Jonathan H. B. Lobl

I expect that the people being murdured for "witchcraft" have their own ideas about "sin." Things like murder, for instance.

Enjoy.

I am becoming.

Their issue. Not mine. I am an Agnostic minister.

If we are to assign special real estate to God; it would be by affiliation. For Jews, it would be Israel. For Muslims, it would be Mecca. For Catholics, it would be the Vatican. For Mormons, Salt Lake City. Of course, you understand "god" in a different way. Rather than misinterpret your position, I will stop here.

I was responding to the highly sarcastic comment -- that there is less God inspired hate crime in America; because God respects American law; or at least the American Constitution. No. America has less hate crime because despite everything -- America is a lawful place where the laws against murder are enforced. The police do protect. District Attorneys do prosecute. Religion inspired hate crimes against gay people, Jews, "witches" etc. are not tolerated. It is not thanks to God. It is thanks to American Law. By contrast, the "witch" murders in Uganda and other parts of Africa happen; not because people are religious -- but because the laws against murder are not enforced. The savages are free to kill in the name of God because nobody stops them. Note. I am not making a distinction between the Christian savages and the Muslim savages which do similar things in the regions under their control.

That seems unlikely. I think American law enforcement is more effective.

I think, yes.

I doubt these killers are capable of such distinctions. I expect they would just call you a "witch." After all, they are crazy, ignorant, vicious.and stupid. The very flower of their God's love. IMO.

You are condoning murder in the name of God. That makes you a participant in atrocity.

Yes. I get that. Neither are the "laws" of physics something out of space/time -- like a god -- forcing things to behave.

I almost understood that. In the end, I don't think that laws in physics, or logic, are actually "laws." Only summations, which may or may not be correct.

I would never accuse you of being a Christian. It is unthinkable.

Maybe. There is the question of "dark matter" which seems to have gravity -- and mass -- but nobody knows what it is. At least, not yet. I'm not disagreeing. I do urge caution in stating what is known. Back to the thread: In order for Creationism to be a valid theory -- do we not need proof that God exists? Before we can prove God's existence -- do we not need a working definition of God? If we say that neither faith nor scripture is proof; we don't have much to work with. IMO Creationism still works as philosophy. Just not as Science. I suggest that there are other reasons to cling to Creationism. We might as well state the obvious. If Genesis is not literal history; it follows that there was no literal Adam and Eve. If there was no original Adam and Eve, there was no eating of the forbidden fruit. Sin did not enter the world and we are not born to Original Sin. It follows that we have nothing to be saved from and no need for the sacrifice of the Christ. This is what the Creationists are really afraid of. That their whole religion will fall apart. There are varieties of Christianity that don't depend on Genesis being literal history. These Christians tend not to be Creationists. Since the real motivation for Creationism is fear that the religion will fall apart -- we should not pretend that it is a scientific theory that is at stake. This is dishonest and foolish on the face of it.

Am I being accused of being Christian? I am confused by the layers. Who is asking?

Yes. . In fact. only the Creationists insist on everything from nothing. Physics is much more nuanced.

42.

This topic is beginning to resemble what is going on in modern physics. The scientist are not able to define a particle, or a field, but the equations work. What do the equations count for if they don't relate to anything tangible? I don't know. But the equations work. Some people -- the scientists -- seem to find the equations helpful. I don't get it. Maybe these laws of logic do provide useful tools. I don't get that either. Well, my issues. We shouldn't let my limitations get in the way.

I understand. For the sake of argument, God exists. Alright. God is unique. Since God is unique, maybe the normal laws of reason don't apply. Maybe they do. Is God equal to himself? Maybe. Is God everything? Maybe. Is God something specific? Maybe. Is God God's opposite? I don't know. That ambiguity comes with unique existence. Does God have a polar opposite? What does that mean? The totality of everything must contain opposites. Unless it doesn't. If God is an absolute unity, there are no components at all. Only unity. Unless we go to a Kabballah model. Then God is everything and is an absolute unity and contains components. Good luck making the logic rules make sense of that. Is God natural or supernatural? If God is natural, the laws of nature apply and the rules for reason might be valid. If God is supernatural -- all bets are off. We know nothing. This is the same problem we always have in discussing God. We have no common reference points. If we keep God as an absolute abstraction -- we can do logic formulas but it won't mean much. If we want to do an -- A equals A. A does not equal B type thing -- there have to be some limits on what A is. IMO

The only time I take issue with the train of Creationism, is when it uses a science classroom as a station. People are entitled to their religion and philosophy -- in all it's many forms and tracks. It's not Science.

Perhaps. I can't even pretend to understand some of this stuff. Like "virtual particles" that "flash in and out of existence." It seems that "nothing" is "unstable." It hurts my head.

The findings in physics are interesting. It turns out that space itself is made up of tiny particles that have greater than zero mass. That means that nothing is still something.

It's a popular activity in Uganda and the sub-Sahara region.

Back in the day, when I had my formal logic class; I did very badly. Moving on: I would like to start with the Law of Identity. The Law of Identity If the law of identity were not binding, we could not say that God is God (G is G). Without the law of identity, God would not be identical to Himself; He could be something other than Himself (e.g., the devil), which is plainly absurd. God does not have an identity. Or a definition. God is both an unknown quantity and unique. Perhaps, God is the Devil. Or God and the Devil are aspects of each other. (Just using your example.) If God is "A" and "A" can equal anything or everything -- we don't have a useful reference point. Maybe.

The worst that Christianity has to offer is on the same level that the worst of Islam has to offer. It would be nice to see the moderates -- supposedly the majority in both religions -- say something. Yes. Christians do have a voice. They manage to cry out in anguish over marriage equality. I do recall the previous Pope -- the "Pope Emeritus" -- condemning witchcraft. It probably didn't help anything good. It is a thing of sadness to watch the crap roll down hill from the top. In fairness, I don't see the Christian world getting worked up over what's happening to the Copts. It looks like equal opportunity indifference.