seems like the clergy would say,

God made the viruses too

why would God protect them from something he himself put on earth in the first place?

My point is that it would defeat the purpose of free will. In the Bible, we learn that God wants us to know him because we want to know him. Not because we feel like we have no other choice. My point is that if God gave you proof before you sought him out, it would defeat his purpose of you coming to him of your own free will.

Actually you don't have a choice. You either find Him or you burn in hell. Although, I guess technically that is a choice. But, its a decision one has to make under duress.

I know plenty of people who follow the Christian god because if they don't they believe they will go to hell.

well if that was your point, why did you ask the question about god curing all of my ills? ok i get your NEW point, one that isn't in the least new but way overly used by the god fearing to explain why there is no evidence for god and why as powerful as he is he's not about to provide some. an easier answer would have been, "because". makes no more sense now than it did the first time i heard it from my kid when i asked him why he didn't get his homework done. but would have saved us alot of time.


now. shall we get back to your point on which i originally commented? that being as absolute morals exist, god therefore must exist? we've discussed ad nausium that you think that absolute morals exist and why even "qualifying your claim" by stating that you've seen no evidence to suggest that absolute morals DO NOT exist as if that would prove that absolute morals exist. i've disagreed ad nausium and responded to your statement regarding evidence by asking you if you've ever seen evidence suggesting that absolute morals DO exists? none of your points regarding morals can be taken seriously, by me at least, until you satisfy these first points that you tried to make but never did.

I think some people got my point wrong or i didn't explain myself right.

I wanted to say that Holy Water is holy because God touched it or whatever it is suppose to be pure because of him and it is use to purify our soul, I never mentioned that people would be disease free with Holy water but the Holy water should be pure have no disease and be no threat if you have faith in God then you have no worry about any virus (legal claim or not) in Holy water.

The authorities of the church by stating they would not use Holy water on people at risk (babies, children and older peoples) is like them saying we say that it is Holy but we do not believe it and because we do not believe it we will not take the chance and get people sick by using it. All we have said and done over the centuries is a lie.

I do understand what you are saying and I agree that Christianity teaches many lies. My guess is that the problem with the Holy Water is that even though it's been blessed and exorcised, people have come along and put their fingers in it to bless themselves. And, that's where the germs are coming from.

Anyway, I see your point and I agree with you somewhat.

You are in the wrong thread, but I have answered that question repeatedly.

The fact that every society, religion and sane person agrees that murder, rape and stealing are wrong. (Now you probably want to quibble on definitions, sounds tedious.)

Someone who denies the existence of moral absolutes will cry foul when treated unfairly.

Those who claim to believe in moral relativism prove through their actions and beliefs that they actually believe their morality to be absolutely true.

Within every society, there are dissenters to their moral beliefs. In a society where adultery is the norm, there will always be dissenters who insist that it is wrong. In a culture where killing non-believers is accepted, there are dissenters. The society or culture may create their own morality, but they don't determine right and wrong.

When people around the world point to a moral person, they point to Jesus or Ghandi or the like. Why would everyone agree that those figures were more moral than the average person, unless there is an innate awareness of right and wrong that transcends morality, culture, religion?

Every sane person agrees that the Golden Rule is the moral minimum for behavior.

Right and wrong are obviously universal and understood by all people. To refute this, you must answer each of the points above.

I think I’m finally beginning to understand what you mean when you say “moral absolute”. And by your definition, I would agree that moral absolutes do exist.

I think the problem is simply that not everyone uses the same definition as you do.

In other words, according to your definition, moral absolutes do exist, and by other definitions, moral absolutes do not exist.

For example, the definitions I use for “absolute” and “moral” are inherently contradictory. So “moral absolute” is a self-contradicting term.

Fair enough?

Do not put the Lord, thy God unto a test.

God is Able!


Blessings!
Suhnshine

i agree! catholics are the main ones who drink the wine and use holy water. thats why i dont believe in catholics! have u ever noticed that they always advertize beer at all there functionxs? thats not ver holy!

You don't believe in catholics? Well that's silly. I can certainly prove that catholics exist.