposes for all of mankind in creation, condemnation, and consummation are through His Mediator. The Bible is not just a book of propositions; it is the effectual words of a living and transcendent God Who controls the universe.

I agree with you that just because something is in a book does not make it true. But to argue or assume that God cannot be true because He uses men to write about Him in a book is a fallacy in and of itself.

Bman

06-10-2009, 11:46 PM

I agree with you that just because something is in a book does not make it true. But to argue or assume that God cannot be true because He uses men to write about Him in a book is a fallacy in and of itself.

How do you argue someone who believes like you do, but prefers the Koran or such?

Theocrat

06-10-2009, 11:48 PM

If God is our Father, who is our Mother? Where's the yin to his yang? If we are made in His image...wouldn't that imply male and female? I don't buy the rib story though I'm sure the man who wrote it thought it was brilliant. Balance is necessary and unless God is unbalanced there's also a Mother. :D

If God is our Father, then the Church is our Mother. Just as Eve was formed from the side of the first Adam (through his rib), the new Eve was formed through the side of the last Adam (through blood and water - John 19:34; 1 John 5:6, 8). Jesus Christ, Who is called "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6, is our Father (being co-equal with God the Father and God the Spirit in the Trinity) has taken on a Bride, the Church collectively, and she is called "the Mother of us all" (Galatians 4:26). As individuals, we are sons and daughters to Jesus, since He is our Everlasting Father, which makes the Church rightly our Mother.

sevin

06-10-2009, 11:49 PM

No, the Bible is true because what it says about God is true, being evidenced in human experience and history.

People could make the same claim about any number of religious books.

But to argue or assume that God cannot be true because He uses men to write about Him in a book is a fallacy in and of itself.

Well, I never actually used that as my argument against his existence. I was just stating my opinion.

pinkmandy

06-10-2009, 11:54 PM

If God is our Father, then the Church is our Mother. Just as Eve was formed from the side of the first Adam (through his rib), the new Eve was formed through the side of the last Adam (through blood and water - John 19:34; 1 John 5:6, 8). Jesus Christ, Who is called "Everlasting Father" in Isaiah 9:6, is our Father (being co-equal with God the Father and God the Spirit in the Trinity) has taken on a Bride, the Church collectively, and she is called "the Mother of us all" (Galatians 4:26). As individuals, we are sons and daughters to Jesus, since He is our Everlasting Father, which makes the Church rightly our Mother.

Our Mother would be equal to God, as in right there with him helping w/the creating from the beginning. :D

I see God as the spirit in us, the Mother as the will. Comes back to that whole men/logical and women/emotional thing (I'm simplifying a bit, it's deeper than that). The key, again, is balance. But those are just my views and I do respect other povs and appreciate you taking my question seriously and not telling me I should burn in hell. Yet. ;) :D

idiom

06-11-2009, 12:10 AM

And how does blessed oil relate to marriage again?

'll tell ya when you're older.

idiom

06-11-2009, 12:12 AM

No, the Bible is true because what it says about God is true, being evidenced in human experience and history.

You are starting to sound more and more like Conza every day.

Zippyjuan

06-11-2009, 12:26 AM

YouTube - Dear God - XTC - - W/ correct LYRICS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGEA8ya4XyM)

anaconda

06-11-2009, 12:39 AM

They are the same.

Kludge

06-11-2009, 12:43 AM

YouTube - Dear God - XTC - - W/ correct LYRICS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGEA8ya4XyM)

I'm fond of the Sarah McLachlan version.

YouTube - SARAH MCLACHLAN - Dear God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrueVp_kuZ8)

Bman

06-11-2009, 02:17 AM

You are starting to sound more and more like Conza every day.

Gosh that would make an excellent TV show.

Conza and Theo as Siamese Twins.

idirtify

06-11-2009, 09:14 AM

God created man (Genesis 1 & 2). I do support an institutional separation of Church and State, but I do not support an influential separation between Church and State.

Let me understand YOUR particular separation-separation. You support a separation between religion and laws, but not between religion and any other aspect of government. For example, do you advocate Christian politicians and bureaucrats regularly preaching about Jesus and praying to him in public and in all government functions and proclaiming that those who don’t believe in him are damned to hell and that those who believe in any other religion violate the First Commandment?

Geez, what am I asking? Of course you do. Just look at your username. Duh!

idirtify

06-11-2009, 09:23 AM

How does a pole about creation include gay marriage?

I don’t know. But I do know that gay marriage is all about the pole of creation.:)

Arnack

06-11-2009, 09:45 AM

Theocrat is using a perfect example of circular logic- he might be trying to make a point why man made God. If not, I don't know what to say. :p

Theocrat

06-11-2009, 12:01 PM

Let me understand YOUR particular separation-separation. You support a separation between religion and laws, but not between religion and any other aspect of government. For example, do you advocate Christian politicians and bureaucrats regularly preaching about Jesus and praying to him in public and in all government functions and proclaiming that those who don’t believe in him are damned to hell and that those who believe in any other religion violate the First Commandment?

Geez, what am I asking? Of course you do. Just look at your username. Duh!

I never mentioned anything about a separation between religion and State. Religion is embedded within any government by nature, whether it's theistic or humanistic. Culture itself is religion externalized, as Henry Van Til once put it. Religion is simply inescapable in any realm of civilization, and the laws which govern a nation are based on a religious system to define what morality is.

On one hand, as institutions, I support a separation between Church and State because the State should not tell the Church how it ought to conduct worship services, and the Church should not legislate what the State should do in fighting foreign enemies, for instance. The Constitution does not allow the State to dictate to the Church what it should preach about or against in public. That's why "hate crimes" legislation is unconstitutional.

On the other hand, as influence, there should not be a separation between Church and State because the Church can offer guidance to the State about the nature of its laws (whether the laws are moral or immoral), and the State can offer encouragement to the Church about what acts of charity it needs to do in order to keep the government from being involved in domestic programs, as examples. The officers of the Church have been given the task of ministering to those who make our laws, and that's one reason why we have Congressional chaplains.

I do support politicians and bureaucrats praying and preaching about Jesus in public and other government functions because they have a right to do so. That doesn't mean they should force it on others by violence, but it does mean that their freedom of speech and religious expression are to be protected without judicial penalty. The same would apply to people of other faiths, though in the days of our early republic, many states made it clear that one had to be a Christian in order to serve in office.

TurtleBurger

06-11-2009, 01:47 PM

the State can offer encouragement to the Church about what acts of charity it needs to do in order to keep the government from being involved in domestic programs.

Yeah, because the State does a much better job of allocating resources than any private organization ever could, right? As far as I'm concerned, the Church and any other private organization have very little to gain from a relationship with the State. Any benefit a State could give to a church would first have to be stolen from another private entity, so it's a less-than-zero-sum game.

idirtify

06-11-2009, 01:53 PM

I never mentioned anything about a separation between religion and State. snip

You originally wrote:
“I do support an institutional separation of Church and State”.

Now you open with:
“I never mentioned anything about a separation between religion and State”.

Hmmm.

While I admit I don’t understand much of your complex notions about separation, I think we can safely say that you advocate very little. And I don’t think I need to say much more, since you blatantly advocate a theocracy and call yourself “Theocrat”. IOW, a Theocrat doesn’t carry enough credibility to bother with.

Dr.3D

06-11-2009, 01:55 PM

You originally wrote:
“I do support an institutional separation of Church and State”.

Now you open with:
“I never mentioned anything about a separation between religion and State”.

Hmmm.

While I admit I don’t understand much of your complex notions about separation, I think we can safely say that you advocate very little. And I don’t think I need to say much more, since you blatantly advocate a theocracy and call yourself “Theocrat”. IOW, a Theocrat doesn’t carry enough credibility to bother with.

There is a difference between 'Church' and 'religion'.

Theocrat

06-11-2009, 02:53 PM

There is a difference between 'Church' and 'religion'.

Thank you, Dr.3D. It's nice to see that some people can reason distinctions and definitions of terms.

tpreitzel

06-12-2009, 12:10 AM

Personally, I KNOW God created man, but I can't PROVE my assertion that Jesus Christ is the one true God with ALL power and authority over human and non-human abuse of the free agency granted to us beings. Isn't that apparent paradox intriguingly delightful? :) Isn't God's apparent impotence at preventing abuse of His gift of free agency while preventing wholesale self-annihilation of His creation just as intriguing? Oh, no, say the naysayers, "God can't exist because the whole concept just isn't rational". Maybe, the rationality of human consciousness and science based on it is a bit ill-equipped to determine the existence or alleged fabrication of God. As I've said elsewhere, the world is begging the real God to please stand up, i.e. demonstrate his divinity by some show of strength just like the Israelis used to beg him. Some things never do change... ;)

Brassmouth

06-12-2009, 01:09 AM

Yes, it is logically coherent to use the Bible to prove God's existence. However, I don't think many skeptics will adhere to such a proof (because of their contrary presuppositions against the word of God at the outset), so I prefer to use the transcendental proof of God's existence, which, roughly stated, is that the proof of God's existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything in an objective way with absolute certainty. In order for skeptics to disprove God, they have to presuppose God first in order to do so. But the moment they presuppose God, then they reveal the true character about themselves, insofar as they show their suppression about Him in their hearts (Romans 1).

You know that makes no sense. Admit it, so you can begin to open your mind.

It does not follow that "without Him it is impossible to prove anything in an objective way with absolute certainty." Truth or objective reason does not hinge on the existence of a so-called god.

You've created a fallacy to hide behind, in order to protect your psyche, which for whatever reason, has clearly become dependent on the notion of a higher being. To me, it sounds like you ripped of Hoppe's argumentation ethic and tried to apply it to your religion. You failed.

Sandman33

06-12-2009, 01:12 AM

God created man.

God created animals to be used at our choosing, via food or clothing.

God created EVE to be man's companion, not his superior and sure as FUCK not his equal.

Too harsh? Don't like it? I don't give a fuck.

Brassmouth

06-12-2009, 01:13 AM

There is a difference between 'Church' and 'religion'.

Thank you, Dr.3D. It's nice to see that some people can reason distinctions and definitions of terms.

Indeed there is.

Religion: superstition, which, by definition, rejects science, empiricism, and rational discourse. Often used as a tool to subjugate, enslave, abuse, and exploit.

Church: the institution that benefits from the above exploitation. Often used throughout history in order to fool the populace into allowing the feudal and monarchical states to exploit and rule them.

Bman

06-12-2009, 01:15 AM

Brassmouth

06-12-2009, 01:16 AM

God created EVE to be man's companion, not his superior and sure as FUCK not his equal.

Ah, sexism. Brought to you by religion since the dawn of humanity.

Too harsh? Don't like it? I don't give a fuck.

Disinterest in rational discourse or hearing the points of the opposing side; another pastime of religion.

Religion is poison. This is why.

TurtleBurger

06-12-2009, 05:42 AM

Indeed there is.

Religion: superstition, which, by definition, rejects science, empiricism, and rational discourse. Often used as a tool to subjugate, enslave, abuse, and exploit.

Church: the institution that benefits from the above exploitation. Often used throughout history in order to fool the populace into allowing the feudal and monarchical states to exploit and rule them.

Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel: Some examples of religious nutjobs who rejected science, empiricism, and rational discourse.

acptulsa

06-12-2009, 06:15 AM

Religion: superstition, which, by definition, rejects science, empiricism, and rational discourse. Often used as a tool to subjugate, enslave, abuse, and exploit.

Church: the institution that benefits from the above exploitation. Often used throughout history in order to fool the populace into allowing the feudal and monarchical states to exploit and rule them.

All of them? All of them? Are you absolutely sure that in this whole wide world there are absolutely none that refuse to fit in your neat little black and white boxes?

sevin

06-12-2009, 08:41 AM

pinkmandy

06-12-2009, 09:49 AM

Do you talk to your god with that mouth?

Lol! :D

Theocrat

06-12-2009, 11:13 AM

You know that makes no sense. Admit it, so you can begin to open your mind.

It does not follow that "without Him it is impossible to prove anything in an objective way with absolute certainty." Truth or objective reason does not hinge on the existence of a so-called god.

You've created a fallacy to hide behind, in order to protect your psyche, which for whatever reason, has clearly become dependent on the notion of a higher being. To me, it sounds like you ripped of Hoppe's argumentation ethic and tried to apply it to your religion. You failed.

Read this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2160767#post2160767), my friend. I hope that helps clear up the confusion you may be having in my post above. Roughly stated, there are certain preconditions of thought which are necessary to establish and make sense of absolute truth. The only basis for an absolute to determine such things as the nature of logic, natural science, morality, etc. has to be grounded in an absolute Mind or Being, that is, God.

Dr.3D

06-12-2009, 11:21 AM

Read this (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2160767#post2160767), my friend. I hope that helps clear up the confusion you may be having in my post above. Roughly stated, there are certain preconditions of thought which are necessary to establish and make sense of absolute truth. The only basis for an absolute to determine such things as the nature of logic, natural science, morality, etc. has to be grounded in an absolute Mind or Being, that is, God.

Seems there has been a question about what truth is for a long time.
Consider the context of "what is truth" in this verse - John 18:38

Liberty Star

06-13-2009, 02:19 PM

I wasn't sure if I'm going to proceed with this discussion :)

But I have a question for those who believe "man created God" and consider themselves to hold a logical position. How could you possibly "know" that there is no God?

You can be a "believer" like all the other believers and believe in anything but can you really logically convince that your view is grounded in facts? When it comes to God and logic, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The only logically defensible and purely scientific position here would be the "I don't know" or agnostic position. Both of the other two sides are "believers".

sevin

06-13-2009, 02:37 PM

Roughly stated, there are certain preconditions of thought which are necessary to establish and make sense of absolute truth. The only basis for an absolute to determine such things as the nature of logic, natural science, morality, etc. has to be grounded in an absolute Mind or Being, that is, God.

God does not have to exist for there to be absolute truths. Here's an axiom I picked up from an objectivist: Existence exists. Following that is: I exist. And so forth. These are absolute truths and the foundation of all logic. The Greeks came up with a lot of these things and they were not christians.

You can be a "believer" like all the other believers and believe in anything but can you really logically convince that your view is grounded in facts? When it comes to God and logic, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The only logically defensible and purely scientific position here would be the "I don't know" or agnostic position. Both of the other two sides are "believers".

Good point. Sorry I didn't say this yet, but to clarify, I am an agnostic, not an atheist. However, I tend to sympathize with atheists a lot more.

Theocrat

06-13-2009, 02:48 PM

God does not have to exist for there to be absolute truths. Here's an axiom I picked up from an objectivist: Existence exists. Following that is: I exist. And so forth. These are absolute truths and the foundation of all logic. The Greeks came up with a lot of these things and they were not christians.

"Existence exists"? That is a circular argument because it begs the question. Also, I showed in my post here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2160767#post2160767) how logical absolutes necessitate a God, without which, there could be no absolutes about anything.