Why are Church and State to be Separated?

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 2:58 pm

Eon wrote:

Excellent! I'm now free to believe that the two Star Wars trilogies are historical documentaries from a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. :3

May the Force be with you all!

This disturbs me. Ever since I saw Star Wars many years ago in grade school, I wanted to kick Luke Skywalker's ass. It just needed to be done. Now you're telling me he actually existed a long time ago in a galaxy far far away? Too late to catch up with him and distribute justice

Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2008 3:00 pm

ForeverSaved wrote:

Because the Bible separates church and state.

no it doesn't

The bible DEMANDS compliance with its laws (as decreed by the priest caste) under penalty of death. Read it and come back.

Intern Joined: Dec 26, 2005 Posts: 287

The Bible separates church and state and all believers are priests/saints. There is no intermediary priesthood in the NT like under the priesthood of the OT.

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 2:49 am

ForeverSaved wrote:

The Bible separates church and state and all believers are priests/saints. There is no intermediary priesthood in the NT like under the priesthood of the OT.

So now you believe in TWO BIBLES????

Oh the Old Testament was filled with laws that decreed church and state unification

The New Testament didn't (except for the verse where Jesus claims he didn't come to change the old laws. You probably missed that verse when you decided to teach this book as absolute truth)

Intern Joined: Dec 26, 2005 Posts: 287

Jesus came to fill up those laws. The law was given to show nobody could keep the law to point to your sin which Jesus came to rectify. Different dispensations require different handling.

Grand Poster Joined: Apr 22, 2005 Posts: 1036

ForeverSaved wrote:

Jesus came to fill up those laws. The law was given to show nobody could keep the law to point to your sin which Jesus came to rectify. Different dispensations require different handling.

A just god who makes laws he knows you cannot keep? Inconsistent at best.

And your suggestion that "different dispensations require different handling" is incoherent at worst, and just proves how internally inconsistent your belief system is.

Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 6:05 am

ForeverSaved wrote:

Scholars admit Paul said he met with the apostles who said the same they saw Jesus resurrected and that they were being genuine for they really believed it and died for that testimony.

I talked with some guys, who read about this two-thousand-year-old guy, who met with these guys, who claimed they saw this guy come back from the dead, who told me to sell you a certain bridge in Brooklyn that I'm selling really cheap. Laughing

Intern Joined: Dec 26, 2005 Posts: 287

Man can keep those laws and does, but can't do it all the time, showing he is a sinner; he gives into temptations. What's incoherent about different handling in different dispensations?

Grand Poster Joined: Apr 22, 2005 Posts: 1036

ForeverSaved wrote:

Man can keep those laws and does, but can't do it all the time, showing he is a sinner; he gives into temptations.

So god created some things (the laws, man, human nature) that are imperfect. So god is not perfect. So he cannot be god, for a perfect being would not create imperfection by design (it would not be "intelligent design" then, would it?), so it must have been by error, which is impossible for god if he is infallible.

ForeverSaved wrote:

What's incoherent about different handling in different dispensations?

There can be no imperfection in god's creation, because it would betray fallibility.

You have neatly disproved the existence of god, well done!

Intern Joined: Dec 26, 2005 Posts: 287

All these things are perfectly created by God.

Grand Poster Joined: Apr 22, 2005 Posts: 1036

ForeverSaved wrote:

All these things are perfectly created by God.

So you say god created man.

You say man sins against god.

Therefore man is not perfect.

Therefore god created the imperfect.

This is not the act of an "intelligent designer", by definition.

Therefore it must have been accidental.

Therefore god is fallible.

Therefore god cannot be god, because god would be infallible.

QED

Intern Joined: Dec 26, 2005 Posts: 287

Man is perfectly created. Because he chooses to sin doesn't mean he is not perfectly created.

Grand Poster Joined: Apr 22, 2005 Posts: 1036

ForeverSaved wrote:

Man is perfectly created. Because he chooses to sin doesn't mean he is not perfectly created.

Why would a perfect god create a creature (man) he knew to be imperfect, and able to sin?

So that he can torture man in hell? This is not the act of a loving god. It sounds more like calculated sadism to me.

You say that man is "perfectly created" - created with imperfections, which is not the act of a perfect creator - it is not "intelligent design", so you have disproved the existence of god.

Well done!

Intern Joined: Dec 26, 2005 Posts: 287

Because man can sin does not mean he is imperfect or has imperfections. Why blame God for man's free-choice?

Grand Poster Joined: Apr 22, 2005 Posts: 1036

ForeverSaved wrote:

Because man can sin does not mean he is imperfect or has imperfections. Why blame God for man's free-choice?

You say god created man.

So you say god gave man free will to sin.

You say sinners will be tortured (something you/your religion also says is wrong, by the way) for all eternity in hell.

So god created man for the purpose of torture, knowing (he must be omniscient) that man will sin.

Therefore god is a sadist.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore