Mixed marriage inevitable and desirable in a pluralistic society

CalicoJ, (part 2)

you asked,
"If your daughter is spending a lot of time hanging around with the kind of hardcore crazies that interpret the Bible literally, you may have quite a job to do untangling that mentality later on in life."

well, i'm not so sure it's up to me to "untangle" anything.... one day a few years ago after church - out of earshot of my daughter - i made a comment to my wife about something crazy the pastor said. it seemed to me like like an obvious comment to me about some logical fallacy in the bible or his sermon or something. my wife said, "are you trying to steal my religion?" i was taken aback. i don't want to do that to her. i love her. if she likes her religion, what the hell do i care?

while the church is literal fundamentalist, my wife isn't. she's more nuanced than that. she knows about dinosaurs and geologic time and so forth. i'm not quite sure how she deals with the oh-so-christian idea of me being hell-bound, but i suspect she takes that with a grain of salt too. for her, religion is about love and kindness and forgiveness and so forth.

as far as my daughter, i'm always honest with her if she asks a question. she knows i don't think the earth is 6000 years old. when she askes a "difficult" question, i'll say something like, "the scientific evidence really does look like there was no global flood". for instance, i or we or life has managed to explain to her that gay people are not bad, and neither are people who believe other religions.

i just hope to raise a daughter who's loving and caring and happy. she doesn't have to be a clone of me and/or my beliefs. and, i'm sure that when she's an adult we'll have plenty of chances for me to be more forthright about my thoughts about god and jesus and so forth. maybe she'll learn a lesson about tolerance and acceptance of others as they are... i don't know... like i said, it's the source of a bit of angst for me...

test

CalicoJ , you asked,
"One question for you (and if it's too personal, feel free to ignore it), but how did it come to be that with one parent Atheist and the other Theist, it was the Theist's belief, alone, that ended up being taught?"

i had no formal religious "training", but both my parents claimed a belief in some sort of god. my father was a lapsed catholic, and my mother is eastern orthodox with a bunch of mystical stuff mixed in. my dad expressed animosity toward nuns and his catholic church/school - but not religion in general, and he never expressed a disbelief in god.

when we met, my now wife was a lapsed catholic. i was atheist and religion wasn't really an issue. when our daughter was old enough, my wife wanted her to have some kind of religion, and this church was the closest one to our house. also, the people there are SO friendly and loving and caring - disarmingly so. the specifics of their religious beliefs wasn't so important as their behavior and the overall "warm feeling" we got from the church.

i guess i figure if one doesn't get religion when one is young and childlike (childish...) one never will.

@ Walter-in-fallschurch

Criminy, what a position to be in...not having children myself I can't say what I'd do in that position, so who am I to comment? But for my own part, I was raised in a strictly religion-neutral household. Anytime the subject of religion came up, my mother would just say "Yes, some people believe that. And Jainism believes this, and the Buddhists believe that." And so on and so forth. When I was older and begin looking at religion independently, I became profoundly grateful I hadn't been taught to believe one thing or another after witnessing how ferociously some children were indoctrinated. One question for you (and if it's too personal, feel free to ignore it), but how did it come to be that with one parent Atheist and the other Theist, it was the Theist's belief, alone, that ended up being taught? If your daughter is spending a lot of time hanging around with the kind of hardcore crazies that interpret the Bible literally, you may have quite a job to do untangling that mentality later on in life.

peter, on August 6, 2010 at 3:29 AM you said,
"Walter just can't get over the hump of the Flood. He sees no evidence that it ever happened."

well, it's hardly like the flood is the only "hump" - it's just the most preposterous, cartoonish story in the bible. it's also the magical biblical event for which it should be the easiest to find evidence. yet, we don't see evidence for it. in fact all of "flood geology" is an attempt to explain why we don't see the plain simple evidence we "should" were there ever a global flood.

http://evolution.mbdojo.com/flood.html

I would also appreciate your continued discussion with Walter and Pam. Both of these people are brilliant and very civil (The have to be, given that we have been chatting back and forth for a long time, even with me pushing their buttons). I'm sure you sensed that in Pam's response to you. I would say of all the people I have engaged with on these forums they have provided me the most challenging time in giving an answer. Walter is like TWM in that he attends church. I'm not sure, but his daughter may be a believer. He was saying he went on a camping trip earlier this summer with the church group in which he was tempted, I'm sure, to test these Christians in their faith.

Posted by: peterhuff | August 8, 2010 9:36 AM
--------------------

hi peter,
thanks for considering me "brilliant" and "civil"... ;-)

just wanted to clear up a possible source of confusion: yes, i do go to church with my young daughter and wife. i do not "believe", but my wife does and at the moment my daughter does. my wife of course knows my a-religious views, but my daughter doesn't. my daughter and i will have plenty of time to discuss religion in general and the logical and historical fallacies in the bible. right now, i'm just supporting my wife and letting my daughter develop her views and so on. believe me this is a huge source of angst for me.

about that camping trip: i believe i told you i DO NOT try to talk these crazy (but incredibly nice) people out of their crazy literal fundamentalist interpretation of the bible in settings like that. the pastor and i have had numerous looong discussions about religion, and there are a few church-goers (mostly the "pioneers" (the youth group) leaders) who are aware of my atheism, but for the most part at church i'm a stealth atheist. like i've said, this is a source of angst for me, and probably what keeps my mind on the topic enough to care to blog here about religion...
-------------------

susan,
i guess i'm doing the unthinkable in your mind: raising "a child with someone who wanted to instill belief in an all-powerful and loving God". well, i really didn't plan it that way, but you can't always pick who you fall in love with....

Okay, so, let me see if I have it straight, Peterhuff wants to talk to me in the "Sanction of Eros" section and Rcofield is switching to "Spiritual but not Religious" when this thread times out. And was TWMatthews going to "Sanction of Eros" as well or "Statistics on Interfaith Marriages are Funny Things"? Because I was totally digging his discussion of technical issues in the Bible. So many threads...head spinning...maybe we could all just pick one and reconvene? For my own part I don't have a problem with discussing epistemology with two people on the same thread if Rcofield and Peterhuff don't.

Hi CalicoJ and TWMatthews,

On Monday, if you are game, we can continue our discussion on the link provided. CJ, I'd like to see where you go with your ideas on epistemology. TWM, I want to continue to push your system of thought on moral values and your ideas on the reliability of the Bible. Here is the link (It is not busy, so I don't think they will mind),

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/john_mark_reynolds/2010/07/the_sanction_of_eros.html#comments

Hi RCofield,

RCO: No, not offended by you at all, brother. My posts to TW over the last week or so have largely been an attempt to change the line of discussion to epistemological and presuppositional considerations. His responses to those posts have amounted to casual dismissals incorporated, for the most part, into his responses to you.

Well I'm relieved. I see value having an ally in Christ on these threads. It is refreshing to see a Christian debate on a presuppositional basis, or even debate at all. How did this begin for you?

I was introduced to presuppositional apologetics by listening to the Greg Bahnsen/Gordon Stein debate. Then I started listening to Gene Cook answering atheist on his Unchained Radio podcast three to four times a week. From here it lead to reading Bahnsen, Van Til, Gordon Clark, John A. Frame, D.A. Carson, Robert Reymond, to name but some of the more well known Reformed presuppositional apologists. I'm not sure if you are aware, but the Monergism site has a wealth of material.

http://www.monergism.com/

The On Faith forum helps to think through issues, because atheists and skeptics usually give the best fodder to think about and I have learned a lot from these discussions. I hope you don't find I'm being rude in my answers. I try to take a direct approach. One of the objects of such discussions, to my thinking, is to push their philosophy to its ultimate end and show that these philosophical systems or worldviews which are not built on our solid foundation in Christ, have nothing to support themselves by. Francis Beckwith and Greg Koukl once wrote a book on relativism titled, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, which sums it up nicely.

I'm sorry I didn't interact with you more instead of just barging in. I'm going to see if TWM and Cj will engage on a separate forum so I don't interrupt your attempt to get them to examine their core beliefs, but I want to see how you approach the issues, so please keep me posted as to where you are going or feel free to barge in on the link I'm going to give TWM and CJ. I'll take CJ up on his offer to discuss epistemology.

I would also appreciate your continued discussion with Walter and Pam. Both of these people are brilliant and very civil (The have to be, given that we have been chatting back and forth for a long time, even with me pushing their buttons). I'm sure you sensed that in Pam's response to you. I would say of all the people I have engaged with on these forums they have provided me the most challenging time in giving an answer. Walter is like TWM in that he attends church. I'm not sure, but his daughter may be a believer. He was saying he went on a camping trip earlier this summer with the church group in which he was tempted, I'm sure, to test these Christians in their faith.

RCofield,

"You stated earlier that your Catholic school experience inoculated you against Christianity."

Actually, I wrote that it inoculated me against religion; having thought about it again, I should have written that it inoculated me against mindless belief, and superstition in general.

"I am curious. Is this the only first-hand experience you have had with Christianity?"

Interesting question.

I remember being followed for about half a block not too long ago by two overly-aggressive mormon "missionaries", until I threatened them with physical violence.

I can't go into a liquor store on Sunday in DC.

I can't by takeout beer or wine after 10:00 PM in DC.

My car was blocked by a double-parking christian one Sunday.

I probably would not win any run for major public office because I have not accepted jebus into my heart as my lord and savior.

That's just off the top of my head.

PSOLUS,

RCO: Though PSOLUS will be disappointed that we are not at odds with one another..."

PSO: I no longer have a reason to live.
Good bye, cruel world...

I know. Really did hate to pull the rug from beneath you. :-)

You stated earlier that your Catholic school experience inoculated you against Christianity. I am curious. Is this the only first-hand experience you have had with Christianity?

RCofield,

"Though PSOLUS will be disappointed that we are not at odds with one another..."

I no longer have a reason to live.

Good bye, cruel world...

TWMATTHEWS,

PS. You might want to work on that whole "morality/goodness-is-an-individual-construct-but-God-must-conform-to-my-individual-standard" thing. It is, along with your penchant for anti-theistic "biblical scholarship," a glaringly weak point in your apologetic.

Peace

TWMATTHEWS,

TWM: "Oh rats. And I just dug up my handy dandy bible decoder ring too. Although the ring only works for the King James version, it has been successful in smoothing out some of the rougher edges."

Gotta watch those "decoder rings." They only become necessary when you get confused by anti-theistic "bible scholars" who play with marbles :-).

If one applied these guy's principles for biblical interpretation to the records of history the only reliable historical record we would have would the that which they have observed in their lifetime--which reliable record, of course, would die with them.

And reading Dr. Suess while using their interpretive method would present insurmountable hermeneutical challenges.

You guys have fun.

Peace

PETERHUFF,

PH: "More to the point, have I offended you? If so, would you explain to me what is bothering you. I'm open to constructive criticism, rather than alienating a brother in Christ."

RCO: No, not offended by you at all, brother. My posts to TW over the last week or so have largely been an attempt to change the line of discussion to epistemological and presuppositional considerations. His responses to those posts have amounted to casual dismissals incorporated, for the most part, into his responses to you.

Though PSOLUS will be disappointed that we are not at odds with one another :-), you guys continue on. I'll correspond with CALICOJ and watch you guys from the sidelines.

RCOFIELD: "Though intriguing, living vicariously through PETERHUFF on this thread is not my cup of tea. I think I’ll bow out at this point. (No offense intended, Peter)."

Oh rats. And I just dug up my handy dandy bible decoder ring too. Although the ring only works for the King James version, it has been successful in smoothing out some of the rougher edges. For example, it replaces all references to slaves with servants. It also merges contradictory passes (Genesis 1:3-5 and Genesis 1:16-17) so that they both present the same order of creation.

Hi TWMatthews,

May I suggest we continue on this link on Monday,

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/brad_hirschfield/2010/07/statistics_about_inter-marriage_are_funny_things.html

Hi CalicoJ,

CJ: "Peterhuff, I wouldn't mind at all having a serious, gratuitous-insult-free conversation with you, I just worry that our differing ideas on the structure of logic-based debate will make it impossible. Have you been following the conversation on epistemology I've been having with Rcofield (Aug. 4, 12:36 PM)? That conversation I have been taking seriously. You're more than welcome to comment, as is anyone else with interest in the subject."

Thanks for the invitation! Yes, I read your responses and I'm familiar with presuppositional apologetics and the epistemological argument, but since I may have already offended a brother in Christ by barging in here, I'll wait for RCofield to respond and watch from the sideline. He said he would respond in the next few days and I'm interested to see how he tackles it. Let me wait and see what happens.

What we could do is take the two forum approach. He and you could have this discussion on one forum and you and I could have it on another. That may solve the issues he has with me barging in and still allow you to get our perspectives on the issue.

Hi RCofield,

RCOFIELD: "Though intriguing, living vicariously through PETERHUFF on this thread is not my cup of tea. I think I’ll bow out at this point. (No offense intended, Peter)."

More to the point, have I offended you? If so, would you explain to me what is bothering you. I'm open to constructive criticism, rather than alienating a brother in Christ.

I found it refreshing that there were two Christians in the mix, and I looked forward to reading your comments to both CJ and TWM. I was hoping you would address some of TWMatthews issues with the Bible.

Maybe it is I who should bow out and let you continue? You were here first. Please drop a line to explain your issues.

Blessings in Christ Jesus!

"Though intriguing, living vicariously through PETERHUFF on this thread is not my cup of tea. I think I’ll bow out at this point. (No offense intended, Peter)."

Well, this is certainly an ugly turn of events.

If the god-people can't get along, what chance do we heathens have?

"See you guys around."

So long, and thanks for all the ichthys.

@ Peterhuff (et al, actually)

Peterhuff, I wouldn't mind at all having a serious, gratuitous-insult-free conversation with you, I just worry that our differing ideas on the structure of logic-based debate will make it impossible. Have you been following the conversation on epistemology I've been having with Rcofield (Aug. 4, 12:36 PM)? That conversation I have been taking seriously. You're more than welcome to comment, as is anyone else with interest in the subject.

TWMATTHEWS,

Though intriguing, living vicariously through PETERHUFF on this thread is not my cup of tea. I think I’ll bow out at this point. (No offense intended, Peter).

See you guys around.

Peterhuff,

Your use of the bible as evidence to support the bible is by anyone's definition, circular logic. The bible must be true because it says it's true? Really?

The few examples I gave of the inaccuracies of the bible were simply that -- a few. But any inaccuracies found in a document that is supposed to be perfect should cast doubt on the perfection of said document. And I haven't even gotten into the very specific lineage as defined in the bible marking the universe to be roughly 6,000 years old. Nor have I commented on the discrepancies within those lineages themselves and the fact that the lists don't really match up very well.

Nor have I commented on the seeming contradiction that traces David to Jesus by way of Jesus' father Joseph (even though you believe that Jesus' real father was God. I wonder what God's DNA is like?)

Nor have I commented on the contradictions within the Christmas stories and the fact that Jesus' birth is only mentioned by two of the four gospels.

Nor have I commented on the discrepancies between the biblical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion and Roman records.

Shall I go on?

Peterhuff said: You borrow from the Christian framework if you believe that you have purpose when in fact your world-view is devoid of it.

TWM: Nope. I just don't believe in a god-planned purpose. My purpose is modest and doesn't include God. It does include treating people with respect. It does not include a fear of offending a mythical god anymore than I'm fearful of offending Odin.

Hi TWMatthews (August 6, 2010 11:21 AM ),

I have half an hour to spare. This will have to be short and sweet. I assume you are going to address my other questions and comments that dig deeper into your psychological crutch, but in the mean time you are addressing the Bible and looking for its consistency.

I'll have more to say on Kathleen Kenyon later. Please remind me if I forget.

TWM: "You made some pretty extraordinary claims about the historical accuracy of the bible. Here are a few pieces of evidence that document just a few of the many inaccuracies. (I'm assuming that your quotes to me from the bible indicate that you think it to be the inerrant word of God)."

Yes I do. And as such it is my highest authority. I believe that a thorough looking into the evidence shows that God's word is true and that it supports history. As Luke said in Acts 1:3, "After His suffering, He showed Himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that He was alive." These proofs changed a timid band of believers into a world-wide following.

Peter said, "We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty." (2 Peter 1:16)

The apostle John said, "That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and which our hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it..." (1 John 1:1-2a)

Luke said, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word." (Luke 1:1-2)

Paul said, "Now brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you....For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Peter, and then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time,, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep....." (1 Corinthians 15:1a, 3-5)

These are men who were eyewitnesses or were in contact with the eyewitnesses to the factual truth of who Jesus Christ was and concerning His death, burial and resurrection. So your attempt to compare the Scriptures, just on this point alone, with James A. Michener are ridiculous. These people did not set out to make up fables and cleverly invented stories, but to tell the truth of what they had witnessed. James Michener, on the other hand claims to reconstruct historical accounts with fictitious, poetic license.

PART 2

TWM: "Bear in mind that because "some" actual historical events are described in the bible does not mean that the detailed stories of Jesus, Mary, etc. are also historical events. Many fictional authors base their stories around actual historical events -- James Michener comes to mind."

The Bible does not claim to be a fictitious novel but the very words of God and His dealings with man.

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." (1 Thess. 2:13)

Notice the last part of that sentence, 'which is at work in you who believe.'

Peter said, "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy ever had its origins in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:20-21)

TWM: "Finally, the idea that someone needs God to live a happy, productive life is certainly contradicted by the evidence. (By God I mean in the Christian sense -- God/Jesus) You don't really believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Pagans and atheists are incapable of leading happy, healthy and productive lives do you?"

No, I don't mean they can't live happy lives; they just do so in spite of their core beliefs, that ultimately nothing matters, their is no ultimate meaning, for how can a universe that sprang into being by chance have meaning and purpose????????????????????????????????

PART 3

TWM: "I would argue that those of us who don't believe in an afterlife are both happier and work harder toward improving the world we live in.....I don't need to "store up spiritual treasures" as Christ proclaimed. That's one of the reasons why most conservative Christians seem to believe that we don't need to worry about global warming (Jesus will be coming long before the world gets too hot) or don't care about pollution (why worry about this world when it will be destroyed in the next 50 years)."

This is God's world and we need to be good stewards of all He has given us, both spiritually and physically.

TWM: "Whereas those of us who believe this is it, seem to treat the earth with more respect and want to take care of it. (So what do you guys think of global warming)."

I think that man living without God does reckless things that destroy the planet. Big multinational corporation exploit and rape the earth, so do greedy governments who put national interests above the interests of the whole. North America is one of the biggest exploiters of the earth in its mad dash for pleasure. When pleasure is sought above all else it leads to meaninglessness.
.
TWM: "I bet you're both in with the majority of evangelicals that think the rapture will take place in their lifetime. Well?"

I'm not. I'm trying to discern between partial Preterism and Amillnnialism which view is biblical, but I definitely have no trust in the pretrib/dispensational view of Scripture. That came about in the 1800's. It reads into God's word things that are not there. The separation in Daniel's 70th week is a for instance.

TWM: "Peter, your statements about the meaning in life presupposes that you were created for a purpose and it's just a matter of discovering God's purpose for you."

The purpose of why we were created, to use a Reformed slogan, is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. We are not the center of the universe, we don't have the majesty that God has.

TWM: "As you can imagine, I think differently. I think that you can find a purpose or purposes in your life without it being planned for you. My parents never told me what my purpose in life is and admittedly, my goals are modest. If I die having made more friends than enemies and having helped people along the way and having prepared my family to lead productive, happy lives themselves, then I will have fulfilled my purpose."

You borrow from the Christian framework if you believe that you have purpose when in fact your world-view is devoid of it.

twmatthews,

"I'm afraid Psolus that you are the smarter of us."

I don't think that that's necessarily true.

I'm guessing that I am older than you, for whatever that's worth.

But, more importantly, I attended a catholic elementary and high school.

I think that that experience inoculated from religion without turning my mind to mush, just as many childhood diseases, if children catch them at the right time in their lives, inoculate them against those and other diseases, without actually killing them.

But, what the hell do I know.

To Peterhuff on the historical accuracy of the bible (continued).

The work of Kathleen Kenyon concluded the same kind of results as those found with the city of Ai. Her work was done through excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests.

And then there's one of the biggest historical inaccuracies ever -- well, maybe not quite a big as the Genesis stories but certainly it forms a large part of the historical record concerning the Jews -- and that's the Exodus. The bible describes the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness in great detail.

According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988).

Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions.

According to the bible, up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations.

Of course if one takes faith over reason and evidence then the fact that no archeologist has provided any evidence to support the entire exodus story will mean nothing. But your dependence upon the bible requires that it be historically accurate otherwise how do you know which stories are true and which have been embellished or made up entirely?

To Peterhuff on the historical accuracy of the bible.

You made some pretty extraordinary claims about the historical accuracy of the bible. Here are a few pieces of evidence that document just a few of the many inaccuracies. (I'm assuming that your quotes to me from the bible indicate that you think it to be the inerrant word of God). Bear in mind that because "some" actual historical events are described in the bible does not mean that the detailed stories of Jesus, Mary, etc. are also historical events. Many fictional authors base their stories around actual historical events -- James Michener comes to mind.

A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (verses:26-28).

Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B.C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua.

Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

continued....

I'm afraid Psolus that you are the smarter of us. I keep hoping that arguments demonstrating reason and evidence will change minds.

But alas, when reason and evidence are replaced by faith, there is no hope. :-(

To Peterhuff and RCOfield (part 3)

Finally, the idea that someone needs God to live a happy, productive life is certainly contradicted by the evidence. (By God I mean in the Christian sense -- God/Jesus) You don't really believe that Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Pagans and atheists are incapable of leading happy, healthy and productive lives do you? If you do, then I'm glad you told me because I've got three loving sons and a wife of 27 years, and both of us have the mistaken belief that we love each other and are happy. Whew, I'm glad you told me before our planned 27th anniversary trip this October.

I would argue that those of us who don't believe in an afterlife are both happier and work harder toward improving the world we live in. Since this is all we've got, I don't need to "store up spiritual treasures" as Christ proclaimed. That's one of the reasons why most conservative Christians seem to believe that we don't need to worry about global warming (Jesus will be coming long before the world gets too hot) or don't care about pollution (why worry about this world when it will be destroyed in the next 50 years).

Whereas those of us who believe this is it, seem to treat the earth with more respect and want to take care of it. (So what do you guys think of global warming).

I bet you're both in with the majority of evangelicals that think the rapture will take place in their lifetime. Well?

Peter, your statements about the meaning in life presupposes that you were created for a purpose and it's just a matter of discovering God's purpose for you.

As you can imagine, I think differently. I think that you can find a purpose or purposes in your life without it being planned for you. My parents never told me what my purpose in life is and admittedly, my goals are modest. If I die having made more friends than enemies and having helped people along the way and having prepared my family to lead productive, happy lives themselves, then I will have fulfilled my purpose.

To Peterhuff and RCOfield (part 2)

Peter, you have claimed that there is a standard proclaimed by God and defined in the bible for what is moral versus immoral. I don't see how that's possible.

During the civil war, both sides were reading from the exact same bible and coming away with two distinct understandings of whether slavery is good or bad. How do you explain that? Isn't one side or the other wrong when it comes to the idea that slavery is acceptable?

But they are both reading the bible; presumably they are both praying to the same God for guidance. How is this misunderstanding possible?

History is rife with people who seem to be good and yet have come away with varied and contradictory understandings of how God wants them to live. I've used the example already of the Spanish and Italian Inquisitions. If God had spelled it out so clearly, then how could so many people get it so wrong so many years?

Your response will probably be the same one I've heard before -- they weren't really understanding the bible or really listening to God. And then the question I raised days ago is where is God correcting these misunderstandings? Where was he when a German contingent of crusaders, on the way to the crusades came across a primarily Jewish village and decided rather than wait to get to the holy lands, to start by exterminating some of the Christ killers along the way. And so between 15,000 and 30,000 Jews were slaughtered before these crusaders even left Europe. Where was God to correct such actions? Were these truly evil people or were they people, thinking they know what God wants them to do, undertaking such horrific actions?

You see Peter, what you really have is everyone reading the bible and praying for divine guidance and coming away with their own personal interpretation of how God wants them to act. This is no different from my conclusions -- that everyone develops their own set of moral standards. It's how what may seem immoral to you -- allowing a gay person the right to get married -- seems moral to me. (I made the assumption that you believe same sex marriage to be immoral).

You may think that God has defined moral standards well but you will have to admit that tens of millions of people have gotten it wrong, thinking they were doing what is right. Why are you so sure that your understanding is "right"? Are you more sure than Pope Innocent III when he started the first Inquisition?

Continued (again)

peterhuff,

"That was the case with PSolus. We were wasting each others time."

I may have been wasting your time; after all, I'm pretty sure that I can't save you - only you can save yourself - all I can do is attempt to plant a seed of doubt and hope that it sprouts in actual thought.

But you were not wasting my time, and I certainly was not wasting my time.

I come here for the same reason that I watch "Cops"; to remind myself that no matter how the minutia of everyday existence makes my life more challenging, it could be so much worse.

There's nothing like seeing a druggie, a wife beater, a child molester, a thief, a carjacker, or a pervert being arrested and thrown into the back seat of a squad car to bring the minor problems that I am faced with into perspective.

Or to read the ravings of a true believer, babbling on about his or her delusions of a magical world that just doesn't exist.

All I can think is, there, but for a little skepticism and lack of belief, go I.

So I will continue to read the delusions, jumping in when it suits my fancy, but thoroughly enjoying the give and take nonetheless.

BTW, where is Walter? We have lost our Walter! Where could our Walter have gone? Did the dingoes steal our Walter?

To RCO and Peterhuff.

First of all thank you both for your thoughtful responses. Since both of you are commenting on my personal standard of morality, I'll address both at the same time.

I'm not bothering to quote your own words back, assuming I can paraphrase them accurately enough. If I've made a mistake, it was unintentional and I'll thank you in advance for correcting my mistakes.

RCO essentially said the flood was justified because the entire world was evil. So, the entire world needed to be destroyed? And exactly how evil were children? What about animals -- since they have no knowledge of right and wrong how can they be declared evil.

RCO, you've made the following assumptions: That the world was evil and that obviously included children and animals which were also destroyed during this biblical mass extermination. I've seen no society ever where everyone was evil. More often than not, it's the leaders that have gone bad and most people have no control over that.

Now you're probably saying well God can see into their hearts and know whether they are evil or not.

If that were true, couldn't God have saved an incredible amount of suffering by giving Hitler and Pol Pot a heart attack? (This was my point days ago where I said there's no evidence of anyone listening to the suffering of people).

Your other example ignores history again RCOfield. You make it seem like the Egyptian people had any power or authority to control events. They didn't. The pharaoh's word was the law. Laws were not passed by a majority of people in fact, common people had no say whatsoever in what was allowed and what wasn't. The idea that the people conspired to enslave Israel is historically inaccurate. The enslavement and continued enslavement of Israel was under the authority of pharaoh and no one else. (Note: recall that this enslavement is not accurate from an historical standpoint but for the sake of this discussion, I am assuming it to be true.)

God, in his infinite mercy, should have punished pharaoh only and not the first born of Egypt.

And now from a historical standpoint, doesn't the story of the killing of the innocent during the time of Moses birth sound awfully similar to the killing of male babies during the birth of Jesus? Both stories are very similar and are also similar in that they have no historical support.

Either way, a God who kills children to correct an evil for which they have no control is not loving. Any attempt to excuse such behavior and calling it justice is wrong in my view. Justice is punishing people responsible for a crime and you don't really believe that a 2-year old daughter of an Egyptian soldier is anyway responsible for the enslavement of the people of Israel. So neither love nor justice were exhibited by these actions.

To be continued....

Hey TW,

I posted in response to your Flood/Passover question as follows:

Part 1 of 3--8/5 11:20PM
Part 2a of 3--8/5 11:20PM
Part 2b of 3--8/5 11:17PM
Part 3 of 3--8/5 11:11PM

GUYS,

This thread is about to time out. When it does, I will be posting my responses to you here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/max_carter/2010/08/spiritual_but_not_religious.html

Hi TWMatthews (August 1, 2010 5:56 PM ),

This is probably my last series of rebuttals for a few days. I work 12 hour midnight shifts this entire weekend. Thanks for the discussion. Hopefully we can continue later.

PH: It doesn't make sense to me. You believe you are a chance being with no ultimate purpose or hope, that at the moment of death you cease to be, so what is the point?

TWM: "I don't need a point to be happy and because I suspect unless shown evidence otherwise, that this is it, I try to make the most of what I've got."

From an atheistic vantage you are doing something inconsistent with your philosophical starting point. You are taking from the Christian position again. You system began without meaning or purpose or hope and yet here you are striving for all three because it makes you happy. What difference does it make? When you are dead none of this will matter, nothing. Why do you have this desire to carry on? The other side of this is oblivion, no hope, no happiness, no meaning. Yet as I mentioned before, you live contrary to your core values.

TWM: "I invest my time in making this world better because this is it baby.

Why not just grab for all the gusto you can get? Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die! And when you are dead nothing you have ever done will matter. Why 'should' it now? Again you cross over to the Christian camp in that you live inconsistently outside your world-view.

PH: Why do you act as if there is one? [i.e. a point] Why do you act as if life matters?

Me: "Do you honestly think that you need to believe in God in order to have a fruitful and happy life?"

Ultimately, yes. There is no point otherwise except whatever you make it to be. Some make it to be hedonistic, some altruistic, some cannibalistic in times past. Why does helping others or making life better for others matter outside the Christian worldview? Are you chalking up brownie points for you later non-existence? No, you believe that life does matter. You live within the Christian framework again when you live like this.

TWM: "Based on my experience with other Christians (don't forget I still go to church twice a week -- but that's a subject for another discussion) they are the ones genuinely unhappy."

Going to church twice a week doesn't do any good unless you put the Saviors words into practice regardless of whether one professes Christ or not.

PART 2

TWM: "They are worried that gays will be welcomed in our church (something I'm working very hard to make happen) and it bothers them. Of course, since God has laid down such a clear and concise standard of morality and love, the idea of gays should be a non-issue, right?"

People are created in the image and likeness of their Maker, but not everything people do deserves respect. Are you presuming that if there is a God He sees it to be this way, in which He does not. Marriage is naturally between a man and woman. That is the way it was designed to be and without this design and purpose there would be no human beings. Man again has decided otherwise, being so wise in his shifting ways and shifting cultures that he defies God in every stance.

I can see that 'gays' is a sour point with you. Why, in a world that is basically meaningless, that when you die it won't matter - or will it?

PH: Why follow an ethical standard that someone else is imposing on you?

TWM: "This is really good. Look in the mirror -- aren't you following a moral standard you think was created by God?"

Again, you have yet to show how a moral standard is relevant outside of God, without of course doing the very thing that you accuse God of, using unjust force. 'You do this because society says it is right and if you don't you go to jail or even better, we kill you!'

PH: Why not just do whatever you feel, for when you are dead nothing matters?

TWM: "Ah, but I already answered that. By living among other people we abide by the rules defined by that standard. Morals? They change as I've tried to point out to you."

Because they say it is right. But even in your own country the standard keeps changing as someone else enters office. Why is his opinion of such great authority that he gets to make and change the rules. How do you measure his wisdom? By how educated he is? Hitler's Germany was highly educated. They made some dandy rules. 'You are American. Into the gas chambers please! We have found that you are of a lesser race from our Arian blood. You are of lesser stock and we are promoting fast pace evolution." No, that is not the way it went, but what is to stop it from being?

TWM: "I still haven't seen you answer my question on God's position on slavery --"

It is there, back in the posts a ways.

TWM: "haven't your moral values evolved further than God's who seems to have no problem with slavery?"

See my reply in bye-gone posts.

PART 3

PH: There is no justice for the wrongs you have done to others or for the wrongs others have done to you.

TWM: "Our society has defined justice. Where's your proof that there is divine justice?"

On the impossibility of justice without Him. What one person sees as just in a relative society another will see as unjust. It's just preference, which is the enemy of justice, the enemy of goodness, the enemy of rightfulness.

PH: Grab as much enjoyment as you can while you can and when life gets uncomfortable, pull the plug.

TWM: "Having seen what advanced Alzheimer's did to mother over the course of 15 years and the toll it took on my father (who died of a stroke 3 months after Mom passed away) I wish it were that easy, to just pull the plug. Our society, for right or wrong has determined that you shouldn't engage in mercy killing."

I'm sorry to hear of your mom and dad, but what gives any individual the right to take another life? It's all relative right? If murder can be gotten away without anyone else but yourself knowing, what difference does it make. Oh, how about the fact that someone is about to take your life, without witnesses, without justice. What difference does it make now? You see, you have a system of thought that you can theorize on but you can't make it work in the real world.

PH: Why are you trying to sort this all out or present your belief to others as a 'better' way? Why do you act as if truth matters? It is all relative anyway isn't it?

TWM: "Nope. I never said that. I said that morals are defined by society and are always evolving. I also said that the bible is a particularly poor source of morals and those morals have changed from then until today. I said nothing about truth."

Well, maybe it is something that you should look into. You want to live as though certain things are true, but again truth is objective and it has to have a source. What is your source for truth? Yourself, or some other fallible human beings interpretation of data?

Hi CalicoJ,

CJ: "Who in tarnation are these Pam and Walter people anyway?"

They are atheists who have engaged in discussions with me on various threads for over a year now. Actually, I think Pam's discussions go back to a Sam Harris forum a few years ago. Pam is very scientifically minded and thinks evolution is sufficient in explaining all things, or at least will be (given time). Walter just can't get over the hump of the Flood. He sees no evidence that it ever happened. He also sees evolution as the great justifier. His daughter goes to church and so does he, but alas, he does not believe.

CJ: "Peterhuff, just so you know, I left you a response Aug. 2nd, 12:40 pm. Since it's at least partially just snideness and our conversation wasn't really going anywhere, I'll understand if you just ignore it. I just enjoy being annoying, which doesn't really work if you don't read it and therefore aren't annoyed."

Yes, I found it hard to take you seriously after this comment,

CJ: "Well, thanks! I wasn't actually trying to respond to your questions at that point, I was being a pain in the @$$ because I don't really take you seriously and I enjoy being annoying. Much like the first paragraph in this post. And this paragraph too. Glad to clear that up!"

As RCofield said, if you want to have a serious conversation in which we examine each others basic, foundational starting points or core presuppositions I'll gladly engage. I've nothing against you expressing your opinion about me or what
I say, but it does seem pointless to engage with someone who is not looking for a serious conversation about meaning, existence, purpose and epistemology when you are.

That was the case with PSolus. We were wasting each others time. There are plenty of other people who want to engage.

Anyway, let's resume if you are willing then?

PART 1

ME: "Yes, it all boils down to your highest authority. I appeal to the highest authority that there is - God. What is yours?...Science changes, people change. Why do you feel that these subjective sources hold the answers."

CJ: "Forgive me for repeating myself--I DON'T THINK THERE IS A GOD! Therefore arguments based on that viewpoint don't mean anything!"

What is your highest authority in saying this? Are you discounting the millions who have claimed a relationship with their Maker besides His testimony?

Actually they do mean something, you just fail to see meaning because you take God so lightly (1 Corinthians 1:18-25).

CJ: "Yes, actually, I do think science offers us many of the answers. And it of course it changes, because it's not a dogma but a living enterprise and it doesn't claim to have ALL the answers"

Since it changes, how do you know what you believe now is true? Can you ever know if your reference keeps changing?

Now you realize that so much that passes off as science is nothing but opinion on evidence? As I said before, we don't find a fossil stamped '10 million years old' or 'related to' such and such. All evidence is interpreted and that interpretation starts with your basic or core value system. Yours is based on relativism if you can't provide an objective, ultimate, absolute, unchanging source. Well, can you?

If you say no, then my next question is who is that source and what makes his/her ideas of the way things happened in the past reliable? Let's look at the influences in his/her life and see if we can find out how they formulated their knowledge.

Darwin would be a good start, since he was most instrumental in getting the evolutionary ball to where it is today. He looked at similarity and concluded that because organisms shared common structures or isolated caused them to evolve from one kind to another. The finch is a prime example. A bird is still a bird, whether is adapts to its isolation or food range by developing a bigger beak or not.

PART 2

CJ: "Now let me ask you in turn--what makes you so sure there is an objective truth to be found? I rather expect the subjective, fallible realities of science and logical thought are all we'll ever get, and I'm fine with that."

There has to be for there to be truth. Truth cannot change. What is true is always true or else it was never true to begin with. Let me qualify that statement further. Something that you would say is relative in that it only applies to one person, like George Washington was the first president of the USA, is always true regardless of whether we agree with it or not. It can't be both true and false at the same time. That is logically impossible in the same sense that A cannot both be A and non-A at the same time and in the same sense.

Truth has to be objective in order for it to be true. What is true can never be false or it would not be true.

CJ: "As soon as I posted my marble-on-the-floor thing, I knew, I just knew, you were gonna start talking about where the marbles came from and whatnot. You're dodging the point."

No, not dodging it, trying to establish how you assume something in order to prove something else.

CJ: "Now I'll just go ahead and repeat myself outright...regularity isn't really the same as organization--there's more than just a difference in semantics. Address that point first and then I'll talk about my views on the origin of life and the universe."

By organization I was using it in the sense of the fifth definition below,

1. the act of organizing or the state of being organized
2. an organized structure or whole
3. a business or administrative concern united and constructed for a particular end
4. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a body of administrative officials, as of a political party, a government department, etc.
5. order or system; method

PART 3

CJ: "Now, when you talk about the uniformity of nature, fair enough, I was assuming we were still discussing fauna and all of nature in general. If you mean specifically celestial mechanics, yes, there's a fair amount of regularity to a lot of it. However, when you say..."

I'm talking about the whole of nature, the mechanics of earth as well as heavenly.

ME: CJ: "Firstly, regularity isn't really the same as organization--there's more than just a difference in semantics. It does possess regularity, it doesn't possess organization. As for how this regularity came to be, well, pick up an astrophysics textbook."

Regularity does not come about without order, neither does it come about by mindless random chance. That is just common sense.

The minute hand of a watch doesn't keep time without the regular order of the cogs acting as they have been DESIGNED to act.

How does chance produce regularity? Without intent which originates from the mind of God nothing exists but God. We are derived beings.

First show me how a mindless, purposeless, meaningless beginning produces intent, for we are a produce of something and we have intent.

From all we observe this is the case, that intent comes from being just like we see personality deriving from being and consciousness derived from being, thinking derived from being, sensation, smell, touch, hearing coming from being, love coming from being, knowledge coming from being, information coming from being, life coming from being and being ordering and regulating it.

So how does impersonal, random, purposeless matter and energy in motion create such things? You don't see a rock with personality. It can't think, yet supposedly we are just a chip of the old block - of granite that is.

Now a lot of people have come up with theories on how things can be possible, but is this provable science or is this just faith, a leap into someones imagination, as you probably claim God to be.

Again, without God nothing makes sense when you break it down to its starting presuppositions.

PART 4

CJ: "Say a jar of marbles falls off a high shelf and smashes open. The floor is severely sunken in the middle of the room, and many of the marbles start rolling back and forth in the center of the room. There is regularity; there is not conscious organization. Welcome to your Universe!"

You are assuming no conscious organization/order from a fictitious example that you concocted out of the recesses of your mind, that has both order and regularity to it in order for you to produce coherent thoughts on it.

Explain to me how a empirical, physical universe produces logic that is of itself non-physical and intangible that you are using right now??? You can't touch it, you can't grab logic, you can't physically smell it, yet without it all communication is impossible. It must be universal in order for thinking being.

Explain to me how in a random chance universe (i.e., impersonal, without mind or intent) is able to produce regular, orderly laws such as the law of gravity or the law of logic, two entities that are not physical substances or energy in motion but concepts that are only perceivable by beings and that seem universally necessary for structure and communication and also why we can perceive such things without order and regularity?

You take for granted too many things.

Hi RCofield,

Three good posts to TWMatthews! You did the footwork that would have taken me forever to come up with. But you displayed beautifully God's patience before He brought judgment, His warning and much of the manner in which He took action before judgment.

TWM's questions and concerns are a problem that unbeliever's are always raising as a charge against God, not only with Egypt and the Flood, but also with slavery or other genocides, such as were commanded when entering the Promised Land and taking possession of it.

Hi TWMatthews,

In beginning you said:

TWM: "Sorry for the delayed response. I own a software company and was short-handed for the last couple of days. (It was very good :-)"

In that case maybe you will understand this analogy. A long time ago my computer got a virus which caused it to act in an illogical manner, a manner in which it was not programmed to act and in which it would not operate properly or logically. Now the only thing that seemed reasonable for me to do, after monkeying around with it without a fix was to phone Dell support and get a technician to walk me through the problem and solution. This meant re-formating or reprogramming my computer by taking the old virus infected program out and reinstalling the original software to its original state.

I know it is a poor analogy, but this is the problem with man and the Fall. Man is now running with a virus - sin - that causes him to think and act illogically and to run amok. The only solution to this problem is for the Creator to give you a new nature, a virus free program - the Lord Jesus Christ. Without that program you will continue to run amok with your ill fated logic.

But the problem is that, as I said to JAC, the Lord Jesus lays down some pretty ridged instructions on how to fix that problem. He is the solution. If we want to follow His instructions we must count the cost. And the cost is too great for many people to follow for it demand your all, but the reward is greater yet - a brand new operating system, a new life!

PART 1A

"For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower (or in my case getting my computer working again), does not first sit down and calculate the cost (the fee I was charged to repair it as opposed to its current value or worth, of what I had a worthless, non-functioning piece of electronic junk) to see if he has enough to complete it. Otherwise, when he has laid the foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish....So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his possessions." Luke 14:28-29; 33.

"Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 'If anyone comes after Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple." Luke 14:25-27.

"And He summoned the crowd with His disciples, and said to them, 'If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's sake will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and yet forfeit his soul? For what will a man give in exchange for his soul. For whoever is ashamed of Me and My words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the angels." (Mark 8:34-38)

"To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said, 'If you hold to My teaching, you are really My disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'" (John 8:31-32)

"Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it - he will be blessed [happy] in what he does." James 1:22-25.

What do you learn from all of this?

PART 1

First, there is a cost in following Jesus and that cost involves everything we have. If He is not Lord of everything that you have and own and are then He is not Lord, something else has taken that priority.

Second, that we are to deny ourselves, to hold Him as of first importance, to put Him above our own self wants and ambitions (our selfishness), and to be about His business.

Third, to take up our cross daily and follow Him. That is a humbling experience. Are you willing to be spat at and mocked and then turn the other check? Are you willing to be exposed to persecution and ridicule, to be thought lowly of and yet treat others not as they treat you but with dignity and respect?

Think of Jesus on that cross naked and in extreme physical pain as He though of others. He was willing to humble Himself, He who was very God became Man in order to satisfy the righteous requirements of God for man in meeting all Gods righteousness, and then sacrifice His life in such a shameful way (Galatians 3:13) in order to pay the penalty that we deserve! Are you willing to tell the truth in a truth-less age at the risk of scorn?

Fourth, are you willing to put Christ of first importance over your closest and most dearest family members, to the point the Jesus uses hyperbole in saying that you hate them? He exaggerated the point in order to stress the importance of putting Him first.

Fifth, are you willing to follow Him? If so, then you will discover that what He says is true, and the truth will set you free.

I can go on, but I hope you get the message I am conveying.

PART 2

The reason you cannot fathom Jesus Christ is (to this point in your life) you are not willing to give up everything. You are not willing to humble yourself before Him, the Lord and Master of the universe, to commit to Him the process of discipleship, and asking Him to accept you. For He says,

"Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30)

Do you think He will cast you out if you truly come in this manner?

TWM: "I'd like to get back to some of your comments and again, no personal criticism is meant when I ask you why you believe the bible is accurate either historically or prophetically?"

Because the Bible is verified both by history [His story] and by prophecy. I'd just take one example of prophecy that has become extremely valuable in making this point. That is the destruction of the Temple and fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. There is good evidence to believe that every book of the New Testament was written before this destruction, for nowhere is there mention of the Temple as have already having been destroyed. It is a near prophetic expectation. The destruction is also something that other sources outside the Bible have confirmed as to having happened.

You would contend that this was all written 'in' after the fact to make it seem as before, but again what evidence do you have for this? I mean, Jesus refers to a time of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, a time of desolation upon the Jews that is near. You would also have to contend that Daniel was written of after the fact. And so it goes. Can you produce RELIABLE evidence to this premise also? Let's examine it.

And when you look at the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus and what caused the division in history that is so commonly used today, something extraordinary had to have happened to make these disciples risk everything to the point of extremely painful deaths in most cases for what - a lie? No, the integrity of their message is just too honest, the boldness of their message is to the point of risking death. They were convinced they had seen the risen Christ. Where is the evidence from the first century to deny this happened? Look at some of the evidence from the secular historical sources.

PART 3

TWM: “Didn't god create the universe in 7 days, declare it good (by what standard, I don't know) only to have to destroy it within a few generations?”

PH: No He made it very good! He also gave Adam volition, a will. As soon as Adam chose his own way instead of God’s evil was born in the human being. Man now was looking to himself as the highest authority, the highest standard, the final reference point.

TWM: Assuming there ever was an Adam and an Eve, just for the purposes of this discussion, aren't you really guilty of having low expectations for God? He created the universe and then was forced to "recall" his greatest creation within a couple of generations."

No, He works out everything in accordance with His plan and purpose (Ephesians 1:11 or 3:11 or Hebrews 6:17).

TWM: "I know this is heretical to you, but is this really the best job that a god could have done? Shouldn't it be possible for God to have designed a world in which man has both free will and chooses, more times than not, to do the "right" thing?"

Adam's will would not have been free if he could not choose of his own volition. Adam was commanded not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He chose to and in the act came to know what evil was. Up until that point he was in perfect harmony with the goodness God had created.

PART 4

TWM: "I also haven't read a response from you on why God would have killed so many people in Egypt during the passover; people who were not sinless but at the same time, had nothing to do with imprisoning Israel."

It is God's right to take life. Man would have lived forever in paradise if he had been obedient to God. In man deciding to know good and evil opened up all the sin and wrong that has happened in this world. It also opened up the condemnation of God in judging this wrongful action. That condemnation is death.

Take the Ten Commandments that apply to man. How can they apply to God? Who is above Him that He could worship? How can He murder? All life belongs to Him because He made it and set it in motion. How can He steal? He is the rightful Owner of all things. How can He commit adultery? There is nothing that can compare to God in beauty and majesty. How can He covet? Again it is all His. He made it. How can He lie? His nature is unchanging in which it is impossible for Him to lie. God is not untruthful.

How would a perfectly holy, just, pure and loving God live with a creature that always wanted to do its own thing, to decide in its limited knowledge what goodness is; who wanted to exercise its own authority above that of its Maker? Can you imagine ten to twenty billion people (I don't know what the sum of all the people who ever lived would be) each trying to dictate its own authority and preference of goodness and justice and truth over that of God. What a mess. Just look at what seven billion or so do currently.

TWM: "You seem to want to declare God perfect and infinitely good while at the same time, the world he made is less than perfect, his actions, if true (which is highly doubtful) are more akin to a homicidal maniac than the manifestation of love and goodness."

The Fall explains the virus I mentioned before. Unregenerated man's unguided intellect is a virus that keeps mutating to the point that it has no valid operating instructions. Hence murder, greed, adultery, immorality, selfishness and a host of other problems. Where is 'love your neighbor'? It is mostly forgotten about by every society in the pursuit of self.

TWM: "The bottom line is if you were do have done any of the things that are ascribed to God in the bible, you'd be in jail. Why don't you hold God to any kind of standard of decency?"

Because He is decent, He is just. You just don't recognize that. I don't have the right to take a life that God has given. I'm to honor and respect it. But when something is evil, as a Christian
I'm to shed God's light upon it and expose it. You can't live by two standards that diametrically oppose each other. What man does is evil when he opposes God and God has the right to punish him. God wouldn't be just unless He judged evil, judged what is wrong. As the other Christian said, 'There is no one righteous, no not one." (see Romans 3:10-18)

TWMATTHEWS,

(Part 1 of 3)

Thanks for the response on the Bundy question. Whether one is anti-capital punishment or not, I think people on both sides of the issue can make the distinction between killing a fetus and our criminal justice system taking the life of a serial rapist/killer. The distinction is simply this: The former is a matter of justice, while the latter, in the vast majority of the cases, is a matter of personal choice. Two very different categories. The reason for my posing that question will become apparent later in my response.

I think you still have a serious inconsistency with your subjective/individualistic view of morality and your attempt to hold God accountable to your “standard” of morality/good, but we can come back to that later.

Your contention that the events in the bible are “not particularly historical” aside (will take this up with you later as well), I need to point out something that is interestingly missing in your argument—the full account of the biblical events. Though you are contending that the “actions of God as described **in the bible** are bad,” you are not taking into account all that the bible says about said actions. If you are going to argue **from scripture** that God’s actions are “bad,” integrity requires that you take into account the whole testimony of scripture. Wouldn’t you agree? Now to the “heart of the matter.”

TBC

TWMATTHEWS,

(Part 2a of 3)

TWM: “My individual moral and ethical system declares that the actions of god as described in the bible are bad -- they exhibit characteristics that if you saw me doing, you would make every attempt to stop. My question to Peter and to you as well is, do you judge the actions that God took in the flood and during Passover to be morally ‘good’ -- in your view?”

First, let’s look at the actions that God took in the Flood. Your position presumes the innocence of those who perished, hence your contention that God’s actions were “bad.” The full account of the Flood in the bible, however, demonstrates that far from innocent, the conduct of mankind at that point in history was almost inconceivably evil. Ge 6:5 “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” This describes an evil that was so pervasive that it had become the preoccupation of even the very thoughts and intentions of all mankind. Additionally, the biblical account tells us that “the earth was filled with violence” and that “all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth.” The little we have discovered archeologically from this time-period in ancient Mesopotamia seems to indicate a pretty wild and wooly culture. Wild and wooly enough that I bet your “individual moral and ethical system” would have been deeply offended.

Scripture further tells us that God commissioned Noah to build an Ark. During the time of the building of this Ark (years, possibly decades) Noah preached, warning of the coming judgment, and appealing to all who would listen to repent of their wickedness and be saved from the coming flood. Though God sent Noah to warn mankind, provided an Ark for their rescue, and delayed His judgment for decades…only Noah and his family believed God. And the judgment of God was executed. Everyone who perished did so having rejected, for years, both the warning and the means of escape. As horrifying as it was, justice was served.

TWMATTHEWS,

(Part 2b of 3)

Now to the judgment of God executed upon the Egyptians. The storyline is crystal clear in scripture. The Egyptians had wickedly enslaved the descendants of Abraham (nation of Israel), even though Abraham’s great-grandson Joseph had almost single-handedly saved the entire Egyptian nation from starvation (see Genesis Chapters 37-50).

After Joseph’s death the Egyptians began to fear the Israelites because they were increasing in number, so they made slaves of them (this should speak very strongly to your “moral and ethical system”). They were beaten, abused and killed by the thousands. As if this were not enough, the Egyptian Pharaoh enacted a policy of infanticide (see Exodus chapter 1). When the Israelite women bore male sons they were ripped from their mother’s arms and thrown into the Nile River. As the Nile was infested with crocodiles, these parents witnessed their sons being eaten alive while they stood by, helpless under the heavy hand of their oppressors. And this went on for over 400 years. Is your “individual morality” offended yet?

TWMATTHEWS,

Part 3 of 3)

Enter Moses, whom God appointed to deliver Israel from this horrific bondage. He appears before the Pharaoh and communicates God’s demand that he let His people leave Egypt. “No can do,” says the Pharaoh. Enter plague #1. Moses returns and reiterates God’s demands. “Not gonna happen,” says the Pharaoh. Enter plague #2. You know the story. This continues through plague #9, with the Egyptian ruler hardening his heart and refusing to release Israel each time.

After the 10th refusal, God executes the 10th plague, resulting in the death of the first-born child in every Egyptian household on the night of the Passover. The Pharaoh got the message and let the people go. This seems unjust to you? This offends your “standard” of morality? Remember the 400 years of brutal slavery? Remember the untold thousands of infant Israelite sons ripped from their mother’s and father’s arms and fed to the crocodiles? TW, if you (or I, for that matter) had witnessed even **one** of these acts of brutal infanticide you (and I) would have wept and cried out for justice, let alone thousands of such acts.

In the end, justice was served. The punishment executed by God upon the Egyptians fit the crimes of the Egyptians. And yet, amazingly, this makes the God of the bible a “megalomaniacal maniac” in your mind. It seems to me that your sense of justice is highly selective. I agree with the rhetorical question of Abraham in Ge. 18:25: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” Yes. He has and He shall.

TW, you may be able to make a case for God acting unjustly in your own mind. You cannot make that same case from the bible.

RCO asked: Was the jury who found [Ted Bundy] guilty and the judge who sentenced him to death and the executioner who threw the switch acting immorally?

TWM:From my perspective they acted legally but not morally. I don't believe in the death penalty. But that's only my personal moral convictions which I'm sure are different from other peoples. It's interesting, many so-called pro-life friends of mine are pro-life only when it comes to fetuses. They are more than happy to take away someone else's life.

From your perspective, do you believe they acted morally?

This is why I say that even if there were a God (for which I can find no evidence) he did a lousy job of defining what's right and what's wrong. I absolutely reject the idea that the bible contains a clear definition of how to live. In fact, I made shrimp scampi a few nights ago (lots of garlic). Now, according to the bible God finds this abhorrent. (If I'm not mistaken, that particular word was used twice in the bible -- once to describe how God feels about homosexuality and the other to describe God's feelings about eating shellfish.

So, in God's view, am I sinful and immoral having consumed shellfish?

Who in tarnation are these Pam and Walter people anyway?

Peterhuff, just so you know, I left you a response Aug. 2nd, 12:40 pm. Since it's at least partially just snideness and our conversation wasn't really going anywhere, I'll understand if you just ignore it. I just enjoy being annoying, which doesn't really work if you don't read it and therefore aren't annoyed.

TWMATTHEWS,

One quick question and I will respond in detail to your last post.

It is estimated that Ted Bundy murdered somewhere between 26 to 100 people. Typically, Bundy would bludgeon his victims, then strangle them to death. He also engaged in rape and necrophilia.

Bundy was tried, found guilty, and executed by electric chair for his last murder by the state of Florida in 1989.

Was the jury who found him guilty and the judge who sentenced him to death and the executioner who threw the switch acting immorally?

RCO: Here you repeat that same contradiction as above. You become the determiner of what is "good" or "best," then call God to task because He didn't create a world that would meet your (admittedly subjective, arbitrary) standard. This is entirely inconsistent with your contention that "good," "morality," etc. is determined by the individual.

TWM: You have my views almost right or should I say they are pretty good.

We do judge things individually as to being good or not. Peter judges God as being all good otherwise he wouldn't defend his actions as he is. (Now that said, you realize that the actions described in the bible are not particularly historical but just to illustrate my point I'm assuming that everything that happened in the bible is true). Now we get to the heart of the matter. My individual moral and ethical system declares that the actions of god as described in the bible are bad -- they exhibit characteristics that if you saw me doing, you would make every attempt to stop.

My question to Peter and to you as well is, do you judge the actions that God took in the flood and during Passover to be morally "good" -- in your view? And if they are good, are they good simply because God took those actions or are they good because the moral value system that Peter seems to think God has beautifully defined, are in harmony with his actions?

My original point was that throughout history people have done some very bad things -- things I would characterize as bad -- in the name of God and I gave a number of examples.

If God has defined what is good and what is bad so well, how did all these bad things occur?

And when you look at many of God's actions in the bible and saw those exact same actions performed by someone other than God, would you classify them as good or is it simply because that's what God did they must be good?

TWMATTHEWS,

You question PETERHUFF: "Why don't you hold God to any kind of standard of decency?"

I thought you were convinced that morality was an individual determination? You know, "just like happiness." So why doesn't God have the right to determine what is moral for himself? Why are you trying to hold him accountable to your "standard" of morality?

You further question PH: "He created the universe and then was forced to "recall" his greatest creation within a couple of generations. I know this is heretical to you, but is this really the best job that a god could have done? Shouldn't it be possible for God to have designed a world in which man has both free will and chooses, more times than not, to do the "right" thing?"

Here you repeat that same contradiction as above. You become the determiner of what is "good" or "best," then call God to task because He didn't create a world that would meet your (admittedly subjective, arbitrary) standard. This is entirely inconsistent with your contention that "good," "morality," etc. is determined by the individual.

In the end, you are falling victim to the same temptation that brought about the fall into sin in the first place: Ge. 3:5 "and you will be (gods), knowing good and evil."

Except you take it one step further, reserving subjective morality for every creature while demanding that the Creator submit to your standard of morality....

Hi Peterhuff,

Sorry for the delayed response. I own a software company and was short-handed for the last couple of days. (It was very good :-)

I'd like to get back to some of your comments and again, no personal criticism is meant when I ask you why you believe the bible is accurate either historically or prophetically?

TWM: “Didn't god create the universe in 7 days, declare it good (by what standard, I don't know) only to have to destroy it within a few generations?”

PH: No He made it very good! He also gave Adam volition, a will. As soon as Adam chose his own way instead of God’s evil was born in the human being. Man now was looking to himself as the highest authority, the highest standard, the final reference point.

TWM: Assuming there ever was an Adam and an Eve, just for the purposes of this discussion, aren't you really guilty of having low expectations for God? He created the universe and then was forced to "recall" his greatest creation within a couple of generations. I know this is heretical to you, but is this really the best job that a god could have done? Shouldn't it be possible for God to have designed a world in which man has both free will and chooses, more times than not, to do the "right" thing?

I also haven't read a response from you on why God would have killed so many people in Egypt during the passover; people who were not sinless but at the same time, had nothing to do with imprisoning Israel.

You seem to want to declare God perfect and infinitely good while at the same time, the world he made is less than perfect, his actions, if true (which is highly doubtful) are more akin to a homicidal maniac than the manifestation of love and goodness.

The bottom line is if you were do have done any of the things that are ascribed to God in the bible, you'd be in jail. Why don't you hold God to any kind of standard of decency?

peterhuff,

"Where in the world is Walter? Pam we've lost Walter and you haven't responded on the other forum."

Maybe the dingoes took Walter!

Where in the world is Walter? Pam we've lost Walter and you haven't responded on the other forum.

Hi TWMatthews,

If this forum should crash shortly, I'd also like to continue our discussion on the new link that RCofield supplied.

Hi TWMatthews ( reply to August 1, 2010 7:26 PM),

PH: You are still missing the point. To know any degree of goodness or to do what is right there has to be an unchanging standard as reference, an objective standard, an ideal, or else there is nothing to measure goodness by.

TWM: That's just not true in the same way as there is no objective standard of happiness,…”

How do you know?

TWM: “yet I bet you can tell me when you are happy and when you are not. “

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
"Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted."
"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth."
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled."
"Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy."
"Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God."
"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God"

This is true happiness that brings eternal contentment. The kind of happiness this world offers is momentary and fleeting.

TWM: “Now, according to you this is not possible? Is there an objective standard by which we all measure happiness? Well then man, how can you know you were ever happy?”

You wouldn't know what happiness was without some way to define it. And it leads back to goodness. As the old StarKissed advert went,

"Charlie, Starkissed want tuna that taste good, not tuna with good taste." It is a play on words but the two types of goodness have a difference. There is a difference between something that tastes good and between an appeal to good taste or preference. For those people who like tuna, they want the good taste in their mouths, not an opinion in good taste by the tuna called Charlie.

Such a standard has been marred by the Fall. Since that time man has been trying to achieve that standard by his own reasoning and his own self-sufficient devices; his measure. Hence you have some twisted individuals who feel most happy when they are sadistically hurting other people. It gives them a sense of power that is pleasurable.

Then you have other people who feel happiest when they have lots of money. Both have confused what true happiness is. They have lost the true ideal.

But God has revealed to mankind in His word that standard so we have an ultimate reference.

Love is the highest standard of happiness. It is something that all humans who are not so badly twisted crave for, and God is love. You assume based on your subjective feelings of what happiness is that there can be no ultimate measure of it.

As 1 Corinthians 13:1 and 13 says, “And now I will show you the most excellent way….And now these three remain: faith hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.”

Again, you are setting the standard and I want to know why? Maybe you should define what goodness is and what happiness is.

PART 3

TWM: “Goodness, like morality and like happiness is judged by the individual. Can I not declare a book "good"? Does that mean that you would necessarily find the same book good?”

Again, what do you mean by the word 'good?' Enjoyable?

Btw, thank you for that admission! So goodness and happiness to you is conducive to what you have chosen. It is all your preference. There is nothing really good about it; it is just your way of justifying what you want to do or what gives you pleasure.

You are confusing moral excellence to your personal taste or preference again. Again I would contend that you are confusing goodness in this case with enjoyment and ask why you get to define what goodness is? Why are you the deciding standard? Why is what you say or think so ‘good?’ What is the virtue in what you say?

TWM: “You keep insisting on defining a standard by which these are judged and I say there's no need nor is it possible.
[TWM: “Goodness, like morality and like happiness is judged by the individual.]

No, you are admitting to a standard.
You just told me the individual judges. Now you are telling me there is no need for judgment (as you judge). You just make it whatever you want to. You twist words to suit your definition. To you goodness is whatever you chose it to be and if I choose it to be something opposite and detrimental to what you want we have a problem, for there can't be two gods both dictating diametrically opposite standards. And that is the problem of this world. It does not recognize that its relative standards cannot solve the issues at hand.

And, if there is no need, then tell me why ‘should’ your evaluation of ‘good’ be such? What makes you god? Why is your relative position ‘good?’

TWM: “It's relative to the individual and to society.”

Now you have broadened your definition to include society, but I bet not just any society but the one you live in.

Part 4

TWM: “Didn't god create the universe in 7 days, declare it good (by what standard, I don't know) only to have to destroy it within a few generations?”

No He made it very good! He also gave Adam volition, a will. As soon as Adam chose his own way instead of God’s evil was born in the human being. Man now was looking to himself as the highest authority, the highest standard, the final reference point.

TWM: “Now, do you suppose that God was missing a standard definition of good? Or maybe it wasn't so good but he thought it was good.”

No, He is the standard. There is nothing higher than who and what God is. His nature is goodness. If goodness was above God then God would no longer be that highest standard. Goodness would be above Him.

“For with You is the fountain of life: in Your light we see light.” (Psalm 36:9)

You can’t see the light of the truth because you live in the darkness of your relativism.

You need light that you can see goodness.

“Light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it…This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done by God.” (John 1:5 and 3:19-21)

CALICOJ,

Your last post was quite insightful. Though I obviously wouldn't agree with everything you posted, you raise some very interesting issues that I believe speak to the very heart of the matters being discussed on these threads. We may be on to something here.

I will try to respond to you within the next couple of days on this thread. However, should it close down in the meantime, I will post my response here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/max_carter/2010/08/spiritual_but_not_religious.html

Peace

@ Rcofield

I'm arguing a pastor? (Looks up nervously.) I'm about to be hit by lightning, aren't I? Hey...where'd that bug come from? Is that a locust!?! What color is a locust, anyway?!? AHHH!

Well, if my ongoing rudeness to Peterhuff hasn't gotten me blasted (see my last post, Petey-boy? I'm waiting.), I think it's safe to have an actual conversation.

"Applied epistemology in the area of theism/atheism would first try to define what is considered knowledge in this particular area of inquiry."

I suppose the ultimate knowledge everyone here is claiming to know is the Existence/Nonexistence of God. Most everything else stems more or less solely from that issue.

"One would then attempt to identify how this knowledge may be acquired (knowledge sources)..."

I would suggest there are different sorts of sources for these beliefs. There are philosophical sources which can lead to an intellectual conclusion--i.e., the Bible, the writings of Dawkins--and there are the practical sources we encounter day-to-day which lead to an emotional conclusion--i.e., social pressure, church services (no offense, you do make a good intellectual argument too, I just mean that churches provide their members a great sense of community that makes people feel more religious emotionally). There's also foundational learnings, by which I mean, how were you raised? Becase that fact of the matter is that when a person was five, they didn't have much of any reasoning skills or any real knowledge, but odds are they've already been taught to pray.

Then there's people who gain/lose their faith through a major crisis in their lives. This is less a source of knowledge, I would suppose, as an involuntary reaction, psychologically necessary as a survival mechanism to cope with trauma. Can't really blame people in that situation, but it doesn't really strike me as the healthiest of long-term mechanisms.

@ Rcofield, Part Deux

"...proceed to considerations of what we can know (based on determinations made at point 1 & 2)..."

Problem is, all the sources of knowledge listed above are fallible. Whatever conclusion you come to, you can't say you KNOW anything in the strictest sense. So you have to settle for "very, very likely".

That being said--I would consider foundational teachings to be suspect in the worst way, seeing how little/no rational thought went into gaining them. The emotional crisis motivation is, happily, not something that has ever been a factor in my life, but I would call it suspect for the same reasons (probably wouldn't have the guts to say it to someone in that position, admittedly). The factors of social pressure and culturally-ingrained belief are emotional reasons people say they are religious--and yet again, I just can't bring myself to place any real authority in motivations that involve little/no thought. You can't really say you know anything--even on the level of "very, very, likely"--from any of those, can you?

Now we come to intellectual sources of knowledge. An idea that can stand up to logical debate, the laws of probability, and Occam's Razor is something I can get behind all the way. You can still be completely wrong, obviously, and you still can't say you KNOW anything, but at least you can respect the process. Therefore I suggest that any knowledge we consider in regards to religion must be arrived at by purely intellectual means.

"...and concludes with a logical examination of how we have come to know what we claim to know."

I've gotta leave so I can't get into sufficient detail right now, ask me later. Long story short is that I don't find the basic concept of God withstands principles of common-sense inquiry, and I don't believe the Bible is of sufficient trustworthiness as a historical document to be used as an argument for religion. See you around.

RCofield,

"And hence subject to change without notice."

Not necessarily without notice, but my thinking does indeed change as I learn and experience new and different things.

"Consistency would require that you "think" it doesn't even exist..."

Ummm... well, it doesn't really exist... I don't actually have an Existential Nihilist Card.

"This is not a new development."

What is not a new development?

You figuring something out?

"It was not my mind I was thinking about."

I got nothin'.

"Oh my b-geyman! I'm not sure what is more disturbing; the image or the fact that I understand the nuance!"

I don't think that there is a nuance to understand.

Sometimes, a baseball bat is just a baseball bat.

PSOLUS,

RCO: "You don't really *believe* that, do you?"

PSO: No, I think that, based on years of experience; very different from believing.

RCO: And hence subject to change without notice.

RCO: "You may be in danger of loosing your Existential Nihilist Card."

PSO: That's OK, it's a counterfeit card - it was given to me by a bunch of believers.

RCO: Consistency would require that you "think" it doesn't even exist...

RCO: "And I don't think that you are here to discuss, you are here to show off your unbelief."

PSO: You are correct. Congratulations for figuring it out.

RCO: This is not a new development.

RCO: "And doing a darned fine job of it, if I may be so bold."

PSO: You may be so bold, if that is what passes for bold in your mind.

RCO: It was not my mind I was thinking about.

RCO: "You might do well as a stand-up comic...if you could figure out what to do with your hands...you know...while you're standing up."

PSO: Oh, too bad, a swing and a miss! And the ball was right over the plate!
Better luck with the next pitch.

RCO: Oh my b-geyman! I'm not sure what is more disturbing; the image or the fact that I understand the nuance!

blasmaic,

"I count myself in the 98% with religious beliefs and in the 100% of humankind."

Fair enough.

"I personally don't buy the idea that the 2% who profess no religious beliefs are actually different from everyone else."

But, doesn't the fact that they profess no religious beliefs, in and of itself, make them different from the ones who do profess religious beliefs?

"I believe they are like all other humans."

Except, of course, for the fact that they profess no religious beliefs, while the others do profess religious beliefs.

That is a difference - the difference.

"They are just as susceptible to developing a faith-based, religious belief system about how to explain the unknown and about how things ought to be."

Perhaps they are susceptible, but they do not.

That's the difference.

BLASMAIC sez:

'I count myself in the 98% with religious beliefs and in the 100% of humankind. I personally don't buy the idea that the 2% who profess no religious beliefs are actually different from everyone else. I believe they are like all other humans. They are just as susceptible to developing a faith-based, religious belief system about how to explain the unknown and about how things ought to be.'

and

'Just like religious believers, non-believers too often consider themselves genetically, intellectually, and morally superior to everyone else.'
________________

OK - once more into the breach.....

We are almost 100% agreed on the above, except for this part:

'They are just as susceptible to developing a faith-based, religious belief system about how to explain the unknown and about how things ought to be.'

I have no idea what you mean here - unless you're referring to the considerable credibility that many non-theists tend to
ascribe to science - what else could you be referring to?

Where religious believers part ways with non-religious unbelievers is mainly by way of the rules, regulations, doctrines, dogma, and supernatural personae that religious believers attest to with great conviction. To the non-religious, all of this is an entirely unnecessary and baseless set of complications, even though '98%' of all humans do it. We know they have their reasons.....

Otherwise, we're 100% human in every way, and tend to believe that religion is an entirely human creation where human attributes are often projected on 'divine' or supernatural figments of the human imagination. Again, the religious have their reasons....

As far as 'faith-based' beliefs go, that's a special quirk of homo religiosus. For the most part, having provisional expectations about future outcomes based on past cause and effect experiences, is not the same as a 'belief' system. This is all based on memory and logic (inductive/deductive reasoning).

Besides, the world is full of surprises, and things can change unexpectedly! BTW, scientific theories are not beliefs - they are expectations about the behavior of matter that are eventually proven to be either right or wrong.

Otherwise, non-religious people are in every way pretty much identical with religious people.....the minor differences being the part that we typically give so much weight to - viva la difference!

RCofield,

"You don't really *believe* that, do you?"

No, I think that, based on years of experience; very different from believing.

"You may be in danger of loosing your Existential Nihilist Card."

That's OK, it's a counterfeit card - it was given to me by a bunch of believers.

"And I don't think that you are here to discuss, you are here to show off your unbelief."

You are correct.

Congratulations for figuring it out.

"And doing a darned fine job of it, if I may be so bold."

You may be so bold, if that is what passes for bold in your mind.

"You might do well as a stand-up comic...if you could figure out what to do with your hands...you know...while you're standing up."

Oh, too bad, a swing and a miss!

And the ball was right over the plate!

Better luck with the next pitch.

PSOLUS,

"I don't think that you are here to discuss, you are here show off your belief."

And I don't think that you are here to discuss, you are here to show off your unbelief. And doing a darned fine job of it, if I may be so bold.

You might do well as a stand-up comic...if you could figure out what to do with your hands...you know...while you're standing up.

PSOLUS,

"I don't think that you are here to discuss, you are here show off your belief.

In my mind, you are no different than any of the other people who wear their belief in public - belief head coverings and clothing, belief necklaces, belief bracelets, ashes on their foreheads, jebus fishes on their bumpers, etc."

You don't really *believe* that, do you?

You may be in danger of loosing your Existential Nihilist Card.

"To which, if you will recall, you replied with a rather impressive string of cheap rhetorical devices. :)"

I disagree; they were not cheap.

"Do try to keep up."

Ouch - jebus has claws.

"(You may be distracted by what you are doing with your hands.) :)"

It's not just my hands; I'm full service.

I don't think that you are here to discuss, you are here show off your belief.

In my mind, you are no different than any of the other people who wear their belief in public - belief head coverings and clothing, belief necklaces, belief bracelets, ashes on their foreheads, jebus fishes on their bumpers, etc.

You appear to be absolutely convinced that your belief is the one true belief, and that all other beliefs, and in particular, a lack of belief in your belief, is absolutely incorrect.

You are stuck with your belief in god, which reinforces your belief in the bible, which reinforces your belief in god, which reinforces your belief in the bible, ad nauseam.

But, don't change for me, or I would have to go somewhere else for my entertainment.

PSOLUS,

"RCofield, what you are failing to recognize is that, at least for the non-believers on this thread, you are not supporting your conclusions. Obviously the theists here agree with you, but that only means that you are "preaching to the choir.".....etc.

Yes. Which is why I wrote earlier:

The only way to have a reasoned discussion (rather than both groups resorting to half-baked ideology and cheap rhetorical devices) is to back up, establish an epistemological foundation, engage in a logical examination of one another's presuppositions, and then move to a discussion of the conclusions of each group. (RCO)

To which, if you will recall, you replied with a rather impressive string of cheap rhetorical devices. :)

Do try to keep up. (You may be distracted by what you are doing with your hands.) :)

RCofield, what you are failing to recognize is that, at least for the non-believers on this thread, you are not supporting your conclusions. Obviously the theists here agree with you, but that only means that you are "preaching to the choir."

The non-believers here don't agree with you for one simple reason: They disagree with your presuppositions. Every argument you have offered has been based on two assumptions: First, you assume that there is a god. Secondly, you assume that scripture is divinely inspired (and this assumption is almost exclusively based on the first assumption).

Everything you are stating can be traced back to these two presuppositions, and it is obvious to every non-believer here that these two presuppositions slant and color your entire perception of the "evidence." You assume there is a god, therefore you argue that there is evidence of intelligent design in the universe.

Well, you get the idea...

Or not.

It really doen't matter.

"I've also said that religion, ideally, should change over time, as human culture evolves.

"This it does not tend to do - religion is one human institution that resists change. Why? Because of the efforts of religious believers that take great comfort in the ways of fixed traditions, and see nothing but danger in an unknown future"

Your point that religious belief does not evolve would seem to assist the argument that God does exist. If belief stays stable while everything else changes, then it is immune to the laws of natural selection. Most people say evolution occurs so slowly that we cannot see it happening, except with the flying squirrel.

I count myself in the 98% with religious beliefs and in the 100% of humankind. I personally don't buy the idea that the 2% who profess no religious beliefs are actually different from everyone else. I believe they are like all other humans. They are just as susceptible to developing a faith-based, religious belief system about how to explain the unknown and about how things ought to be.

Non-believers are just as likely to do harm as any person with a zealous religious faith. For example, Jacoby's assertion that mixed-faith marriages are genetically superior to same-faith marriages is an idea which, if espoused in reverse, would create a very loud outrage. Because Jacoby wraps her idea in scarcastic humor with an air of intellectual superiority, it is accepted. Jacoby cannot name a genetic disease associated with any religion because there are no genetic diseases associated only with religious faith.

Just like religious believers, non-believers too often consider themselves genetically, intellectually, and morally superior to everyone else. That's the starting point that we must deny to religious believers because we know where it can go. It should also be denied to non-believers for the same reasons.

TWMATTHEWS,

(Part 1 of 2)

You ask: “And exactly what difference does it make what assumptions you bring to the table? Isn't it your ability to support your conclusions all that matter?”

TW, what you are failing to recognize is that, at least for the theists on this thread, you are not supporting your conclusions. Obviously the agnostics/atheists here agree with you, but that only means that you are “preaching to the choir.”

The theists here don't agree with you for one simple reason: They disagree with your presuppositions. Every argument you have offered has been based on two assumptions: First, you assume there is no God (at least you are “almost certain” there isn't, which makes you agnostic, not atheist). Secondly, you assume that scripture is not Divinely inspired (and this assumption is almost exclusively based on the first assumption).
Everything you are stating can be traced back to these two presuppositions, and it is obvious to every theist here that these two presuppositions slant and color your entire perception of the “evidence.” You assume there is no God, therefore you argue (in our previous discussion) that there is no evidence of intelligent design in the universe and that you could have “done a better job” yourself. You argue from selected passages of scripture (never taking into account the whole narrative of the bible) that the God of the bible is a mythological figure because He doesn't rise to your standard of morality, though you insist that morality is subjective and determined by each individual. But God? No, He must conform to your standard of morality. Your argument is internally contradictory.

TBC

TWMATTHEWS,

(Part 2 of 2)

I have attempted no less than 3 times to draw you back into a discussion of the existence/non-existence of God. You insist on expanding the debate to include dozens of topics that are all derivative of your presupposition that He doesn't exist. Do you not understand that all these topics are only window-dressing?

The real debate here is whether or not God exists. Your arguments insist that he absolutely does not exist, though you indicate that you are not 100% certain. When your arguments presume 100% certainty that God does not exist while your foundational presupposition (that God doesn't exist) still allows for a “small” possibility that he does....the need for epistemological and presuppositional debate should be self-evident. And not just for the sake of theist's, but for your own sake.

Bottom line: You, assuming God doesn't exist, will never convince me or any other theist who assumes he does exist....that He doesn't exist....until you are willing to address your position from an epistemological and presuppositional apologetics perspective. Unless that happens, you will always be “talking past” us, and we will always be “talking past” you.

You question: “Got any support RCO? Any evidence or do you just stand around the dance floor complaining about the music. Come on, it's not that hard.”

I won't agree to a dance that can't possibly ever end (that is, draw any conclusions). It is you, my friend, who is dancing the never-ending dance. Don't fault me for having enough sense to sit this one out.

If there is a religious instince, it is a higher animal experience. Religion is an attempt to explain and understand the animal world of experience, which I call our local landscape of experience.

No matter how much scientists may discover about the nature of existence and of the universe outside of our local landscape of experience, it does not necessarily effect this experience. In fact, people accept the fact of science as part of the local landscape of animal experience, without quesitioning it or seeking to understand it; that is what makes it an animal expeience as opposed to intelligent thought of a higher animal.

'With 98% of humans holding some type of religious belief, religion is as natural and predictable in humans as sexual desire. And people of education, wealth, and sophistication all agree that human sexuality is a wonderful thing. Why can't they say the same thing about religion, which is just as natural?'
______________

Also you can perfectly say: with 98% of humans speaking some type of language, to speak is as natural and predictable in humans as sexual desire. But what happens if you don't teach a child to talk a language? What type of language do children "naturally" speak? Do they as children pick to speak one language that is more fluid and aesthetic? The more universal? What if the child decides that is better to communicate by signs and do not “believe” in any verbal language?

We all know the answers. Somehow related to mommy and daddy, culture and mores, time and place, laws and ordinances.

peterhuff,

"Hi RCofield,

Thanks for your input on the other forum! I like seeing Christians engage their culture."

"That would have been interesting."

"Well put!"

You previously sent me a link to an online dictionary definition, so I thought that I would return the favor:

http://www.tfd.com/sycophant

Enjoy.

Rco said:"You are working from the foundation of aberrant (and in some cases flat-out false), unexamined presuppositions. Until you are willing to honestly examine your presuppositions there is no possibility that you will ever even recognize the faulty conclusions you are drawing from them."

Peterhuff said: Well put.

Me: Except that true to character, Rco has yet to support any of his characterizations. He has yet to cite my or anyone else's inaccuracies or falsities. As far as I can tell, he just wants to dance around the issues and never confront them. And exactly what difference does it make what assumptions you bring to the table? Isn't it your ability to support your conclusions all that matter?

Got any support RCO? Any evidence or do you just stand around the dance floor complaining about the music. Come on, it's not that hard.

Concluding comments for Eph2.

Eph2: There are literally thousands of prophecies and their subsequent fulfillments in the Bible.
Me: No there aren't. First, to fullfil a fictional act and describe that in fiction is no prophesy. I can give you examples of a prophesy that would cause me to reconsider my conclusions about the bible and it's ultimate source.

For example, if the bible described that sometime in the mid 20th century, man would begin exploring places outside of this planet. (Does the bible even recognize that this is a planet?) Or how about a prediction that toward the end of the 20th century man would start building a global communications network allowing all of mankind to instantly communicate with one another. Now that would be a prediction that would make me say this bible is prophetic.

But to claim that statements written down after they supposedly occurred or statements that are so vague that they could be interpreted in many ways shows divine authorship is not a reasonable conclusion. It's a conclusion that you may want to make but no one objectively looking at your examples, would.

I'm sorry Eph2, but if you really believe that there was a great flood that killed all of humanity except for a few family members and that all of the animal life on the planet was saved in an ark, then you have taken faith far beyond reason and I find that dangerous. Ignoring science and substituting faith is dangerous to all. Incidentally, there are over 400,000 species of beetles. Do you think Noah and his family collected 400,000 pairs of beetles?

Additional comments for Eph2:

Eph2: You say that you continue to go to church because of the good that they do in the community, but couldn’t you find a secular organization in your area that does good deeds in the community and then stop being a hypocrite?

Me: First some definitions: Hypocrit - The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Except I don't hide my beliefs. I discuss them with whoever wants including ministers, members of my choir and other church members. When I participate in church activities I do so respectfully but I am definitely trying to change it from within. And I will talk to anyone about it who wants to understand why I don't believe what I don't believe. So where am I being hypocritical?

Me: Biblical prophecies amount to predicting that I will go to the bathroom some time tomorrow. They are not specific either in their predictions nor the time when these will occur.

Eph2:What about the promise to Noah that God was going to destroy the earth with a flood? What about the bondage in Egypt that was told to Abraham hundreds of years before the Egyptian captivity?

Me: They don't count. All of these events took place before the bible was written. How difficult is it to predict what has already happened? Then you also need to read my first comment from the previous post. The historical accuracy of the bible is suspect. There's no historical record for the entire peoples of Israel being captured and then wandering around the wilderness for years and years. None. Nada. Null. Zilch. It didn't happen. Just like there's no evidence for the great flood, a single initial human pair or most of the "great stories" in the bible.

Hi RCofield,

Thanks for your input on the other forum! I like seeing Christians engage their culture.

RCoOFIELD: "(BTW--Lee Strobel, though a good man, doesn't make the cut as a world-class theologian. And Marcus Borg, the “Jesus Seminar” fellow and participant in the absurd “colored marble” fiasco? Please.)"

I agree with your assessment, although I have used some of Lee Strobel's sources. What I like about Lee is that he does seek out well renowned scholars on specific issues.

Marcus Borg and the Jesus Seminar crowd come to the table with their 19th century German higher criticism agenda.

RCOFIELD: "In the end, had you been willing to engage with me in thoughtful discussion, we would have eventually arrived at addressing all your straw-man objections."

That would have been interesting.

RCOFIELD: "You are working from the foundation of aberrant (and in some cases flat-out false), unexamined presuppositions. Until you are willing to honestly examine your presuppositions there is no possibility that you will ever even recognize the faulty conclusions you are drawing from them."

Well put!

Continuing conversation with Eph2:

TWM:TWMATTHEWS: "God is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" gods right? If you take the bible literally, how many innocent people has God killed? Let's look at Passover -- how many "first born Egyptians" that he killed were completely innocent"?

Eph2 days: There is no one who is innocent.

Me: Really, so a 10 year old is guilty and should be put to death for his/her sins in the same way Pharaoh? How about a 5 year old? 2? 6 months? All guilty of whatever crime God brought down on the Egyptian first born? And what sins did you think these people committed that they deserved death?

Eph2: All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. We all like sheep have gone astray. There is none righteous, no not one. We are all by nature children of wrath. All are guilty before a Holy God whom we have sinned against!

Me: Really, so how loving is that? Let me see if I have it right.....

God created the world, described it as good and within a couple of generations that which he described as good he had to destroy because, as it turned out, it wasn't so good.

How good of a job did God do? That's like recalling a new model car before it gets out of the showroom. And while we're at it, what kind of a God designs a world in which everyone utterly fails?

Eph2: I just had a few things to say about God choosing a people (the Jews) Consider these words from the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy:
It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
(Deuteronomy 7:7-8 ESV)

Me: Okay, I have two problems with this passage. First, you must understand that based on my best understanding of history, I'm convinced that the bible is simply a collection of myths based on stories handed down for generations and borrowed from other religions and traditions.

Second, read the passage. God is saying he "chose" them because he loves them. But what about other peoples / other nationalities? Doesn't he love everyone? Why weren't the Japanese his chosen people? How about the Babylonians? Could he not love all?

Eph2 quoting Romans: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

Me: Come on, doesn't that sound just a little like Popeye - I am what I am. How do these statements justify why God, as described in the bible, is a bigot and shows favoritism?

'With 98% of humans holding some type of religious belief, religion is as natural and predictable in humans as sexual desire. And people of education, wealth, and sophistication all agree that human sexuality is a wonderful thing. Why can't they say the same thing about religion, which is just as natural?'
______________

We've had this discussion before, and I agree that religion or a 'religious instinct' appears to be a very ancient part of human civilization. I've also said that religion, ideally, should change over time, as human culture evolves.

This it does not tend to do - religion is one human institution that resists change. Why? Because of the efforts of religious believers that take great comfort in the ways of fixed traditions, and see nothing but danger in an unknown future. Religion, for most, is something that happened a very long time ago. Many would like to keep it that way.

Religious beliefs and rituals are powerful psychological touchstones of stability. Consequently, without change, religion can devolve into a brittle, inflexible institution that ceases to make sense to progressive minds - hollowed out by excessive attention to rules and regulations.

For example, I wouldn't be surprised to see a schism within the Roman Catholic church in years to come. The orthodox elements represented by the Vatican are becoming increasingly oppressive and regressive to many that would see change.

Intolerance is not restricted to Protestant fundamentalists. Rigidly orthodox factions in every religion exhibit the same tendency toward exclusion and excessive intolerance towards 'outsiders'.

I've never been religious, but have been pre-occupied with certain aspects of religion for many years. It's very difficult for the non-religious to view conventional religious practices and beliefs in the same light as the religious faithful, although some have found various schools of mysticism personally compelling.

When all is said and done, it seems that non-religious folks probably identify with a 'live and let live' philosophy to a far greater extent than our religious brethren, who are pretty much stuck on 'right and wrong' ways to live, in order to succeed big-time in the 'spiritual' future. Living in the moment is really beyond religion

I think we should be known as the lucky 2%, somehow conceived without the religion gene. But by damn, it does tend to limit sex partners ;^)

Hello Eph2.

I haven't forgotten you and I appreciate your posts. I laugh out loud at the posts of Psolus.

I just got back from band practice and have a little work to do, but I'll address your comments and issues shortly.

Does God punish people for being blind?

It is imerative that people of intolerant religious backgrounds stick with their own kind in marriage as well as in all of life. This is to save everyone else the trouble, of coping with their intolerance.

People who come from a tolerant religious background, or who are, just, tolerant, have a little more leeway in their life choices, including whom to marry.

This word "tolerant" seems to be pretty charged, at least among some religious people. But it is pretty simple. You can tell a lot about a person by the way in which they regard the religous doctrine of tolerance.

But it is not all that complicated. "Tolerance" might be another word for "truce." Some people like to fight, and others prefer peace.

Presto, "tolerance."

persiflage,

Don't you have anything but ad hominems? Okay, if that's all you've got, then that's where we'll have to begin.

Jacoby can't identify the "genetic diseases" that mixed-faith marriages would prevent because they do not exist. It's just pure, knee-jerk hatred directed against people of faith.

I must however admit to ignorance with regard to the genetic composition of the Jewish population. My sources for the Tay-Sachs example was a reading some 15 years ago that it afflicted Jews from Eastern Europe and a source yesterday that read it afflicted Jews from south-eastern Germany. Maybe Jacoby was taking a cheap shot at Jews.

Your "thought experiment" of people living free and prospering without religion -- is that Albert Einstien or John Lennon enthralling you?

So much for the ad hominems, now let's deal with some facts.

With 40% of mixed-faith marriages ending in divorce before 5 years, it's a risky proposition. It's quite a stretch to say someone who advocates for solid marriages is on a "religious purity" campaign, but in fact that is what you are doing. I think that's wrong to do. Strong families build strong societies.

Single-parent households need the most help from the government, and, that said, I happen to believe they should get it. Same-faith households hold together at better rates and need less help, but I believe they should get the help they need too.

Jacoby says mixed-faith marriages benefit us all by crushing the worst aspects of religious faith. Well, the record shows that mixed-faith marriages get crushed by the reality of faith 40% of the time. Remember that the 40% failure rate includes only marriages in their first five years.

No one has shown that the remaining 60% of unions result in beneficial religious faith or if they simply deprive future generations of religious identity altogether. The latter scenario serves an anti-religion agenda even better. By advocating for mixed-faith marriages over same-faith marriages, Jacoby is preaching a gospel of anti-faith at the expense of faith, which is against our valued traditions in America.

The truth is that few people who analyze human civilization objectively would reach a negative conclusion about religion. With 98% of humans holding some type of religious belief, religion is as natural and predictable in humans as sexual desire. And people of education, wealth, and sophistication all agree that human sexuality is a wonderful thing. Why can't they say the same thing about religion, which is just as natural?

One fact is indisputable though -- religion is more powerful than even the best intentions of 40% of those who believe a mixed-faith marriage can succeed!

RCofield,

"...resorting to.. cheap rhetorical devices..."

Why is everybody looking at me?

"Anyone interested?"

chirp... chirp... chirp...

"Anybody?"

chirp... chirp... chirp...

Ferris Bueller?

eph2,

"PSolus: You're pretty funny!"

"Pretty" funny?

I'd say "damned" funny!

Get it?

"Damned" funny!

Because I'm damned!

Anybody out there?

"I think that most people who don't know the depth of their depravity can and do make fun of the idea of personal sin and judgment."

But, I DO know the depth of my depravity.

"I was one who for 36 years of my life mocked sin and mocked the idea that I needed a Savior."

Good for you.

"One must first acknowledge their disease before they will search out a cure. If a Doctor told you today that you had brain cancer you probably would want to know what he could do for you and you would like to know if you could be cured. Sin is like this."

Sin is like brain cancer?

Does it show up on an MRI?

"If you don't understand that sin is a violation of God's eternal justice and against God's Holiness then you won't see the need to have someone save you from eternal wrath."

Eternal wrath sounds kind of cool.

[Boring b-geyman and bible talk here.]

[More boring b-geyman and bible talk here.]

"Who wouldn't want that except those who are blind?"

Sorry, I dozed off there for while; what were we talking about?

"My prayer for you is that God will open your eyes far enough to see the depths of your depravity and the height of the Glory of Christ so that you will desire to leave the 1st and cleave to the 2nd!"

Yay, I can't wait to do me some cleaving!

BLASMAIC -

'Jews from Ashkenazi can marry Jews from Ethiopia and diversify their health risks without marrying out of their faith.'

'It jingles their hate-based animonsity toward religion and people by conjuring up malicious images of inbred humans.'
_________

I'm perceiving a kind of mental unwinding here, all in defense of some peculiar,far-fetched goal of maintaining religious purity. I think we've already been there and done that 'purity' thing, in one guise or another. In fact, the Ashkenazi (among others) have extensive first-hand knowledge of a recent attempt - by German Christians.

Since Ashkenazi Jews comprise about 80% of the world's Jewish population, it seems impractical to require Jews to 'go to Ethiopia' for potential marriage partners - or for any reason.

I've also heard it's very hard to enter Ethiopia unless you're either an Al Qaeda operative or wannabee pirate...so this is apparently not such a good alternative for the Ashkenazi!

The remainder of your ideas on how to maintain religious purity are equally baffling. Let's try a thought experiment - imagine people transcending the restrictions and limitations of religion in order to live free and prosper.

'Hate-based animosity' is your own paranoid perception of folks rightfully taking religion to task for making life harder, not easier - on everyone.

I guess I now have to thank John Lennon and Timmy2, but so be it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

No one knows what knowledge is nor how we get it. That is, no one knows well enough to put it into plain English, because it cannot be put into plain English. This realization is a little breath-taking, but it is not really such a radical thing to say. I do not say that there are no things to know; I do not say that there are no trees; I just say that we don't know how we know there are trees.

All that we know from our local landscape of experience is little more than animal knowledge, but there is an aesthetic of knowledge which some people seek, but which they may only occasionally glimpse but never fully realize, and that there is the contrasting hum-drum surface experience of everyday things, which we all come to know not very well, but "well enough," which includes church, and Bible-study, and different kinds of religious rituals and practices, and yes, even praying to an unknowable God which is, yet somehow, imagined, in order to regard as the object of thought and contemplation, this hum-drum world of ours which we know as well, through the eyes of others, as our own eyes, with its subsequent multiplication of reflected and varying, dissonant images.

TWMATTHEWS:
You say that you continue to go to church because of the good that they do in the community, but couldn’t you find a secular organization in your area that does good deeds in the community and then stop being a hypocrite?

You also said "I've seen no evidence for such a god. The historical prophecies amount to predicting that I will go to the bathroom some time tomorrow. They are not specific either in their predictions nor the time when these will occur. I could do just as good a job at predicting things."
– What about the promise to Noah that God was going to destroy the earth with a flood? What about the bondage in Egypt that was told to Abraham hundreds of years before the Egyptian captivity? What about the fact that the Israelites basically pillaged (albeit willingly) the people of Egypt upon the exodus? This was also told to Abraham. What about the promise of the land of Canaan? In the Old Testament the Prophet Isaiah even names Cyrus by name 150 years before he came to power in Persia! What about Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years in Babylon captivity and their deliverance exactly 70 years later? There are well over 300 prophecies alone that pertain to the Christ from the Old Testament. What about Jesus birthplace and His exile into Egypt, prophecies concerning where He grew up, what He would do, how and why He would die? I could go on for a very long time, but I just don't have that much time. There are literally thousands of prophecies and their subsequent fulfillments in the Bible. Have you read the prophets? Have you truly read the Bible with understanding? Have your eyes been opened to understand the Truth of God's Word? Have you been born-again?

CALICOJ,

(Part 1 of 2)

You write: “Epistemology, eh? If that's what I was referring to, then, yes, that's what I was referring to. Exactly. None of my business, but what's your line of work anyway? Do you just read philosophy texts all day or what?”

Lol. No, I am a bi-vocational pastor. I own a small business and pastor a small church.

Epistemology is the study of how we arrive at knowledge. It is derived from the Greek compound “episteme” (meaning knowledge/science) and “logos” (logic). “Logos” is the root from which the English suffix “ology” is drawn, which means simply “the study of.” Hence, epistemology is the study of knowledge itself. This discipline asks 4 essential questions:

1) What is knowledge?
2) How is knowledge acquired?
3) What do people know?
4) How do we know what we know?

Applied epistemology in the area of theism/atheism would first try to define what is considered knowledge in this particular area of inquiry. One would then attempt to identify how this knowledge my be acquired (knowledge sources), proceed to considerations of what we can know (based on determinations made at point 1 & 2), and concludes with a logical examination of how we have come to know what we claim to know.

TBC

CALICOJ,

(Part 2 of 2)

Such a process gives us a logical, knowledge-based paradigm by which we may examine our respective truth-claims, beliefs, etc. Put another way, the foundation of epistemology allows us to determine whether or not our beliefs are justified. Or, put yet another way, epistemology enables us to logically analyze our basic presuppositions.

I have referred to the need for presuppositional apologetics (PA) when discussing theism/atheism. PA is the discipline of examining and defending the basic assumptions that one makes from which one draws their conclusions. As noted earlier, there are two groups of individuals on this thread: Athiests/Agnostics and Theists. Both groups are drawing conclusions and making truth claims from entirely different sets of presuppositions (or assumptions). The reason the atheists think the theists are nuts and the theists think the atheists are nuts is that neither group understands why the other group assumes what they assume. In many cases we don't even understand what the other groups assumptions ARE.

The only way to have a reasoned discussion (rather than both groups resorting to half-baked ideology and cheap rhetorical devices) is to back up, establish an epistemological foundation, engage in a logical examination of one another's presuppositions, and then move to a discussion of the conclusions of each group. Again, without this process, we are destined to be forever talking past one another and the proverbial cart will always be ahead of the horse.

Anyone interested? Anybody?

"If Ashkenazi Jews, French Canadians, and Louisiana Cajuns continue to inter-marry within their own isolated groups (limited gene pools), the chances of genetic anomalies appearing are much greater"

Jews from Ashkenazi can marry Jews from Ethiopia and diversify their health risks without marrying out of their faith.

Same holds true for French Canadians -- likely Roman Catholics (French Huguonots are Protestant by definition). They can marry Irish Catholics, German Catholics, or even Vietnamese Catholics.

Louisiana Cajuns are essentially French Canadians for genetic purposes, but they can easily marry Spanish or Italian Catholics from Louisiana if they choose to diversify their lives without diluting their faith.

Contrary to my first assertion about Tay-Sachs, which afflicts descendants of populations in specific geographic areas, there are really no genetic diseases linked directly to any major religion.

Jacoby's notion that religious unity causes genetic weakness is baseless, but it does sort of play to an element within people. It jingles their hate-based animonsity toward religion and people by conjuring up malicious images of inbred humans.

PSolus: You're pretty funny! I think that most people who don't know the depth of their depravity can and do make fun of the idea of personal sin and judgment. I was one who for 36 years of my life mocked sin and mocked the idea that I needed a Savior. One must first acknowledge their disease before they will search out a cure. If a Doctor told you today that you had brain cancer you probably would want to know what he could do for you and you would like to know if you could be cured. Sin is like this. If you don't understand that sin is a violation of God's eternal justice and against God's Holiness then you won't see the need to have someone save you from eternal wrath.

Everyone ever born deserves God's wrath, the "children of wrath" refers to everyone prior to some being saved by Christ himself. Eph2 refers to Ephesians 2 where the Apostle Paul says "And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience-- among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind." (Ephesians 2:1-3 ESV). For some of us, God broke into our lives and caused us to see the Glory of God in the face of Christ Jesus and saw that Jesus was ultimately worthy of all our praise and all our love. We were born-again by the living and abiding Word of God; adopted by God as His sons and daughters and were made joint-heirs with Christ into all the riches of heaven and earth. The Bible says that the god of this age (Satan) has blinded the minds of unbelievers so that they cannot see Christ's glory and that this is the natural state of all mankind.

God would be perfectly just and righteous to cast all into hell for the sins that they have committed against Him, but for some the verses continue in Ephesians "But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved-- and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.(Ephesians 2:4-7 ESV)
Who wouldn't want that except those who are blind? My prayer for you is that God will open your eyes far enough to see the depths of your depravity and the height of the Glory of Christ so that you will desire to leave the 1st and cleave to the 2nd!

eph2,

"I say..."

Did your b-geyman put you in charge, or was it a palace coup?

"There is no one who is innocent."

I have to admit, I don't ever remember a time when I was innocent.

"All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God."

From what I've heard, I have sinned against every existing b-geyman out there - and some of which no longer exist.

I don't care to comment about falling short.

"We all like sheep have gone astray."

Now, here is where I draw the line - I am not now, nor have I ever been a sheep.

Nor have I ever been with a sheep.

Honest.

"There is none righteous, no not one."

You are correct; I am not righteous, no not me.

"We are all by nature children of wrath."

Not sure what this means, but it sounds kind of cool, so I think I'll just go with it.

That would make a great tattoo, come to think of it.

"All are guilty before a Holy God whom we have sinned against!"

Yeah, as I said above, I am pretty much guilty before all of the b-geymen out there, holy, holey, unholy, and whatever else you've got.

And, lordey, lordey, how I have sinned!

In fact, I'm sinning right now, as I type this.

TWMATTHEWS: You said "God is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" gods right? If you take the bible literally, how many innocent people has God killed? Let's look at Passover -- how many "first born Egyptians" were completely innocent" I say – There is no one who is innocent. All have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. We all like sheep have gone astray. There is none righteous, no not one. We are all by nature children of wrath. All are guilty before a Holy God whom we have sinned against!

TWMATTHEWS:
I just had a few things to say about God choosing a people (the Jews) Consider these words from the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy:
It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love on you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but it is because the LORD loves you and is keeping the oath that he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
(Deuteronomy 7:7-8 ESV)
And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call-- she was told, "The older will serve the younger." As it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
(Romans 9:10-18 ESV)

'All of which erodes Jacoby's assertion that mixed-faith marriages result in a lower incidence of genetically transferred diseases.'

________

Well, yes and no. If Ashkenazi Jews, French Canadians, and Louisiana Cajuns continue to inter-marry within their own isolated groups (limited gene pools), the chances of genetic anomalies appearing are much greater - since both the male and female may be carriers of the recessive gene. The point being, all of these folks have to be willing to marry outside their own ethnic groups in order to gain genetic protection - and this may not happen frequently, but who really knows?

Ethnicity and religion do often correlate, but not perfectly. I think that was Jacoby's point, but ethnicity is the primary factor.

Same-race marriages also increase chances for handing down specific genetic anomalies to offspring, given the higher pre-disposition to certain diseases among specific racial groups. Religion has little direct bearing here, but it may be a peripheral factor.

To a less exacting degree but in the same way, if Irish (Catholics) continue to inter-marry, the chances of passing on the gene related to alcoholism is much greater (if there is one - it's a nature vs nurture kind of thing).

Now, there are large contingents of Irish Protestants living throughout the southern part of the USA - and this population would need to be assessed for comparative rates of alcoholism (possibly much lower than Irish Catholic).

The chances of Irish Catholics marrying Irish Protestants is not at all strong - religion and regionalism may well serve as a strong deterrants here.

blasmaic,

"Well I think "hate" is the correct word because the practice of mixed-faith marriages are liked by those who would use any means to destroy faith and the teaching of religious faith anywhere that it could occur."

So, if two people of different religions get married and like their own marriage, they both "hate" religion?

"It's not enough to banish prayer from public school. It is neccesary to make it unconstitutional to see a Latin cross in the distance while standing on public property... even in a desert."

So, does enforcing the first amendment equate to "hating" religion?

"Pairing of mixed-faith partners should be encouraged because the conflict within the family increases the likelihood that children will be received their values instruction from the television rather than at the dinner table."

Is that a foregone conclusion, in a mixed-religion family?

Are there no other possible outcomes?

"All of which is good for the cause of atheism... at the expense of other Americans."

Do you really consider that religious faith generally is that weak?

"The list goes on, but it all looks like hate to me."

That seems to me to be a very pessimistic view for a believer to have.

Well I think "hate" is the correct word because the practice of mixed-faith marriages are liked by those who would use any means to destroy faith and the teaching of religious faith anywhere that it could occur.

It's not enough to banish prayer from public school. It is neccesary to make it unconstitutional to see a Latin cross in the distance while standing on public property... even in a desert.

Pairing of mixed-faith partners should be encouraged because the conflict within the family increases the likelihood that children will be received their values instruction from the television rather than at the dinner table. All of which is good for the cause of atheism... at the expense of other Americans.

The list goes on, but it all looks like hate to me.

blasmaic,

"I just don't see much of a dilution dividend, except if you hate religion..."

Is "hate" the new "disagree with", "dislike", "disapprove of", "skeptical of", etc.?

persiflage,

Ireland is a land and a nationality, not a religion.

Besides, we can't fully prove that alcoholism is a genetic thing, although many people believe that it is. Maybe there some twin studies that show a high corellation of alcoholism among identical twins who are seperated at birth.

Your point about Tay-Sachs shows that it is more strongly associated with a geographic region than it is with any religion. All of which erodes Jacoby's assertion that mixed-faith marriages result in a lower incidence of genetically transferred diseases.

I just don't see much of a dilution dividend, except if you hate religion and don't want to see it taught to future generations of people. Someone who believes that there is no higher morality than that of the policeman or politician might think that, but I don't.

'Can you help by identifying any other genetic diseases associated with specific religions?'
__________

OK - Are the Irish genetically prone to alcoholism? Is this an urban legend or real genetic anomaly?

See the cautionary tale in the link just below. In my own Irish family experience, the degree of alcohol consumption by adults of my parent's generation (on my mother's side) was pervasive on the part of both males and females. Their father (my maternal grandfather) was also a robust drinker, as was his brother.

Only one of my uncles largely abstained, and he departed last year at the ripe old age of 90. My own mother, who drank and smoked heavily, died at age 67 of lung cancer.

One aunt died at an early age of cirrhosis that changed into metastatic liver cancer - not an uncommon development. I've had first cousins that continued in their father's habit of heavy Scotch consumption - one was recently rescued from the final stages of acute alcoholism by family members virtually at the point of death last year (at age 67). So far he's stayed sober.

His father's brother (another of my uncles) was a vodka alcoholic that stashed bottles in every hidden nook and cranny for many years, and finally ended up on dialysis in his final years. He apparently thought he was concealing a problem that couldn't have been more obvious!

Strange to say, their non-Irish spouses either drank excessively, or not at all. Now I'm wondering if the Irish shouldn't be marrying the Swiss at every opportunity. I hear tell that John Calvin was the abstemious sort ;^)

http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/03/17/alcoholism-and-irish-blood/

'Can you help by identifying any other genetic diseases associated with specific religions?'
__________

OK - Are the Irish genetically prone to alcoholism? Is this an urban legend or real genetic anomaly?

See the cautionary tale in the link just below. In my own Irish family experience, the degree of alcohol consumption by adults of my parent's generation (on my mother's side) was pervasive on the part of both males and females. Their father (my maternal grandfather) was also a robust drinker, as was his brother.

Only one of my uncles largely abstained, and he departed last year at the ripe old age of 90. My own mother, who drank and smoked heavily, died at age 67 of lung cancer.

One aunt died at an early age of cirrhosis that changed into metastatic liver cancer - not an uncommon development. I've had first cousins that continued in their father's habit of heavy Scotch consumption - one was recently rescued from the final stages of acute alcoholism by family members virtually at the point of death last year (at age 67). So far he's stayed sober.

His father's brother (another of my uncles) was a vodka alcoholic that stashed bottles in every hidden nook and cranny for many years, and finally ended up on dialysis in his final years. He apparently thought he was concealing a problem that couldn't have been more obvious!

Strange to say, their non-Irish spouses either drank excessively, or not at all. Now I'm wondering if the Irish shouldn't be marrying the Swiss at every opportunity. I hear tell that John Calvin was the abstemious sort ;^)

http://urbansemiotic.com/2007/03/17/alcoholism-and-irish-blood/

@ Rcofield

Epistemology, eh? If that's what I was referring to, then, yes, that's what I was referring to. Exactly. None of my business, but what's your line of work anyway? Do you just read philosophy texts all day or what?

"Add "and how people arrive at their opinions on atheism" (only because I know you don't classify atheism as "religion") to your above statement and you are spot-on."

Well, I meant to include Atheism in that statement, sorry if I wasn't clear. Atheism is a opinion on religion, after all, although not a religion itself, and I am certainly willing to be examined on how I arrived at Atheism. Only fair, after all, seeing as I'm interested in examining how people arrive at Theism.

persiflage --

many thanks for the update on Tay-Sachs.

It remains the only genetic disease I know that is associated with any religious belief, and it is Jacoby's assertion that mixed-faith marriages reduce the incidence of genetic disorders caused by marrying in one's own faith.

Can you help by identifying any other genetic diseases associated with specific religions? This would help bolster one of Jacoby's two positive claims about mixed-faith marriages.

Her other claim is that such unions reduce the rigid aspects of each faith, i.e., that we get to know and like others the more we get to know and like others. But mixed-faith marriages fail 40% of the time, and we all usually dislike the families of loved one's ex-spouses more even than when they were just strangers (heck, no one really dislikes strangers at all, they're just strangers).

@ Peterhuff

Oh, take your time in responding...I would say it will give you more time to think about your response, except thinking about what you're saying isn't a habit of yours anyway, is it?

"I don't see you doing a very good job in answering my questions, but very good side-stepping."

Well, thanks! I wasn't actually trying to respond to your questions at that point, I was being a pain in the @$$ because I don't really take you seriously and I enjoy being annoying. Much like the first paragraph in this post. And this paragraph too. Glad to clear that up!

"Yes, it all boils down to your highest authority. I appeal to the highest authority that there is - God. What is yours?...Science changes, people change. Why do you feel that these subjective sources hold the answers."

Forgive me for repeating myself--I DON'T THINK THERE IS A GOD! Therefore arguments based on that viewpoint don't mean anything! Do you have anything else to offer, or there really nothing but "God says so" for you? Oh, I forgot, you've also got lyrics from an obscure band...

Yes, actually, I do think science offers us many of the answers. And it of course it changes, because it's not a dogma but a living enterprise and it doesn't claim to have ALL the answers. Now let me ask you in turn--what makes you so sure there is an objective truth to be found? I rather expect the subjective, fallible realities of science and logical thought are all we'll ever get, and I'm fine with that.

@ Peterhuff, Part Zwei

"How do you know there is no God? You would have to be omniscient in order to rule out such a possibility, and you are not. Second, you discount both His testimony and the testimony of those who have experienced a relationship with Him."

I can't state as a guaranteed fact there is no God. When I say there is no God, I mean the odds of there being a God are something like a one in a googolplex. That's 10 to the tenth power to the hundredth power, just so you don't have to look it up. For conversational purposes it's a lot easier to say "There is no God" as opposed to "The odds of there being a God is 1 in 10 to the tenth power to the hundredth power, or probably even less."

And yes, I do discount outright "His testimony" (by which I assume you mean the Bible) as well as your claim of experiencing a relationship with a nonexistent creature. If you hear God talking to you, I can only suggest psychiatry.

"How did the marbles, room or shelf materialize in the first place from chance happenings?...The mathematical likelihood is astoundingly absurd."

As soon as I posted my marble-on-the-floor thing, I knew, I just knew, you were gonna start talking about where the marbles came from and whatnot. You're dodging the point. Now I'll just go ahead and repeat myself outright...regularity isn't really the same as organization--there's more than just a difference in semantics. Address that point first and then I'll talk about my views on the origin of life and the universe.

Having been around this blog for a few years, I'm still impressed by religious devotees that argue with absolute certainty for the correctness of their religious views, without considering the universal commonalities among all religions.

When subjected to thoughtful and unbiased scrutiny, humans are found to be solely responsible for each and every religious tradition, as far back as shamanism, totemism, animism, etc. This may even include the culture of the late, lamented Neanderthal man. As humans/cultures evolve, religion gets more sophisticated.

Modern-day religionists speak of beliefs as established facts, when actual facts and real historical evidence are often in pitifully short supply.

The comparative study of religious forms demonstrates the mythological and metaphorical character of ALL religions, much of which is shared, borrowed, and otherwise re-assimilated cross-culturally.

One seldom chooses their religion - the choice is typically made by the circumstances one is born into. One can always change religions, based on personal preferences, but never imagine that the 'one true religion' has been selected.

History demonstrates that with the endless options and variations available, there is no such thing as the 'one true religion'.

The study of religion can be fun, especially without all the personal piety -epistemology indeed!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_religion

RCofield,

"There exists too much rhetoric and not enough thought on these threads."

Oh, don't be so hard on yourself...

It's all just in fun; at least I don't take it all that seriously.

RCO said:
And your take on the Apostle Paul is what you get when you read "bible scholars" who play with marbles.

Me: And your sources for determining the actual authors? Oh, I forgot, you don't do evidence. Must be a "faith thing".

RCO said to Calicoj:
I think you may be the only one who even came close to understanding what I am talking about.

Me: Once again you critique the quality of other comments without ever addressing the issues under discussion. Good side stepping.

CALICOJ,

Upon further review....:) you are actually referring to epistemology--the study of how we get knowledge.

That is actually the step before the examination of foundational presuppositions.

Still, very close. And very needful yet sadly lacking. There exists too much rhetoric and not enough thought on these threads.

CALICOJ,

You write: "I can't pretend any knowledge of presuppositional apologetics as a philosophical discipline, but the subject of how people form their opinions on religion is something that I consider both of utmost importance and almost never discussed."

Add "and how people arrive at their opinions on atheism" (only because I know you don't classify atheism as "religion") to your above statement and you are spot-on.

I think you may be the only one who even came close to understanding what I am talking about.

Thanks.

TWMATTHEWS,

A predictably posturing response...all but the dishonesty of the opening paragraph. I'm sure you pastor would be impressed.

And your take on the Apostle Paul is what you get when you read "bible scholars" who play with marbles.

peterhuff,

"I appeal to the highest authority that there is - God."

I don't, but good luck with that.

"What is yours?"

Depends.

"Is it yourself?"

When I have to do laundry or restart my PC, yes.

"Are you so smart that you have the answers?"

For doing laundry and restarting my PC, yes.

"Is it some astrophysicist or biologist guru that you think holds the answers for you?"

Guru?

Are you 12?

"Is it the majority opinion that you favor?"

If it agrees with my opinion, yes.

"Is it science?"

In scientific matters, sometimes.

"Science changes, people change."

I just changed my socks.

"Why do you feel that these subjective sources hold the answers."

Why do you feel that they don't?

Hi CalicoJ,

It looks like this will be the only post I am able to respond to at this time, although I'm itching to get at others. Life and work gets in the way.

CJ: "Yeah, see, this is what I was talking about when I said you weren't going to be one of the people who would construct a solid argument and make other people actually think about their beliefs."

I don't see you doing a very good job in answering my questions, but very good side-stepping.

CJ: "And the extent of that adaption is limited why, again?"

ME: "First and foremost, because God says that is the way it is."

Yes, it all boils down to your highest authority. I appeal to the highest authority that there is - God. What is yours? Is it yourself? Are you so smart that you have the answers? Is it some astrophysicist or biologist guru that you think holds the answers for you? Is it the majority opinion that you favor? Is it science? Science changes, people change. Why do you feel that these subjective sources hold the answers.

From the canyons of the mind we wander on and stumble blind,
Wade through the often tangled maze of starless nights ans sunless days,
Hoping for some kind of clue-a road to lead us to the truth. But who will answer?..
If the soul is darkened by a fear it cannot name,
If the mind is baffled when the rules don't fit the game,
Who will answer?
Who will answer?
Who will answer?

Ed Ames - Who Will Answer?

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back
and laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying,
Yes I fear tomorrow I'll be crying.

King Crimson - Epitaph

PART 2

CJ: "Except there is no God, so you're just full of nonsense, among other substances. Not really a lot of point in us talking evolution, is there?"

First off, CJ, just because you don't want to bend the knee to Him does not negate His existence. You make absolute statements or sure certainty without any framework in which to do so. How do you know there is no God? You would have to be omniscient in order to rule out such a possibility, and you are not. Second, you discount both His testimony and the testimony of those who have experienced a relationship with Him.

As for talking about evolution, have you ever unraveled what influenced such people as Darwin? It is fascinating when you look behind the man. Ideas don't happen in a vacuum and if you want to find out something about a man's ideas find out who and what influences him.

CJ: "Now, when you talk about the uniformity of nature, fair enough,...However, when you say...

"But again, in a universe that came about without Mind, by chance, how and why does this happen?"

CJ: "Firstly, regularity isn't really the same as organization--there's more than just a difference in semantics. It does possess regularity, it doesn't possess organization. As for how this regularity came to be, well, pick up an astrophysics textbook."

I'm asking you. How does a process that began by random chance happenstance produce order and information?

CJ: "On second thought, that'll never happen, so let me draw you a little mental image. Say a jar of marbles falls off a high shelf and smashes open. The floor is severely sunken in the middle of the room, and many of the marbles start rolling back and forth in the center of the room. There is regularity; there is not conscious organization. Welcome to your Universe!"

How did the marbles, room or shelf materialize in the first place from chance happenings? How can chance produce regularity? The mathematical likelihood is astoundingly absurd. How does chance produce intelligence? How does it produce personality? It is impersonal. From my experience, which is limited, all I see is beings producing personality. All I see is thinking being able to reason and use logic. I don't find an inorganic object speaking to me. If physical matter and energy is the magic equation then how do we get the laws of logic that is immaterial and non-physical? It is outside the realm of the physical.

What is your view on beginnings/origins for the universe. Did it have a beginning or not?

RCofield,

"I leave you with the inspired words of the Apostle Paul."

[The inspired words of the apostle paul]

And I leave you with the inspired words of the Drummer Ringo:

"So this is America. They must be out of their minds."

@ Rcofield

I can't pretend any knowledge of presuppositional apologetics as a philosophical discipline, but the subject of how people form their opinions on religion is something that I consider both of utmost importance and almost never discussed. Everyone on this thread, myself included, already has their opinion and isn't likely to argue anyone else out of theirs. But just how did all of us, probably in earliest childhood, come to those opinions, and shouldn't we consider if the ways we got those opinions were valid? Stars above, I wish I had time tonight to talk about this, I think I could write a book.

To RCOfield,

A remarkably similar argument to the one you made during our last, somewhat shortened discussion.

Yes, we are all impressed with your vocabulary. Your reason, logic, evidence -- not so much.

Once again you resort to the time honored argument that most "believers" resort to. "I could refute your meager arguments but it just isn't worth my time."

Yes, there it is folks for all the world to see -- so much build up so much excitement and yet it all boils down to an unsupported belief in smoke, magic and mirrors.

I would take exception with your use of Apostle Paul as the source of a quote mainly because the biblical scholars I've read have concluded that many of his supposed letters were written by people in his name and there's no way to tell whether they were really written by Paul or someone posing as Paul for added authority.

The bottom line is my conscience is clear, my keyboard is clicking and, when last I checked this afternoon, my guitar was in tune.

When you are ready to supply some evidence to support your position, you'll know where to find me. Until such time, I genuinely enjoyed the innovative ways in which you avoided supporting your positions.

@ Peterhuff

Yeah, see, this is what I was talking about when I said you weren't going to be one of the people who would construct a solid argument and make other people actually think about their beliefs.

ME: "And the extent of that adaption is limited why, again?"

YOU: "First and foremost, because God says that is the way it is."

Except there is no God, so you're just full of nonsense, among other substances. Not really a lot of point in us talking evolution, is there?

Now, when you talk about the uniformity of nature, fair enough, I was assuming we were still discussing fauna and all of nature in general. If you mean specifically celestial mechanics, yes, there's a fair amount of regularity to a lot of it. However, when you say...

"But again, in a universe that came about without Mind, by chance, how and why does this happen?"

Firstly, regularity isn't really the same as organization--there's more than just a difference in semantics. It does possess regularity, it doesn't possess organization. As for how this regularity came to be, well, pick up an astrophysics textbook.

On second thought, that'll never happen, so let me draw you a little mental image. Say a jar of marbles falls off a high shelf and smashes open. The floor is severely sunken in the middle of the room, and many of the marbles start rolling back and forth in the center of the room. There is regularity; there is not conscious organization. Welcome to your Universe!

TWMATTHEWS,

Well, it doesn't appear that there will be anything resembling a reasoned discussion of the issues at this time. It is rather obvious that you do not understand the importance of presuppositional apologetics, and I won't be subjected to the inanity of chasing all your poorly constructed anti-theistic ramblings (I know, I know. You are “disappointed” but “not surprised”). It is obvious you are quite impressed and taken with them, but you are offering nothing here that has not been more than adequately handled, repeatedly, by far better theologians than I will ever be. A little honest investigation on your part would easily yield sound rebuttals to your arguments. (BTW--Lee Strobel, though a good man, doesn't make the cut as a world-class theologian. And Marcus Borg, the “Jesus Seminar” fellow and participant in the absurd “colored marble” fiasco? Please.)

In the end, had you been willing to engage with me in thoughtful discussion, we would have eventually arrived at addressing all your straw-man objections. You are working from the foundation of aberrant (and in some cases flat-out false), unexamined presuppositions. Until you are willing to honestly examine your presuppositions there is no possibility that you will ever even recognize the faulty conclusions you are drawing from them. Your cart will be perpetually before your horse.

And the plucking of your guitar strings in the “church choir,” along with the clicking of you computer keyboard on religious discussion threads are nothing more than the throes of a troubled conscience trying to convince itself that the “small” possibility of there being a God is really no possibility at all.

If you ever decide you want to have a meaningful discussion, send up a flare. I’ll be around.

I leave you with the inspired words of the Apostle Paul. (I know, I know. You don’t think they were divinely inspired. Just humor me and carefully consider them anyway. There is always that “small” chance.)

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools…..

I said, "If I'm wrong, I'll be burning for all eternity."

Peterhuff said: If that is the case, can you afford to be wrong?

TWM: I can honestly say that I haven't lost a second of sleep worrying about eternal damnation. I've concluded the probability of such a place to exist is so small as to be insignificant. It would be like me worrying that I might fall down Alice's rabbit hole.

You, on the other hand, have much more on your mind. You not only need to abide by local, state and federal laws but you also need to abide by what you interpret to be your God's moral rules -- even if he doesn't.

Psolus said, "And yeah, that was quite a beat-down; brother RCofield certainly brought the wrath of his loving god down on you big time."

Yup. It's just like a Christian to get my hopes up anticipating a good discussion, rife with evidence, give and take; only to be let down. It's sad.

Somewhat disappointed, but unsurprised (TW)

'persiflage,
This is not "primitivism", but a gracious loving God caring for His children, and seeking to protect them from losing their earthly and eternal heritage.'
____________

In His most paternalistic, grandfatherly mode, I suppose God is alright. Maybe even overly generous to His faithful devotees. When He gets mad though, all hell breaks loose! I really think from what I read, it's hard to stay on God's good side for long. He is a wily old (very old) trickster, when it comes to weighing good behavior (and what if He's not a He??)

Why do you think Catholics devised a 'perfect act of contrition' and the priestly rites of extreme unction at the moment of death? Death insurance, pure and simple - better safe than sorry!

Or, if one doesn't buy into the religious view and happens to have a sense of humor about the whole thing, one can try and emulate this old Zen master at the moment of death:

'.....When Teng Yin Feng was about to die he said to the people around him, “I have seen monks die sitting and lying, but have any died standing?”

“Yes, some,” they replied.

“How about upside down?” asked Teng.

“No, never such a thing,” they said.

So Teng died standing on his head and his
clothes also rose up, close to his body.
It was decided to carry him to the burning
ground, but he still stood there without moving.

People from far and near gazed with
astonishment at the scene.

His younger sister, a nun, happened to be there. She grumbled at him, “When you were alive you took no notice of laws and customs; and even when you’re dead,
you continue making a nuisance of yourself.”

She then prodded her brother with her finger, and he fell down with a bang. Then they went off to the crematorium.......'

I've personally seen a good many dead people, but none standing on their head!

There is 0 nobility in death.

TW,

No problem, I figured if eph2 succeeded in saving your soul, he/she might then turn his/her attention to saving mine.

And yeah, that was quite a beat-down; brother RCofield certainly brought the wrath of his loving god down on you big time.

I felt so bad, I decided to say a little prayer for you, but I poked myself in the eye while attempting the sign-of-the-cross.

But, considering where my hand was heading next, I guess I should consider myself lucky that I only lost an eye.

Well, gotta go, I've got an entire evening of god-less sinning ahead of me.

PSolus........OUT!

'As for genetic diversity, the only genetic disorder I'm aware of that is associated with any faith is tay-sach's disease. It's rare.'

__________________

Tay-Sachs is associated with certain ethnic groups - of varying religious persuasions, or none at all.

.....excerpted from the longer wiki link:

'Research in the late 20th century demonstrated that Tay-Sachs disease is caused by a genetic mutation on the HEXA gene on chromosome 15. A large number of HEXA mutations have been discovered, and new ones are still being reported. These mutations reach significant frequencies in several populations. French Canadians of southeastern Quebec have a carrier frequency similar to Ashkenazi Jews, but they carry a different mutation. Many Cajuns of southern Louisiana carry the same mutation that is most common in Ashkenazi Jews. Most HEXA mutations are rare, and do not occur in genetically isolated populations. The disease can potentially occur from the inheritance of two unrelated mutations in the HEXA gene.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs_disease

to Peterhuff:

Sorry about interfering with your comments to CJ but I am trying with some difficulty to understand your position.

PH:You are still missing the point. To know any degree of goodness or to do what is right there has to be an unchanging standard as reference, an objective standard, an ideal, or else there is nothing to measure goodness by.

Me: That's just not true in the same way as there is no objective standard of happiness, yet I bet you can tell me when you are happy and when you are not.

Now, according to you this is not possible? Is there an objective standard by which we all measure happiness? Well then man, how can you know you were ever happy?

Goodness, like morality and like happiness is judged by the individual. Can I not declare a book "good"? Does that mean that you would necessarily find the same book good?

You keep insisting on defining a standard by which these are judged and I say there's no need nor is it possible. It's relative to the individual and to society.

Didn't god create the universe in 7 days, declare it good (by what standard, I don't know) only to have to destroy it within a few generations? Now, do you suppose that God was missing a standard definition of good? Or maybe it wasn't so good but he thought it was good.

Hello Psolus,

Thank you for reminding Eph2 that my mortal soul is at risk. By the way, you can call me whatever you want.

I'm feeling somewhat left out. First, I was scolded by RCO because I didn't read his posts in enough detail to understand that he was going to comment and address my issues.

Then Peterhuff is having a hard time understanding why, without belief in his God, we aren't all running around in the streets raping and pillaging.

Now there's Eph2 who is genuinely fearful for my mortal soul. I was just watching a televangelist on TV and thank God, they are offering a twofor. Yup, act now and you and your loved one (as long as said loved one is not of the same sex) will both be transported to the pearly gates, at the appropriate time.

Operators are standing by.

To Eph2 (continued from TWM).

Eph2: Most of the time in the Old Testament, either God would tell the Israelites to totally destroy nations because of their wickedness or to allow some to live, but to subject them to servitude, but at least they were alive.

Me: So to believe that these statements represent a loving God is to believe that entire cities -- men, women and children (and sometimes animals) -- are wicked and need to be destroyed. Come on, let me ask you a question and put aside your belief for just one second, if any king or ruler did the things that God did, wouldn't we label them a monster? When God commanded his followers to attack a city and to kill all the males but to take the women for yourselves, doesn't that make you feel just a little bit icky?

Eph2:The Bible and especially Jesus had a profound respect for women, and treated women with more respect and dignity than any other religious system in the world, and Christianity still has more respect for women than any other religion.

Me: I beg to differ with you. Show me a woman Catholic priest? Show me anywhere in the Catholic hierarchy where women are leaders. (I'm assuming you accept Catholics as Christian). How about the Missouri synod of the Lutheran faith? You got it, no women leaders, no women ministers. By stating that Christianity treats women better than other religions is not looking to set the bar particularly high.

The world has treated women for most of civilization as second class citizens. Much of that treatment can be attributed to the way the bible defines women's roles, consigns them to hold their tongue and prevents them from holding a leadership position. All you are saying is that Christianity is the least bad of the lot.

In response to Eph2:

EPH2: Why the pretense? What church (denomination) do you attend?
Me: There's a long and short version of why I go to church but it has nothing to do with faith or a belief. The short version is I found a church that gives back to the community in a big way. My family too wants to give back to the community and our church provides lots of opportunities to do so.

Eph2: What about the God who created everything out of nothing? What about the historical and prophetic history from the Old Testament to their literal fulfillment in the New Testament, namely Christ, the Savior of the world?

I've seen no evidence for such a god. The historical prophecies amount to predicting that I will go to the bathroom some time tomorrow. They are not specific either in their predictions nor the time when these will occur. I could do just as good a job at predicting things.

Eph2: How about the non-Biblical historical accounts from historians like Josephus and others that corroborate what Jesus said and did even though these might not believe that Jesus was the Christ?

Me: Actually, most historical scholars have concluded a long time ago that the references to Christ by Josephus were inserted. They don't follow the preceding or following chapters in style, terminology and context. Most have concluded they were simply pasted in.

Eph2: Slavery is a tough one, I will admit that. What I know about God is that God ALWAYS does what is perfectly just and righteous, while us humans NEVER do what is perfectly just or righteous.

Me: Okay, then answer this simply question, how just do you think God was when he wiped out the Egyptian first born during passover? Remember, the thousands supposedly killed were simply living in Egypt at the time, they had no control over or influence on Pharaoh.

Sorry Eph2, you may really believe that God is always loving and just but the very words of the bible contradicts that belief.

Okay TWM,

Just to inform you, I haven't finished commenting on your earlier posts. I got to part 3, but I see you have newer ones. I'll respond to those if I get time before this forum runs dry. I work Monday and Tuesday so that leaves tonight and Wednesday/Thursday, if it has not expired.

Hi TWMatthews,

TWM: "Our society has determined whether you can steal a wallet or kill someone or a dog. These are rules that we've developed over the years; rules that any advanced culture makes."

Germany was one of the most advance cultures of the 30's and 40's. These were educated people. Would you consider them advanced? I mean, they slaughtered over 11 million people in their death camps and round ups. This doesn't include the number of casualties associated with the war itself, just what these highly educated people did to those of 'lesser' descent, such as the Jews, the disabled, those who opposed the system. It was worse in China during the cultural revolution. Look at North Korea today, or Iran. Are these not advanced cultures as opposed to some of the third world countries?

TWM: "Comparing the equality and freedom guaranteed by our rules versus those defined in the bible leads me to conclude the bible is an old fashioned, outdated, anti woman collection of myths."

Many of the rules were for a specific people or time, but many are still used in this day and age, such as establishing the testimony of two to three witnesses.

TWM: "If I'm wrong, I'll be burning for all eternity."

If that is the case, can you afford to be wrong?

More comments for Peterhuff:

In talking about slavery, I stated nowhere does god say slavery itself is wrong.

PH:Sure He does. Putting someone else into slavery is not God's ideal. (please read Galatians 4:21-31). Submitting to someone out of love and placing yourself in the position of a servant is, for God is worthy of service. Jesus Christ has a servants heart. He came to this earth to serve others, He who is God of all submitted Himself in service to the Father for our benefit.

Sorry, this is not a criticism of the institution of slavery. Further, God gave lots of rules about how to treat slaves but nowhere does he say, "slavery is wrong".

This by the way is further illustration of my point that the bible is anything but clear. I've stated that because there has been no one to come down from heaven and "splain things" to us mortals, our actions are based on a personal interpretation of the bible. Talk about a chaotic environment. That's the world -- where some people believe the bible (and thus God) wants them to kill abortionists.

How many horrific things have been done in God's name? Millions.

Response 2 of your Part 3

TWM: "But let me ask you one last question before delving into prior post: Why would a loving god create hell?"

One who is pure and holy and will not compromise goodness and justice? You are called to repent and believe. Instead you act as if you are your own god, your own moral authority, your own final judge, the one whose authority decides what is right and what is wrong. You won't bow the knee to your Creator without His grace to you. Paradise would not be such with rebels each doing what they saw fit. We have enough of that on earth. Look at the mess we are in on the six o'clock news. We get along so well don't we.

The thing you forget is that the Creator sets the 'good' standard, not the creature. When it is followed man gets along with his neighbor. But whenever man takes matters into his own hands and makes the rules all hell breaks loose. You are just going where you have chosen to be by not believing God. You were designed for eternity in one of two places. You have a volition that chooses to do what it does. But you need God's grace and mercy. Without bowing the knee and acknowledging Him do you still expect to receive it?

TWM: "Certainly it's not for correction because it's for eternity. You really can't learn from it because, well, it's for eternity."

How long has God contended with you. You've heard the message. You have assigned it to mythology.

TWM: "What kind of parent would punish their child forever for a mistake or two or three? Would you call that loving?"

You've made the assumption that you are His child. You are not His child and you are not in His kingdom unless you have been born from above, born of His Spirit, given eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to believe. (see John 1:12 or John 8:35, 41-42,44,47)

In response to Peterhuff:

PH:It doesn't make sense to me. You believe you are a chance being with no ultimate purpose or hope, that at the moment of death you cease to be, so what is the point?
Me: I don't need a point to be happy and because I suspect unless shown evidence otherwise, that this is it, I try to make the most of what I've got. I invest my time in making this world better because this is it baby.

PH: Why do you act as if there is one? Why do you act as if life matters?
Me: Do you honestly think that you need to believe in God in order to have a fruitful and happy life? Based on my experience with other Christians (don't forget I still go to church twice a week -- but that's a subject for another discussion) they are the ones genuinely unhappy. They are worried that gays will be welcomed in our church (something I'm working very hard to make happen) and it bothers them. Of course, since God has laid down such a clear and concise standard of morality and love, the idea of gays should be a non-issue, right?

PH: Why follow an ethical standard that someone else is imposing on you?
Me: This is really good. Look in the mirror -- aren't you following a moral standard you think was created by God?

PH: Why not just do whatever you feel for when you are dead nothing matters?
Me: Ah, but I already answered that. By living among other people we abide by the rules defined by that standard. Morals? They change as I've tried to point out to you. I still haven't seen you answer my question on God's position on slavery -- haven't your moral values evolved further than God's who seems to have no problem with slavery?

PH: There is no justice for the wrongs you have done to others or for the wrongs others have done to you.
Me: Our society has defined justice. Where's your proof that there is divine justice?

PH: Grab as much enjoyment as you can while you can and when life gets uncomfortable, pull the plug.
Me: Having seen what advanced Alzheimer's did to mother over the course of 15 years and the toll it took on my father (who died of a stroke 3 months after Mom passed away) I wish it were that easy, to just pull the plug. Our society, for right or wrong has determined that you shouldn't engage in mercy killing.

PH: Why are you trying to sort this all out or present your belief to others as a 'better' way? Why do you act as if truth matters? It is all relative anyway isn't it?
Me: Nope. I never said that. I said that morals are defined by society and are always evolving. I also said that the bible is a particularly poor source of morals and those morals have changed from then until today. I said nothing about truth.

To Peterhuff,

Just getting around to responding to your earlier posts. Here's from your Part 2.

PH: The Bible defines itself. It says that a man shall not take innocent life. It gives circumstances in which it is permitted, such as you mentioned, in times of war, but the golden rule is love your neighbor and don't harm them, or do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you. In other words, look out for their best interests.

Yes, but I guess you missed my direct comment on this very issue -- God is one of those "do as I say, not as I do" gods right? If you take the bible literally, how many innocent people has God killed? Let's look at Passover -- how many "first born Egyptians" were completely innocent and yet, as demonstrated by Cecil B. DeMille, were killed by a god who doesn't seem to be particularly good at differentiating the innocent from the guilty.

There are lots of examples in the bible where God is arbitrary in his wrath. What moral standard am I to follow when God doesn't bother with those details before slaughtering people? What shall I teach my sons about the lesson of the passover? What moral standard have you derived from that? How about the flood -- think any innocent people / children were killed.

To RCO continued comments on your post:

When last we left off, you were asking me to reread your posts, which I did. I concluded that most were promises to address the issues I raised, none did. Here is the final lists of posts you made and my interpretation of each.

July 31, 2010 7:34 PM - Finally, you started to address an issue. You stated that my conclusion that morality is both subjective and evolving must be wrong because of Adolf Hitler.

You said, "Old Adolph has decided that it is **not immoral** to gas Jews. What’s more, gassing Jews makes him happy. You and I (remember, we are Jews) are on a slow train to Auschwitz II-Birkenau."

I think your example proves my point very well. First, Hitler believed in God and presumably, like most believers understood what God said was moral versus immoral. (and again, since they are so poorly defined they are subject to interpretation).

Because an individual defines a moral system outside the bounds of society like Pol Pot or Pope Innocent III (he started the Inquisitions of Spain and Portugal) has nothing to do with the need or the presence of a universal, standard of moral behavior. Hitler's atrocities against the Jews was probably only possible under a society all to willing to believe the lies of the church -- Jews were Christ killers and drank the blood of Christian babies.

They are certainly possible as you know in a world where, no matter how many horrific things are done in God's name, he never seems to come down from heaven and proclaim what's acceptable and what's not.

July 31, 2010 7:37 PM -- And here you return to side stepping. You talk up a big game and talk about not finding an atheist who has a firm grasp of scripture. That's cute but in my attack on God's morality I quoted scripture regarding God's position on slavery. **You have yet to respond**

July 31, 2010 7:45 PM -- and once again, talk about side stepping you're back to ID.

RCO said,

For your convenience, here is a list of the posts to which I am referring:

Yes, I did read those posts and let's be honest with each other, they amounted to a "whole lotta nothin".

July 31, 2010 5:34 PM -- You said nothing here but that you intended to comment and that you would comment on my question about God's morality and slavery.

July 31, 2010 7:29 PM -- Here again, the sum total is that you said there is a need for an objective standard but you certainly didn't indicate whether such a standard exists unlike Peterhuff who believes it's clearly written in the bible. And again, you complained about having to respond to scatter-shot apologetics. Okay, I guess one way to respond is to complain about having to respond differently than you would like.

July 31, 2010 7:32 PM -- With this post I sense. First you've reverted back to our discussion of intelligent design -- hmmmm, what exactly is your definition of scatter shot? But no matter, this pattern is earlier similar to that very discussion. The sum total of your argument supporting ID was "the universe is so complex that I can't imagine any other alternative except it was created by a supreme being -- probably my God.

My last response to that was - is that what you call evidence?

And then the side-stepping continues as you try to defend your lack of response by concluding that everything is based on our presuppositions regarding a God or no God. I addressed that contention directly and again asked for evidence of said God's existence.....I'm still waiting.

continued

Hi JAC,

******************************
How do I know right and good?
******************************

JAC: "I really don't know from an absolute perspective. But still I can make a sense of my life and enrich the world a little bit just by following the golden rule as a principle, being a good citizen and a good neighbor, helping others in what I can."

You are still missing the point. To know any degree of goodness or to do what is right there has to be an unchanging standard as reference, an objective standard, an ideal, or else there is nothing to measure goodness by. How do you get goodness without an ideal? How do you say something is better or best without an ideal? Without a knowledge of the ideal - in this case goodness or rightness - how do you derive a value at all?

What you are pleading for is opinion, not goodness. It is personal preference. Now when you take a standard from God, like the Golden Rule, then you have crossed over from opinion to objective value. You are borrowing from the Christian world-view - the only one that ultimately makes sense of any of this.

JAC: "The main religions divide the world: we are good you are bad."

Again, good in relation to what standard? Where does it come from? If it is something that someone made up all it is is subjective opinion. Show me your ideal, your measure, what you derive goodness from and then show me why it is a universal standard, something that 'SHOULD' apply to all peoples.

You keep mixing preference with 'oughtness.' Why ought the standard you believe is good be so?

CJ: "An additional danger comes from radicals that want to codify their beliefs or non-beliefs in to the constitution and laws of nations to the point that even to think differently should be a punishable offense."

True of any religious belief, unless it is based on ultimate, objective truth, even atheism, or maybe especially it. All atheism is is a push to do it your way. You work hard to convince the world that there is no God that you know of.

peterhuff,

"Why did you originally come on this forum and challenge a Christian in his views?"

Perhaps I was sent by the christian's god to test the christian's faith.

"If you are going to challenge someone then you owe it to them and yourself to show why what you state is better and a more reasonable view of what is real."

Are you saying that I should have gone easier on you?

Did the romans go easier on jebus when they nailed him to the cross?

Is it not written in Jerome 1:42... ah, rats, I can't pull that off.

But, it would've been really cool if I could have.

"If it is not then why do you still hold onto your view?"

Because I have so far seen no reason to let it go.

"Since you are not willing to dig deeper, thanks for the chat!"

You're welcome.

So long, and thanks for all the ichthys.

Hi JAC,

I said a little prayer for you in church today. It just so happens that the sermon was on Luke 15:1-10. I happened to glance over at the opposite page and low and behold the subject of our conversation came up yet again - counting the cost. This made me think again of your inquiry.

"Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them He said: 'If anyone comes after Me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters - yes, even his own life - he cannot be My disciple. And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow Me cannot be My disciple. Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Will he not first sit down and estimate the cost to see if he has enough money to complete it? For if he lays the foundation and is not able to finish it, everyone who see it will ridicule him, saying, 'This fellow began to build and was not able to finish.'...In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:25-30, 33)

It looks like a tough command to follow by worldly standards, giving up everything. Jesus is first and foremost to the point of losing our lives for His sake or placing Him above father, mother or wife. But the cost is worth it.

You won't find that out unless you have a willingness to do this. I was reminded of this by the spiritual song, Wonderful Cross,

"When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of Glory died
My richest gain I count but loss
And pour contempt on all my pride

See from his head, his hands, his feet
Sorrow and love flow mingled down
Did ever such love and sorrow meet
Or thorns compose so rich a crown

O the wonderful cross, O the wonderful cross
Bids me come and die and find that I may truly live
O the wonderful cross, O the wonderful cross
All who gather here by grace draw near and bless
Your name

Were the whole realm of nature mine
That were an offering far too small
Love so amazing, so divine
Demands my soul, my life, my all."

As Christians we have died to our old nature and in Christ we have been raised anew. It was crucified on the cross. There is no longer any condemnation for us when we stand before God because of what Christ has done.

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be obtained through the law, Christ died for nothing." (Galatians 2:19-21)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVuetSYQ0qI

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: "Why is my stating my opinion a problem? I have been reading your opinions."

Why did you originally come on this forum and challenge a Christian in his views? If you are going to challenge someone then you owe it to them and yourself to show why what you state is better and a more reasonable view of what is real. If it is not then why do you still hold onto your view?

Since you are not willing to dig deeper, thanks for the chat!

Hi CalicoJ ( July 31, 2010 10:20 PM),

CJ: "You write, "You look at similarity and say evolution. Do you presuppose this or do you actually see it happening today?"

CJ: "Um...evolution doesn't really work like that, you know...you can stare at a blade of grass all you want, you'll never see it grow but it'll still be taller next week."

Exactly my point, so what you take as change over long periods of time is not demonstrated by observable science. You assume because of similarities that one thing evolved from another. You look at two different organisms with similarity and say on evolved from the other.

ME: "I would contend that we share similarities because we share common environments. The amount of adaption is limited or bound by 'kind.'"

CJ: "So you agree the nature of an organism is shaped by it's environment--good, good.

Yes, to a certain degree and no further. Man is able to adapt and change in response to different or isolated environments, just like the finch of the Galápagos Islands is able to adapt to its isolation by developing a bigger beak to crack open the seeds. But it is still a finch. It just adapts within the limits of its creatureliness so it can survive.

CJ: "And the extent of that adaption is limited why, again?"

First and foremost, because God says that is the way it is. Second, because no matter how many generations of fruit-flies you bombard with radiation and mutate, they still remain a fruit-fly. There is a boundary to the extent of change that an organism can go. Humans can't fly, nor grow twenty feet tall. Our design limits us to with certain bounds. Yes we can adapt and change within those bounds but no further.

CJ: "And what exactly do you mean by "kind"?"

Birds, insects, sea creatures of various kinds, reptiles, land animals of various kinds, humans. These are some of the distinctions made in the Bible. (See Genesis 1:20-26 for instance)

PART 2

ME: "...that complexity and order came from mindlessness; that the uniformity of nature came from chaos and chance, and the list goes on."

CJ: "Yeah, well, narrow it down and I'll answer, but I'm not gonna sit here all night, you know. As to those last two issues--ants and bees have fairly complex hive structures, but no one's saying they sat down and planned them out at a town hall."

Without mind organizing things chance or possibility is all that you have to look at as to the answer of why things exist, why ants or bees do what they do, and when you look at chance, it doesn't necessitate order or complexity of information (it happens willy nilly or randomly) and can't order information together consistently or produce consistent sequential information because again, that requires a mind. With chance there is no way to explain laws that govern and uniformally apply to situations, such as the law of gravity or the law of logic in communication.

CJ: "And "the uniformity of nature"?!? Seriously, dude, what are you smoking and where do I get some? What could possibly be more varied than nature?"

Yes, the uniformity of nature - the presumption that what has happened in the past, and is happening in the present, will happen in the future - that there are fixed laws that govern the universe. In nature we see repeated patterns such as the number of days it takes the earth to rotate around the sun, or that the sun will 'rise' from the east every morning. Uniformity of nature allows scientific knowledge and makes predictions possible. But again, in a universe that came about without Mind, by chance, how and why does this happen? Chance is random. It is not organized, it is not ordered. It just happens randomly, the accidental collocation of atoms.

peterhuff,

If you look back at all of my comments to you, you will probably* see that I have never told you what you think or what you believe.

I probably* never told you that you need to read this, or that, or that you need to go to a specified Website to educate yourself.

I probably* never claimed that I know more about you than you know about yourself.

Why do you think that this is so?

Your opinions are fine; you don't need to show your proofs.

Penmanship, however, will count toward your final grade.

*"Probably", in all of the above, because I am skeptical of absolutes.

It seems atheists believe that the dilution of faith and the erosion of religious identity is good for society, i.e., good for the state.

But Jacoby makes no case for exactly how mixed-faith marriages are beneficial to those involved or to government either.

She believes it makes people less rigid, but that's not really backed by the evidence -- the divorce rate is highest in mix-faith marriages, and divorce happens when flexibility fails.

Mixed-faith marriages are less stable. They result in more divorces. Single-parent households are the type most frequently in need of assistance from the state. I can't see exactly how a divided house helps anyone -- the parents, the children, or the already overburdened social assistance system.

Where is the dilution dividend?

Do children from such unions score higher on standardized tests?

Do they perform community service activities at higher rates than others?

What exactly is good about a home where topics like life and death and good and evil cannot be spoken about without navigating an emotional minefield? Such a place is simply a home where religious values are never taught -- maybe this is an atheist's view of social progress.

As for genetic diversity, the only genetic disorder I'm aware of that is associated with any faith is tay-sach's disease. It's rare.

peterhuff,

You: "He hasn't even attempted to answer most of my questions."

PSOLUS: "I disagree; I think that I have answered almost all of your questions."

You: "No, you have made comments on them. I'm looking for proof that your assertions are true. You haven't given any."

As I have already told you, I have no proofs for you.

You: "The best you have done is stated an opinion."

Why is my stating my opinion a problem?

I have been reading your opinions.

You: "There is no reason behind it. It is like the first stanza of T.S.Elliot's 'The Hollow Men.'

[First stanza of T.S.Elliot's 'The Hollow Men.]

Here are the second and third stanzas of Bob Dylan's "Dirge" (imagine dirge-like music in the background):

- Heard your songs of freedom and man forever stripped,
- Acting out his folly while his back is being whipped.
- Like a slave in orbit, he's beaten 'til he's tame,
- All for a moment's glory and it's a dirty, rotten shame.

- There are those who worship loneliness, I'm not one of them,
- In this age of fiberglass I'm searching for a gem.
- The crystal ball up on the wall hasn't shown me nothing yet,
- I've paid the price of solitude, but at last I'm out of debt.

PSOLUS: "What boat am I in?"

You: "You're a skeptic. That was once me."

I'm not sure that the comparison is valid.

You: "You believe that nothing matters, that truth is impossible to know."

PSOLUS: "Again, I believe nothing."

You: "Impossible for a thinking person to do."

And yet, I believe nothing.

Quite a conundrum for you, no?

You: "I think most people on this post would agree that you definitely have a world-view, a way of looking at life and the world around you."

That some or most people might think that, may indeed be true; I have no way of knowing.

You: "You need to educate yourself on what a world-view is before you can say you don't have one."

Actually, I don't.

See how that works?

eph2,

"I still have more to come regarding this, but right now, at this moment life is getting in the way!"

You were right in the middle of saving twmatthews from eternal damnation in the fires of hell, with all of the burning and rending of clothing, and you let "life get in the way" of your sacred mission?

Is that what jebus would do?

Did he let "life get in the way" when he was whipping the money changers, turning water into wine, raising the dead, or walking on water?

"I will address more of your concerns, but I have to go for now!"

And what if something happens to twmatthews while you are selfishly letting "life get in the way"?

TW (may I call you TW? Thank you.), don't wait for eph2 to save you - save yourself!

Repent, jump up and down, speak in tongues, do whatever it takes to avoid the eternal damnation of hell!

Or not, what the hell, it really doesn't matter.

It turns out that I am a nihilist; are you also a nihilist?

Hi PSolus,

ME: "He hasn't even attempted to answer most of my questions."

PSOLUS: "I disagree; I think that I have answered almost all of your questions."

No, you have made comments on them. I'm looking for proof that your assertions are true. You haven't given any. The best you have done is stated an opinion. There is no reason behind it. It is like the first stanza of T.S.Elliot's 'The Hollow Men.'

I

We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar [coffin?]

Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion; [dead]

Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.

ME: "I was in a similar boat to you..."

PSOLUS: "What boat am I in?"

You're a skeptic. That was once me.

ME: "You believe that nothing matters, that truth is impossible to know."

PSOLUS: "Again, I believe nothing."

Impossible for a thinking person to do. I think most people on this post would agree that you definitely have a world-view, a way of looking at life and the world around you.

You need to educate yourself on what a world-view is before you can say you don't have one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDn4aIrvp_0&feature=related

persiflage,
This is not "primitivism", but a gracious loving God caring for His children, and seeking to protect them from losing their earthly and eternal heritage.

twmatthews
You said:“I still play guitar in the church choir every week” - May I ask Why? Why the pretense? What church (denomination) do you attend?
“I haven't seen evidence of anything I would call a God -- well, maybe Bill Gates is like a God having built one of the biggest companies in the world….” What about the God who created everything out of nothing? What about the historical and prophetic history from the Old Testament to their literal fulfillment in the New Testament, namely Christ, the Savior of the world?
“As I've indicated in the past, I've read books by Lee Strobel and Marcus Borg to books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. The only presumptions I'm guilty of are presuming that without evidence something cannot be real.” – How about the non-Biblical historical accounts from historians like Josephus and others that corroborate what Jesus said and did even though these might not believe that Jesus was the Christ?
“God's morality as it relates to slavery” - Slavery is a tough one, I will admit that. What I know about God is that God ALWAYS does what is perfectly just and righteous, while us humans NEVER do what is perfectly just or righteous. Most of the time in the Old Testament, either God would tell the Israelites to totally destroy nations because of their wickedness or to allow some to live, but to subject them to servitude, but at least they were alive. God did make provisions and regulations regarding the treatment of slaves and treating them with violence was not allowed. I’m getting ready to read an article on the issue of slavery in the Bible, so give me a chance to come up to speed on the issue.
“treatment of women” – The Bible and especially Jesus had a profound respect for women, and treated women with more respect and dignity than any other religious system in the world, and Christianity still has more respect for women than any other religion. What most people don’t understand is that while there are different roles for men and women in the Bible, that doesn’t mean that women are less honored.
“attitudes of racial bias (wasn't god just a little prejudiced in favor of Jews)” – I don’t have a problem with saying that God chose the descendents of Abraham, God has been choosing to bestow His grace and mercy on whomever he pleases and hardening whomever He pleases from the beginning of time. Look at Exodus 33:19 and Romans 9. I still have more to come regarding this, but right now, at this moment life is getting in the way!
I will address more of your concerns, but I have to go for now!

RCofield scolded twmatthews as follows:

"TWMATTHEWS,

In reading your epic-length response addressed to PETERHUFF and, surreptitiously, to RCO it is rather obvious that you haven't read at least six of my posts to you. You never once reference them and are obviously unaware that I have already addressed many of the very objections you raise in your most recent posts."

TW (may I call you TW? Thank you.), I give you permission not to read any of my posts if you do not want to, and, of course, you also have my permission to not address them if you do not want to.

Feel free to post exactly as you wish; I will not scold you for doing so.

RCofield went on to scold:

"If you want to converse "with" me, please read them and respond. Like most, I am not very fond of being talked "at.""

While I empathize with RCofield, I am again going to refrain from scolding you as to how you post comments.

You have my permission to talk "at" me, or "with" me, as you choose; you also have my permission to ignore me completely; again, I will not scold you, regardless of what you do or do not.

I do this because I think that is what jebus would do, that is, if he weren't just a figment of people's imagination.

....same old emperor. Don't want to be nailed for a spelling error!

'I know of at least 2 passages of the Bible that warn against intermarrying of different faiths: You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
(Deuteronomy 7:3-4 ESV)'

_______________

An excellent example of the kind of primitivism that non-religious folks are spared. The New Testament is not seen as a substantial improvement....new clothes, but the same old emporer.

Non-theists may have nothing else in common under the sun, but they are all equally free of the supernaturalism of theism .... and that's no small thing.

I haven't look at all the responses to your post, but as a born-again Christian who takes his faith very seriously and who's goal is to glorigy Christ in the world and to make much of Him, there is no way that I could marry someone of a different faith. My Saviour Jesus Christ is the most important person in my life and if the person that that I was interested in didn't share the same values, or trust Christ, we would not have enough in common to warrant even a passing relationship. I know of at least 2 passages of the Bible that warn against intermarrying of different faiths:
You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.
(Deuteronomy 7:3-4 ESV)
This is a very serious warning from the Old Testament, but even under Grace, the New Testament states:
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what portion does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; as God said, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Therefore go out from their midst, and be separate from them, says the Lord, and touch no unclean thing; then I will welcome you, and I will be a father to you, and you shall be sons and daughters to me, says the Lord Almighty."
(2 Corinthians 6:14-18 ESV)

PART 2

******************************
How do I know right and good?
******************************

Let me emphasize, by not believing doesn't mean that I can't make sense of living in this world. I can tell that my life makes sense to me. Do I have all the responses to all situations in life? Not by a long shot, but nobody has them irrespective of the source of the morality followed, unless you are willing to accept nonsense codes that have rules like stone cheaters or kill your kids if they don't show you respect.

I will be an atheist until somebody shows me an evidence that a god exists. And here ends my understanding of what is to be an atheist. I don't formally share with other atheists any other positions and if this happens is mere coincidence. Atheism as a formal “ism” don't exist that I know. Each atheist has its own mind. Some are sure that god don't exists others don't. That is why for some atheists doesn't make sense to be asked to prove that a real god doesn't exist (a negative cannot be proved anyway). Other atheists are outspoken of how horrible is to belong to religions that have committed atrocities and keep doing bad things like negating blood transfusions or forcing weddings of 14 year old girls to adults. These particular atheists are active in making sure that who ever belong to an organized religion feels ashamed to be religious, as ashamed as to be part of a KKK group, be a human trafficker or be in a social group that smokes cigarettes in baby nurseries. There are also atheists that are active showing how absurd and groundless is to believe in a god like the Jude-Christ-Lamic God. Other atheists are open to interact with believers in a civilized manner. Finally others simple don't care to have any dialog. But all this is beyond of what I understand an atheist is.

Religious people may think that because they don't approve the bad part of their religion it's not fair to be called monsters. Atheists equally feel that they are unjustly being stereotyped by portraying them as Hitler and Staling lovers. I don't see a fix to this but is encouraging to read this long thread that has been relatively civilized so far, some light infighting at the end.

PART 1

I have been out of the thread for a while. There is no point for me to address topics that I have pending to comment because will be repetitive, specially with TWM posts. Instead follows a summary of my position on some of the ideas being discussed.

******************************
How do I know right and good?
******************************

I really don't know from an absolute perspective. But still I can make a sense of my life and enrich the world a little bit just by following the golden rule as a principle, being a good citizen and a good neighbor, helping others in what I can. No need of incentives or punishment after I die. No need of religion. My family and friends fill my days. I enjoy more the same things that I enjoyed when I was delusional with an sky god.

I expect that at a societal level nothing is lost without religion because at the point that societies have advanced it's not necessary nor beneficial. Believing barely help some people by filling their unanswered gaps, but at the high price of renouncing to have a free and private brain not monitored by the old man in the sky.

The main religions divide the world: we are good you are bad. An additional danger comes from radicals that want to codify their beliefs or non-beliefs in to the constitution and laws of nations to the point that even to think differently should be a punishable offense.

TWMATTHEWS,

In reading your epic-length response addressed to PETERHUFF and, surreptitiously, to RCO it is rather obvious that you haven’t read at least six of my posts to you. You never once reference them and are obviously unaware that I have already addressed many of the very objections you raise in your most recent posts.

For your convenience, here is a list of the posts to which I am referring:

July 31, 2010 5:34 PM
July 31, 2010 7:29 PM
July 31, 2010 7:32 PM
July 31, 2010 7:34 PM
July 31, 2010 7:37 PM
July 31, 2010 7:45 PM

If you want to converse “with” me, please read them and respond. Like most, I am not very fond of being talked “at.”

To RCO,

Welcome back brother. It seems like I've been a postin and a postin with no responses. I've also raised quite a few issues with Peterhuff that have remained unanswered.

But, getting back to what you said since I only have time for a few comments -- I still play guitar in the church choir every week -- I believe the majority of your argument concludes that we both have presumptions -- you that there is a God and me that there isn't.

I can't comment about yours but I have no presumptions whatsoever. I was raised in a Christian environment, have attended church regularly and still attend church twice a week. I remain open to the possibility that there is a god, but in my view it remains a slim possibility at best since I haven't seen evidence of anything I would call a God -- well, maybe Bill Gates is like a God having built one of the biggest companies in the world and now he's using that enormous brain of his to improve health care around the world.

As I've indicated in the past, I've read books by Lee Strobel and Marcus Borg to books by Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. The only presumptions I'm guilty of are presuming that without evidence something cannot be real. (Hey, I own a software company. Logic comes pretty naturally to me and without evidence there likely is not.)

And here's a mild criticism. I've addressed almost every one of Peterhuff's points. I'm still waiting for you to address the issues I've raised regarding God's morality as it relates to slavery, treatment of women, attitudes of racial bias (wasn't god just a little prejudiced in favor of Jews) and why you think, as Peterhuff apparently does, that the moral standards of the bible are worth as much as the evolving standards of contemporary America (or Europe for that matter).

Give me something tangible and don't fall back on that old trick -- well we see things from different perspectives. Actually, that's probably the reason why 10 people can read the same passage from the bible and come away with 10 different understandings of what the message was. And since there's no one up there correcting those misunderstandings, you have a world in which an abortion doctor is killed because one's person believes God told them to save all of those unborn, yet to be conceived, babies.

TEST

TO EVERYONE ON THIS THREAD,

This was originally posted to TWMATTHEWS, but I am reposting it in an effort to bring some sanity to what is going on here. It seems that CALICOJ was the only one who noticed this.

I am using ** for emphasis in this post.

TWM said: “Here's the problem I have with this argument. It presumes there is a God -- that has not be demonstrated in the least by anyone commenting here. I've heard no evidence to back that up. It also implies that we need an objective standard of morality.”

This is rich. Do you recall the focus of our discussion on the other thread? Was it not a debate over whether or not there is an “Intelligent Designer” (i.e. God) behind all the order and complexity of our universe? This is **precisely** what I meant when I told you in a previous post that the direction you were going was getting the “cart ahead of the horse.”

Now you want to contend that the problem with arguing for an objective source of morality is presuppositionally flawed because no one has “demonstrated” that there is a God. Do you not realize that such an argument works equally well the other way? I could say: “Well, TW, your argument that morality is subjective is problematic because you have not yet proven there is no God who has established an objective moral code.” And round and round we go, where it stops…well,…nobody knows.

Do you see the problem here? There are two groups of people on these forums (theists and atheists) who are arguing from two completely different sets of presuppositions. Atheists argue from the presupposition that there is **no** God….while theists argue from the presupposition that there **is** a God. Unless we start from the point of our presuppositions in our debate (this is called presuppositional apologetics) we are destined to be forever “talking past” one another.

This is exactly why every atheist on this board thinks that every position a theists takes is ignorant, illogical, stupid, “Bronze Age,” (you name it and it has been said at some point). Conversely, the theists on this board view every atheistic position in similar terms.

The reality is this: The atheistic position is logically coherent when one begins with the presupposition **there is no god**. And it is equally true that the Christian position is logically coherent when one begins with the presupposition **there is a God**. (NOTE: I am **not** saying that **every** goof-ball position proposed by either side is coherent.)

I’ve got a new spin on the now infamous appeal of that West Coast philosopher :) Rodney King. Instead of “Can’t we all just get along?” I propose the following: “Can’t we all just understand that it is our presuppositions that are causing all the confusion?” Until we do, the conversation will be pointless.

A common recognition of what I just said would **radically** transform the discussion on this thread.

This will be my last post this evening TWM,

TWM: "In Exodus 12:43 the bible says, "The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it."

TWM: "Now I interpret this to mean that God is completely fine with slavery. He's letting slaves participate in Passover. In fact, no where in the bible have I ever seen the words "thou shall not own another person." Or, "no man shall enslave another." Or even anything like "slavery is not as bad as homosexuality or eating shellfish, but it's still pretty bad". (Nope, not even a tepid condemnation)."

First of all, you have to understand that God uses circumstances of history to explain concepts or ideas to us. Second, I think you'll find that the way a slave is treated in the Bible is different from the way some cultures have treated slaves. Third, slavery sometimes illustrates bondage, punishment and lack of freedom and at other times it illustrates service to others. Fourth, slavery is not God's ideal, for this is made plain in other parts of Scripture. Slavery teaches us many lessons.

TWM: "Exodus 21:1 starts with "Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him."

TWM: "God goes on to describe how the master shall treat the slave, who gets custody of the kids, the wife, etc. But nowhere -- and you can chime in here RCO if you've got something -- does God say slavery is wrong."

Sure He does. Putting someone else into slavery is not God's ideal. (please read Galatians 4:21-31). Submitting to someone out of love and placing yourself in the position of a servant is, for God is worthy of service. Jesus Christ has a servants heart. He came to this earth to serve others, He who is God of all submitted Himself in service to the Father for our benefit.

PART 2 of your second reply.

TWM: "Okay, so if God doesn't prohibit slavery, explains the rules for owning slaves in detail, we can conclude he's not against it."

As I said before, slavery is something that teaches us a spiritual lesson. Your nature outside of Christ is in slavery to its evil desires (Ephesians 2:1-3 and Romans 7:14-18 esp. and 8:5-9). God allowed the Israelites to go into slavery because of their disobedience to Him. They refused to let Him set them free by obeying His statutes and commands. Their nature always wanted what was opposed to God's righteous standards. They were spiritual slaves so He let them become actual physical slaves as a lesson.

God says that "Everyone who sins is a slave to sin." (John 8:34 or 2 Peter 2:19). That is an important lesson and it is illustrated by slavery throughout the Old and New Testaments. (see Genesis 21:10). Slavery is contrasted many times with freedom such as in Galatians 4:3 in which slavery is equated with this world's values and freedom with God's.

TWM: "Is the idea of slavery, since it's not prohibited by God something that's morally good in your view? If not, show me where in the bible God condemns it."

See above.

TWM: "Show me where in the bible God says anything negative about slavery itself and if he doesn't then I contend that the moral standard by which you hang your hat, is seriously flawed."

See above again.

TWM: "I further contend that since our society has moved far beyond slavery as far as equality is concerned, the "relative" rules that we live by, the things we consider good versus bad, have changed over the years and mostly for the better. I'll take society's relative moral laws over those defined in the bible any day."

You don't brush it off that easily. Wilberforce, a Christian was instrumental in the abolition of slavery, as were other Christian. God teaches that in His kingdom, the is neither slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28 or Col. 3:11) That is equality TWM, for if the Son sets you free, you are free indeed! (John 8:36)

Slavery is used to teach the Christian many spiritual lessons, such as under the law we are slaves to it because if we don't do everything it says we suffer the penalty, but Christ came to set us free from the law by fulfilling it on our behalves so that its righteous requirements are fully met by us in Him.

Yes, God uses examples in history to teach us things!

TWMATTHEWS,

In reading your epic-length response addressed to PETERHUFF and, surreptitiously, to RCO it is rather obvious that you haven’t read at least six of my posts to you. You never once reference them and are obviously unaware that I have already addressed many of the very objections you raise in your most recent posts.

For your convenience, here is a list of the posts to which I am referring:

July 31, 2010 5:34 PM
July 31, 2010 7:29 PM
July 31, 2010 7:32 PM
July 31, 2010 7:34 PM
July 31, 2010 7:37 PM
July 31, 2010 7:45 PM

If you want to converse “with” me, please read them and respond. Like most, I am not very fond of being talked “at.”

Hi TWMatthews (first of your rebuttals),

PH: No only that, it presumes that without God, the objective standard, there is no such thing as right and wrong, it just boils down to preference. Can you show us otherwise?

TWM: No, I think we are close here. We just differ on a few minor points. First, there is no such thing as right or wrong only relative degrees of either."

How can there be 'degrees of either' if there is 'no such thing as right and wrong?' You said it??? If it doesn't exist then there can't be degrees. A measurement has to have a standard, an ideal to compare the degrees to.

Where do the degrees come from?

Now is that statement of yours relatively true or absolutely so? You see you are in a dilemma right from the start. As RCofield and others have said, truth is objective (for something that is true cannot be false. If it was false then it wouldn't be true). So as a relativist how do you establish truth? It changes with each culture. How can that be true?

You betray your world-view at every slip of the tongue and you enter into the Christian one that says for something to be true it has to be true always. Truth cannot change. Let me clarify that. George Washington was the first president of the United States. That is true always. It does not change. It is relative to that particular statement and man, but true none the less.

Now, if there are degrees of right and wrong, where does the measurement come from for the ideal? Who establishes it and why is their definition 'right?'

Man, as a relativist, does not establish the ideal by which to measure the degrees by. How can he? Since he is not objective how does he know, unless he is made in the image of God and thinks God's thoughts after Him.

If you think man establishes the ideal, which man? What ideal? Which right? How can right ever be wrong and still be right?

PART 2

TWM: "Is it wrong to kill? Sure, our society has determined that it is, except for in times of war or when we are defending ourselves."

Not all societies have determined this. What about the head-hunter in Papua New Guinea? He is convinced that eating his neighbor is a good thing. So what makes your society the standard for right and wrong and for 'thou shalt not kill?'

Hitler's society determined it was okay to kill those of lower race, or at least as defined by their standards, or by the standards of the law makers, that upper echelon. Do you 'feel' that it was justified because basically that is what you are saying - societies make the rules? What about all the other societies that disagree with the rules of your society. Who is in the 'right?'

TWM: "So, can you make the statement that as defined in the 10 commandments that killing is always wrong? If you had to kill someone to defend your family is that wrong?"

Not always. It is wrong for an individual to take another individual's life by his own means because God is the giver and taker of life.

The Bible defines itself. It says that a man shall not take innocent life. It gives circumstances in which it is permitted, such as you mentioned, in times of war, but the golden rule is love your neighbor and don't harm them, or do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you. In other words, look out for their best interests.

PH: Why is your belief in what is 'good' something that I should necessarily agree as good also? What makes what you associate as 'good' good? Without a measure, a better or best ideal how do you get 'good?' What is that measure?

TWM: "You don't have to agree with it. In fact you can live by your own understanding or what is right, what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral."

Okay, I don't agree with it. Now who is right, you or me?

It is just a preference unless there is an objective measure for right. If there is no ideal how can you define it? Where does the idea come from? Without an ideal show me how something is 'right.'

PART 3

TWM: "Where you will run into problems is with the rest of society. Society has defined rules under which we are to live together. Those are the only rules under which you have to live and even then you can choose to defy them at your own risk."

The point is who sets the rules and what makes them 'right?' What we have is a number of different societies having different rules. How can there be 'rightness' to two contradictory and opposite rules of right and who determines which view is true? Personal preference? Whose? Why yours? Why Germany's?

TWM: "Just like you probably believe that my personal moral code and disbelief in Jesus Christ as my personal savior will consign me to an eternity of fire and brimstone, defying society's laws -- their designation of what's right and what's wrong -- has its own consequences."

If you continue to disbelieve, yes, you suffer eternal consequences. I'm hoping God is merciful to you.

TWM: "I'm not the least bit worried about the former and I make it a point to abide by the latter."

It doesn't make sense to me. You believe you are a chance being with no ultimate purpose or hope, that at the moment of death you cease to be, so what is the point? Why do you act as if there is one? Why do you act as if life matters? Why follow an ethical standard that someone else is imposing on you? Why not just do whatever you feel for when you are dead nothing matters? There is no justice for the wrongs you have done to others or for the wrongs others have done to you. Grab as much enjoyment as you can while you can and when life gets uncomfortable, pull the plug. Why are you trying to sort this all out or present your belief to others as a 'better' way? Why do you act as if truth matters? It is all relative anyway isn't it?

peterhuff,

"Define 'bad?'"

For you, I'm guessing "bad" is "evil", "sinful", "non-believing", and I think there are like seven big ones, which I can't readily bring to mind.

I think sloth is one of them.

"I don't know your history, what your life story is, but I'm sorry for the way you portray yourself here and that your outlook is so bleak that you don't have the hope that we as Christians do."

Don't be sorry; reality is not bleak; and not everyone has a need for "christian hope".

Everything is OK.

Really.

"You may not realize you have a belief system but you do."

You are wrong; you just cannot face the idea that I do not have your handicap.

"You believe that nothing matters, that truth is impossible to know."

Again, I believe nothing.

I understand that you cannot accept that.

"You are skeptical of most things, at least from what you have portrayed of yourself."

OK, now we're getting somewhere.

"Those ideas don't happen in a vacuum. They are built on, little by little. Other ideas are drowned out because they don't allow you to think the way you want to, or the way that you seem compelled to."

Well, that didn't last long; you completely lost me there - what ideas are you talking about?

"Why are you responding then?"

Sometimes, something needs to be said.

"You say one thing and yet do another."

Yeah, I'm a regular enigma.

Don't go away, more to come after a word from our sponsors...

And we're back...

"Not entirely. Much of what I believe is not of myself. It comes from a far greater source than I. It has been established by many years of examining and thinking through the issues, the important issues of life. It has been established by debating and inquiring about some of the tough and relevant questions of life. It has been established by examining other world-views and relating them to God and His word."

None of that contradicts what I wrote.

Oh, and: Here we go...

"If you can convince me that I have a faulty view of Scripture I'll repent and change that view."

I have no idea what your view of scripture is, and I have no way of judging whether it is faulty or not.

"I was in a similar boat to you..."

What boat am I in?

"...but God has been gracious to me."

Here we go...

"And you in yours. Nothing matters ultimately, or does it?"

At least your asking the question; that's a good start.

"Jesus Christ is sufficient. He is truth. He is true life."

Well, this is a setback, just when I thought you were getting it.

Oh, and: Here we go again...

"You have no proofs to offer,"

Correct.

"...or at least claim so (and I still contend that any proof outside the Christian world-view falls flat on its face) because you have not thought long and hard about the issues."

What issues?

"It reminds me of a kid who doesn't want to hear anything you have to say, even though you are looking out for their best interests, so as you talk she goes "La, la, la" all the louder to drown out what she doesn't want to hear."

La la la la la La La La La La LA LA LA LA LA - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

OK, that was childish, I'll admit that.

"But a life worth living is a life that is examined and sees the meaning and purpose that it was created for."

But, do you have to make stuff up?

To Peterhuff and RCO,

This is really, honestly my last post of the night. WAPO made me break this up into multiple.

PH: Answer the question of how chance and possibility can produce consistency, order, and information???

Me: Finally, one I can answer. Energy. This is what gives life the ability to organize. Without it, no chemical reactions, no replication, no growth, no order. Life uses energy to perpetuate itself, to organize and to interact with the environment.

PH: Answer the question why nature is uniform?
Me: You've got to be kidding me right. Nature is uniform? Hm. You've got me there. I can't answer the question because nature, like the universe is not uniform. (Did you go to Catholic school when you were young? Maybe got a uniform thingy....maybe)

PH: Answer the question of where morals come from?

Me: That's two I can answer. Two in a row which, as we all know is better than one in a row. :-) Here's the answer, we make it up as we go along. What was immoral years ago to one society may be perfectly moral now (a woman in a bikini). Societies make up their own definitions of what is moral and what is immoral -- and these change. It used to be immoral in most developed nations of the world for unmarried couples to live together before marriage.

Today, this is viewed as perfectly acceptable, dare I say, moral.

Okay, now a few questions for you:
1. If God gave us a standard set of morals and they are defined in the bible, does that mean that prior to the bible and in parts of the world where the bible was unavailable, that all those people were immoral?

2. Having just finished the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman I'm convinced that what we call the bible today is only an approximate facsimile of the original texts authored so many years ago. Ehrman (who is a biblical scholar and translator of ancient texts) describes how early copies were so error prone and riddled with mistakes because the early scribes were volunteers and genuinely illiterate. Many could do little more than try to copy, letter for letter, the text they were transcribing. And this was done in many cases without the use of punctuation or the knowledge to be able to read what one was copying.

In this environment what are the chances that today's bible remotely resembles the exact wording from the original texts? Where is your evidence that this is the legitimate, unadulterated, clean as a whistle word of God. Have you or RCO got anything other than "blind belief"?

Anything? Anybody?

To Peterhuff and RCO.

This will be my last post tonight since I seem to be doing all the talkin here...

PH: Answer the question of where life comes from?

Me: Well, I don't really know the answer to that question but it's an interesting question and one which I suspect will be answered shortly. (See Scientific America for July, 2010 on advanced in coaxing RNA like substances from complex, nonliving chemicals). But here's the difference, I suspect between us. I don't claim to know the answers to questions I can't possibly know. Can you make the same statement?

PH: Answer the question of how mindless matter plus energy can produce mind and personality?

Me: Still the same answer as above. I don't know but then again, I can't even figure out how mindless, dead crystals can replicate and seem to almost reproduce.

PH: Answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing?

Me: There is something because there is something. You don't know why anymore than I do. You don't know whether there are 10 quadzillion other planets in the universe with life. Just like you can't answer the question how did God come about? Oh, snap. I caught you. I caught you just like I caught RCO trying to use the old, tired God exception. Everything must have a cause except of course God who, repeat after me boys and girls, doesn't need a cause.

PS. Pam's new link on this forum is where we are heading next. I'm not sure what happened because Walter usually posts the links.

Hi RCofield,

RCOFIELD: "If you don't mind my asking, where are you conversing with "Walther & Pam"?"

It started back on Susan's forum a year or two ago and we have skipped all over the place as each particular forum expired. We try to pick something that is not too busy since we don't like to cut in on already busy threads and take over the whole agenda. Walter and Pam are great thinkers and they constantly leave me searching God's word for answers. I actually agreed to read 'Why Evolution is True' by Jerry Coyne in order to dispel some of Pam's evolutionary indoctrination (of which she denies). Now I have to set down with the book and pick out the inconsistencies and places where what is said does not tie in with observable science to wrap up this particular conversation we had on evolution.

Currently we are discussing Matthew 24. If you join in be ready to have your faith tried and tested. And as a Christian I don't know where you stand on some of the in-house debates, so you might find my thoughts disturbing. These are some of the issues I am currently trying to work out.

You could start here or go back further, just follow the links Walter provides on each forum,

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/pamela_k_taylor/2010/05/abortion_and_islamic_thought.html

To Peterhuff and RCO,

part 6 -- but don't worry, this one is short.

RCOFIELD: "Good post to TW." This was sent to Peterhuff.

Now by what moral standard did you judge it to be "good"? Is there some little known verse in the bible that declares any argument, no matter how incomplete and illogical, to be good?

Come on, according to both of you guys there's a well defined, objective standard of morality, of right and wrong, of good and evil. So Peterhuff's response to me met those standards?

peterhuff,

"I think from what he has revealed so far nihilism and relativism sum up his views nicely."

Hey, I'm right here - I can read what you guys are writing about me!

"He hasn't even attempted to answer most of my questions."

I disagree; I think that I have answered almost all of your questions.

I'm just not giving you that answers that you are used to receiving, and that is throwing you off balance.

"It is pretty hard to converse with someone who just drops a one liner without any explanation or justification."

Perhaps that is your cross to bear.

See what I did there?

"Hopefully he'll think it through?"

I'm thinking as I type.

To Peterhuff and RCO,

I said, "Morality is highly personal and, like happiness is not subjected to a standard of measurement.

PH: Then I can do whatever I like and call it 'good.' It is just my personal preference. Like it or not.

That's exactly correct. See, we are much closer than you thought. You can take your dog for a walk and call the walk good. Or, if your dog failed in its attempt at a BM, you might declare it bad. What difference does it make? When I sit down and read a book and declare it good -- is that a universal good? Of course not. Good and bad, moral and immoral, pornography and art; these are all relative judgments and very subjective.

Now, if your declaration of something being good contradicts what your society declares to be legal, then you have a problem no matter how "good" you think it is.

Here's another question: Ever read a good book?

Of course you have. Now, what made it good for you was probably relative and personal. Alas, that's all I'm saying about morality.

PH: You can think a philosophy like this but you can't live it because there is a moral compass that deep down let's us know that certain things are truly wrong, like sadistically torturing innocent babies or killing for pleasure. That moral compass is man's conscious. We are made in the image and likeness of God.

Me: Do you have a recent photo of God? I'd like to see what he looks like. Does he have a beard? Is his hair gray? Really, couldn't the creator of the universe have included a nice, advanced holographic image of himself so that we can see just what he meant when he said made in his image.

PH: As I have said, over and over, without it anything is permissible, anything goes because morals are just made up as you go.

Me: Yes, I know you have said it but the evidence disagrees with you. All societies create rules to live by and consequences for violating those rules. So if god clearly stated his rules and since they are God's words, why have there been so many people who got it wrong? I don't remember getting an answer to this question from my post of say 6 hours ago.

During the Spanish and Italian Inquisitions, thousands of people were tortured while trying to follow the moral standards as defined in the bible. These were men of good faith doing what they thought best to save souls from eternal damnation. Why do so many good people get it so wrong? And why didn't God come down out of heaven and correct the situation at the first turn of the thumb screw?

@ Rcofield

I love what you said about how both Atheist and Theist positions are logical when you start from a position of "there is/isn't a God". The thing is, how do you get to those positions in the first place? I would suggest it's impossible to arrive at a position of "there is a God" without leaning on the Bible, just by following a pattern of logic and rigorous intellectual examination. And I would also suggest the Bible, in and of itself, as a historical document, is too unreliable to place excessive trust in--so why should it play a substantial role in whether there's a God or not?

Though I have to disagree all the way with your insistance on an absolute external scale of morality. But that's another subject.

Hi PSolus,

ME: "What are you offering that is constructive to a meaningful dialog?"

PSOLUS: "Admittedly, little to nothing."

PSOLUS: "Does that make me a bad person in your eyes?"

Define 'bad?'

I don't know your history, what your life story is, but I'm sorry for the way you portray yourself here and that your outlook is so bleak that you don't have the hope that we as Christians do.

ME: "I'm asking you to make sense of your belief system, your world-view, your ideas on important questions in life, your nothing matter, nothing is true, hedonistic, nihilistic, postmodern, relativistic, secular system of thought."

PSOLUS: "I have no belief system (seriously, I don't), I have no world-view worth articulating, I have deliberately avoided most of the important questions in life... as for the rest, you may as well ask me to make sense of the color of my eyes or the color of my hair."

You may not realize you have a belief system but you do. You believe that nothing matters, that truth is impossible to know. You are skeptical of most things, at least from what you have portrayed of yourself. Those ideas don't happen in a vacuum. They are built on, little by little. Other ideas are drowned out because they don't allow you to think the way you want to, or the way that you seem compelled to.

PSOLUS: "To be honest, I have zero interest in your ideas, as I've been subjected to those ideas all of my life; you're just one more believer in a long line of seemingly identical believers."

Why are you responding then? You say one thing and yet do another.

Part 2

PSOLUS: "My guess is that any ideas that you do not already hold yourself, or that you already agree with, would "unravel and fly apart" in your eyes."

Not entirely. Much of what I believe is not of myself. It comes from a far greater source than I. It has been established by many years of examining and thinking through the issues, the important issues of life. It has been established by debating and inquiring about some of the tough and relevant questions of life. It has been established by examining other world-views and relating them to God and His word. If you can convince me that I have a faulty view of Scripture I'll repent and change that view.

I was in a similar boat to you but God has been gracious to me.

PSOLUS: "You seem to be pretty set in your ways."

And you in yours. Nothing matters ultimately, or does it?

PSOLUS: "Well, I have no proofs or explanations to offer you; besides, you already have your belief system, shouldn't that suffice for you?"

Jesus Christ is sufficient. He is truth. He is true life.

You have no proofs to offer, or at least claim so (and I still contend that any proof outside the Christian world-view falls flat on its face), because you have not thought long and hard about the issues. It reminds me of a kid who doesn't want to hear anything you have to say, even though you are looking out for their best interests, so as you talk she goes "La, la, la" all the louder to drown out what she doesn't want to hear.

But a life worth living is a life that is examined and sees the meaning and purpose that it was created for.

To Peterhuff and RCO:

Part 4:

PH:Yes it has, you have just missed it. It is demonstrated by the fact that if everything is relative to an individual or culture then anything goes, anything is possible. How do you establish 'good' if everyone has a different standard, a different ideal of what 'good' is? You don't, you just live by whoever is able to control the masses and make the laws.

Me: Everything is relative and changing. Our treatment of women in America has changed dramatically over the last 100 years just like our treatment of blacks has changed over the last 160 years. Society evolves just like people and animals do (sorry RCO, that was a small dig).

I'm anxious to hear your responses to my questions about slavery but I am also interested in your assessment of our society as it relates to women.

According to the bible women shall not hold authority over men. Yet our society has declared that wrong (or bad, whichever word you want to use).

Would you say that we are a better, more moral society allowing women the same opportunities and freedoms as men?

Has the bible changed and I missed it? Does it now give women authority over men, depending upon circumstances? Does the bible now allow women the same freedom of movement, of voice in government, in choice of mate that America requires by law? If so, I need to get a new bible.

How many examples of outdated biblical moral "good" do you want me to provide?

To RCO and Peterhuff,

Part 3:

PH: And as I said to JAC, if I believe it is good to steal your wallet or kill your dog because by my moral standard it benefits me, or it is what I prefer, then who are you to object? All it boils down to is the strongest survive. Do you want to live by such laws? If you do I suggest you find a culture that lives this way, because, again, all it is is preference.

Me: See my last post. Our society has determined whether you can steal a wallet or kill someone or a dog. These are rules that we've developed over the years; rules that any advanced culture makes. Comparing the equality and freedom guaranteed by our rules versus those defined in the bible leads me to conclude the bible is an old fashioned, outdated, anti woman collection of myths.

If I'm wrong, I'll be burning for all eternity. But let me ask you one last question before delving into prior post: Why would a loving god create hell? Certainly it's not for correction because it's for eternity. You really can't learn from it because, well, it's for eternity.

What kind of parent would punish their child forever for a mistake or two or three? Would you call that loving?

@ Peterhuff

Okay, lots to cover, let's get down to brass tacks.

You write, "Because everything in the natural universe appears to have had a start and a world-view that does not attempt to answer such questions is something that is a pretty loose system of belief."

Atheism does not, in and of itself, propose to address those questions; Atheism is an inherently negative proposal, namely, "There is not a God". This is why Atheism so frequently paired with science, which does propose at least some theories on the subject. Taken as a pair, the two make a complete worldview, with Atheism handling some points and handing off to science on other issues.

You write, "You look at similarity and say evolution. Do you presuppose this or do you actually see it happening today?"

Um...evolution doesn't really work like that, you know...you can stare at a blade of grass all you want, you'll never see it grow but it'll still be taller next week.

"I would contend that we share similarities because we share common environments. The amount of adaption is limited or bound by 'kind.'"

So you agree the nature of an organism is shaped by it's environment--good, good. And the extent of that adaption is limited why, again? And what exactly do you mean by "kind"?

"...that complexity and order came from mindlessness; that the uniformity of nature came from chaos and chance, and the list goes on."

Yeah, well, narrow it down and I'll answer, but I'm not gonna sit here all night, you know. As to those last two issues--ants and bees have fairly complex hive structures, but no one's saying they sat down and planned them out at a town hall. And "the uniformity of nature"?!? Seriously, dude, what are you smoking and where do I get some? What could possibly be more varied than nature?

To RCO and Peterhuff,

Ah sorry, that last post should have been labeled Part 2.

To Peterhuff and RCO

Part 1

PH: Furthermore, if say abortion or gay marriage is considered 'bad' and shunned and taboo by a society or culture last year, what makes it good and acceptable by the same society this year? How can good be bad?

Me: First, I stated above that there are no absolute goods or bads only relative. But to stick with your argument for a second, let's talk about the subject I brought up earlier - slavery and see how well your God did with respect to the morality of slavery.

In Exodus 12:43 the bible says, "The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "These are the regulations for the Passover: No foreigner is to eat of it. Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him, but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it."

Now I interpret this to mean that God is completely fine with slavery. He's letting slaves participate in Passover. In fact, no where in the bible have I ever seen the words "thou shall not own another person." Or, "no man shall enslave another." Or even anything like "slavery is not as bad as homosexuality or eating shellfish, but it's still pretty bad". (Nope, not even a tepid condemnation).

Exodus 21:1 starts with "Now these are the ordinances which you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him."

God goes on to describe how the master shall treat the slave, who gets custody of the kids, the wife, etc. But nowhere -- and you can chime in here RCO if you've got something -- does God say slavery is wrong.

Okay, so if God doesn't prohibit slavery, explains the rules for owning slaves in detail, we can conclude he's not against it.

I've got lots of other quotes about slavery if you're interested and even some where Jesus addresses slavery but NEVER condemns it.

Is the idea of slavery, since it's not prohibited by God something that's morally good in your view? If not, show me where in the bible God condemns it. Show me where in the bible God says anything negative about slavery itself and if he doesn't then I contend that the moral standard by which you hang your hat, is seriously flawed.

I further contend that since our society has moved far beyond slavery as far as equality is concerned, the "relative" rules that we live by, the things we consider good versus bad, have changed over the years and mostly for the better. I'll take society's relative moral laws over those defined in the bible any day.

Okay RCO and Peterhuff,

Part 1:
I'm going to break these comments down based on your responses. By the way, as much as I disagree with virtually every one of your positions, I'm enjoying this immensely. Plus, it keeps me from having to write some code :-)

PH: No only that, it presumes that without God, the objective standard, there is no such thing as right and wrong, it just boils down to preference. Can you show us otherwise?

TWM: No, I think we are close here. We just differ on a few minor points. First, there is no such thing as right or wrong only relative degrees of either. Is it wrong to kill? Sure, our society has determined that it is, except for in times of war or when we are defending ourselves. So, can you make the statement that as defined in the 10 commandments that killing is always wrong? If you had to kill someone to defend your family is that wrong?

This points to one of the many fundamental flaws with all holy books -- they make statements as if life were easily codified and there's no one up there to revise it when said holy book proves to be flawed.

PH: Why is your belief in what is 'good' something that I should necessarily agree as good also? What makes what you associate as 'good' good? Without a measure, a better or best ideal how do you get 'good?' What is that measure?

You don't have to agree with it. In fact you can live by your own understanding or what is right, what is wrong, what is moral and what is immoral.

Where you will run into problems is with the rest of society. Society has defined rules under which we are to live together. Those are the only rules under which you have to live and even then you can choose to defy them at your own risk. Just like you probably believe that my personal moral code and disbelief in Jesus Christ as my personal savior will consign me to an eternity of fire and brimstone, defying society's laws -- their designation of what's right and what's wrong -- has its own consequences.

I'm not the least bit worried about the former and I make it a point to abide by the latter.

continued

PETERHUFF,

If you don't mind my asking, where are you conversing with "Walther & Pam"?

Hi RCofield,

RCOFIELD: "Good post to TW."

So far he has not issued anything that is not handleable. Now Walter and Pam are a different story. They constantly challenge the Christian faith with strong arguments, but in the end God is still in control!

RCOFIELD: "PSOLUS thinks he is unique, but his position is as "old as the hills." He is an Existential Nihilist. The only thing he believes is that there is nothing worth believing."

I think from what he has revealed so far nihilism and relativism sum up his views nicely. He hasn't even attempted to answer most of my questions. It is pretty hard to converse with someone who just drops a one liner without any explanation or justification.

RCOFIELD: "He contends there are no absolutes (hence the knee-jerk reactions to Christianity), but of course, he is absolutely sure there is nothing worth believing. His nihilistic propensities prohibit him from from ever working out that particular inconsistency."

Hopefully he'll think it through?

RCOFIELD: "Am enjoying your posts and participation."

Thanks! Yours too!

RCofield,

"PSOLUS thinks he is unique, but his position is as "old and the hills.""

What position?

How old are the hills?

"He is an Existential Nihilist."

Really?

I think it's going to be cool being an Existential Nihilist.

"The only thing he believes is that there is nothing worth believing."

No, I don't even believe that.

As I said, I believe nothing.

"He contends there are no absolutes..."

Well, I can't say as I've ever seen an absolute...

"(hence the knee-jerk reactions to Christianity),..."

Oh, I'm pretty "knee-jerk" about all superstitions, not just yours.

"...but of course, he is absolutely sure..."

No, I'm not absolutely sure about anything.

You are, of course, free to believe that I am, just as you are free to believe in your superstitions.

"...there is nothing worth believing."

My not believing in anything does not mean that I'm absolutely sure there is nothing worth believing.

I don't own a home, but that does not mean that I'm absolutely sure that a home is not worth owning.

Think about it.

"His nihilistic propensities prohibit him from from ever working out that particular inconsistency."

Again, you are free to believe that, just as you are free to believe in your superstitions.

Hi TWMatthews,

I'm going to jump in again to your rely to RCOfield's post (July 31, 2010 5:21 PM ).

TWM: "For example, your reply to me tries to define an objective standard of morality and I guess, by implication when you say; "Without God how do you achieve objectivity?"

TWM :"Here's the problem I have with this argument. It presumes there is a God --"

No only that, it presumes that without God, the objective standard, there is no such thing as right and wrong, it just boils down to preference. Can you show us otherwise?

Why is your belief in what is 'good' something that I should necessarily agree as good also? What makes what you associate as 'good' good? Without a measure, a better or best ideal how do you get 'good?' What is that measure? There must be one or else 'good' is an impossible concept. You can't just say 'This is good because I say it is good.' I can do the same thing and believe in something totally opposite to you. Then who is 'right?' No you are discussing QUALITATIVE VALUES, things that have degrees of value to them. Now unless you can produce an objective, all encompassing standard of what goodness is, then all you have is personal preference, the very thing that most wars are fought over - a disagreement.

Furthermore, if say abortion or gay marriage is considered 'bad' and shunned and taboo by a society or culture last year, what makes it good and acceptable by the same society this year? How can good be bad?

If all it is is personal preference, if there is no absolute standard for it, there is no such thing. If personal preference is all you have then Hitler's Germany is as 'good' as any other culture. It is just whoever controls the army controls the thoughts and minds of the culture. Whoever is in control sets the rules.

And as I said to JAC, if I believe it is good to steal your wallet or kill your dog because by my moral standard it benefits me, or it is what I prefer, then who are you to object? All it boils down to is the strongest survive. Do you want to live by such laws? If you do I suggest you find a culture that lives this way, because, again, all it is is preference.

PETERHUFF,

Good post to TW.

PSOLUS thinks he is unique, but his position is as "old and the hills." He is an Existential Nihilist. The only thing he believes is that there is nothing worth believing.

He contends there are no absolutes (hence the knee-jerk reactions to Christianity), but of course, he is absolutely sure there is nothing worth believing. His nihilistic propensities prohibit him from from ever working out that particular inconsistency.

Am enjoying your posts and participation.

PART 2

TWM: "that has not be demonstrated in the least by anyone commenting here. I've heard no evidence to back that up. It also implies that we need an objective standard of morality."

Yes it has, you have just missed it. It is demonstrated by the fact that if everything is relative to an individual or culture then anything goes, anything is possible. How do you establish 'good' if everyone has a different standard, a different ideal of what 'good' is? You don't, you just live by whoever is able to control the masses and make the laws.

TWM: "I don't think we need or want an objective standard of morality any more than we want or need an objective standard of happiness. My views of morality are probably vastly different than yours just like what makes me happy is probably vastly different from what makes you happy. Why are yours better or mine?"

That is just the point. There is no 'better' unless there is an ultimate measure, an objective reference, a final source, an absolute authority, an all knowing Being that is good.

PART 3

TWM: "Is it moral for me to let my 21 year old son visit me in my house and sleep with his girlfriend? I think it's impossible for anyone to say anymore than anyone can say whether I should be happy listening to Steely Dan and reading Newsweek?"

Again, you are confusing personal preference or your feelings and opinions with a qualitative measure. What do you have to reference 'best' by? Your personal feelings, the group feelings of your culture that change on a whim? Can you answer this?

TWM: "Morality is highly personal and, like happiness is not subjected to a standard of measurement."

Then I can do whatever I like and call it 'good.' It is just my personal preference. Like it or not.

You can think a philosophy like this but you can't live it because there is a moral compass that deep down let's us know that certain things are truly wrong, like sadistically torturing innocent babies or killing for pleasure. That moral compass is man's conscious. We are made in the image and likeness of God. We understand, even in as much as we suppress the truth (Romans 1:18 and onwards) that certain things are definitely wrong. We can only know that if there is an absolute, objective, ultimate standard. As I have said, over and over, without it anything is permissible, anything goes because morals are just made up as you go.

But this is not the case. You know it is wrong to cut in front of someone else in line or to torture someone for your own pleasure, or to lie and steal or kill an innocent life. As RCOfield and I have said, you may think that your system or world-view is good, but you can't live by it. You keep borrowing capital from the Christian world-view. It makes this world tolerable at times, for Christian influences suppresses evil and wrongful actions.

PART 4

TWM: "This statement also implies something as to the existence of God.

TWM: "I contend that the God of the bible has not defined a standard of morality even if what was written in the bible were true"

You contend, but how do you know?

TWM: "(okay, get your DeLorean back out so that I can demonstrate to you that much of what's written in the bible is historical hogwash) the God as described would be unworthy of worship let alone following his guidelines with respect to morality -- unless you are of the ilk of believing in "Do as I say, not as I do".

It boils down to where you derive your highest authority from, yourself, some other fallible, subjective human being or an ultimate, unchanging, objective source. Do you call all the shots? Does someone else call them for you, or do they come from a source outside the natural realm? With you it is either A or B. That is all you are open to or seem to fathom.

TWM: "So, give me some evidence that let's me believe there is a god and that your god, as opposed to Thor or Mercury is the one and only, God."

To the first point, two opposite and contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way. A cannot both be A and non-A at the same time and in the same manner. A cat is not a dog, neither can a personal God be an impersonal force or thing.

To the second point, on the impossibility of the contrary. Answer the question of where life comes from? Answer the question of how mindless matter plus energy can produce mind and personality? Answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing? Answer the question of origins? Answer the question of how chance and possibility can produce consistency, order, and information??? Answer the question why nature is uniform? Answer the question of where morals come from? Answer the question of where logic comes from in a mindless, impersonal universe? Show me where these things are taking place if you can give examples.

All these things take a mind to comprehend.

Let's see how you do with the questions.

'Presumably, they've worked out the Jesus problem and can both agree that Jesus was a really, really good man. And so was his contemporary Hillel. Mazel tov!'
__________

We can only hope! On the other hand, it's hard to prove that Jesus was really real to begin with. There seems to be more evidence of a real Hillel.

And there's nothing wrong with celebrating a mythical figure if it makes you feel good - people have done it for millenia, and still do it by the millions at a local church, synagogue, or mosque near you.

Earl Doherty spells out the Jesus puzzle below:

http://www.jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

PART 5

TWM: "And then explain to me why we need an objective moral standard. I think this country is doing just fine leaving morality out of law and basing laws not on morality but on ideas of individual freedom and property."

Without an objective moral standard people can make up whatever laws they so choose to indulge in. Without an objective moral standard justice is the point of a gun. Without an objective moral standard human life is as worthless as someone who decides to fly a plane into a building or strap a bomb to their body in the name of whatever. Without an objective standard first marriage becomes unnatural and unproductive in that two people of the same sex can marry, then someone pushes for their standard or ideal (relative of course) of two or more wives, then someone pushes for marriage between a mother and son, then between a human and some other animal, and so on it goes until anything goes. Unless there is an objective standard why is any of this wrong or is it? Why is torturing a baby wrong, or is it? Who makes the rules?

"Between the iron gates of fate,
The seeds of time were sown,
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known:
Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools."

King Crimson, Epitaph.

The Bible gives good and sufficient reason for why mankind and the world is the way it is. Man's inhumanity to man is all because of that first sin, it is all because man, undirected or ignorant of God's decrees does what he sees fit in his own mind, or as Judges says,

"In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes." (Judges 12:25)

That is relativity. That is what you have without God in one degree or another, with the two extreme ends of the spectrum being dictatorship or anarchy.

RCofield,

"Gee, Solus, you don't think the whole Romans 1:18-21 thing was a dead give-away?"

Yeah, you caught me also; I can't seem to sneak anything by you guys anymore.

That's from the Kama Sutra, right?

"Solus, I hate to break it to you, (well, that's not entirely true) but nobody on this thread is buying your tired "I don't believe/know anything" act."

I'm hurt.

"I know, I know. "It's not for sale.""

Well, it isn't for sale - it's free to anyone who wants it.

"Nobody's buying that either."

They don't have to; it's free.

"I know, I know...."

You sound tired.

PSOLUS,

"PETERHUFF says: "You critique the Christian world-view."

PSOLUS replies: "When did (I) do that?

RCO said: "One particularly glaring example comes to mind from R. Albert Mohler's thread.
I offered some "food for thought" (Romans 1:18-21) to another poster. This was your reply:

PSOLUS: "That's not food for thought; that's pablum for superstitious belief."

PSOLUS, in predictable fashion, then replies: "Did it not occurr to you that perhaps I was simply commenting on your taste of "food for thought"?
Should I have assumed that you were representing the "Christian world-view" when you wrote that?

Gee, Solus, you don't think the whole Romans 1:18-21 thing was a dead give-away?

PSOULUS said: Can you tell me what the "Christian world-view" is, so that I recognize it the next time that I see it?

Solus, I hate to break it to you, (well, that's not entirely true) but nobody on this thread is buying your tired "I don't believe/know anything" act.

I know, I know. "It's not for sale." Nobody's buying that either.

I know, I know....

peterhuff

"No, it is evident you mock the Christian world-view."

OK, you caught me... You're right, I do not take your beliefs seriously, and my first instincts are to mock them, and your christian world-view.

"You ask a question and when I respond you respond in the kind of manner listed below,..."

[Numerous examples of questionable behavior on my part.]

I take it that you did not find any of that endearing?

I was just trying to keep the conversation lively.

"What are you offering that is constructive to a meaningful dialog?"

Admittedly, little to nothing.

Does that make me a bad person in your eyes?

"You don't refute my claims, you ignore them by making comments. You don't answer my questions. You ignore them by making comments."

Guilty... guilty... guilty... and guilty.

"I'm asking you to make sense of your belief system, your world-view, your ideas on important questions in life, your nothing matter, nothing is true, hedonistic, nihilistic, postmodern, relativistic, secular system of thought."

I have no belief system (seriously, I don't), I have no world-view worth articulating, I have deliberately avoided most of the important questions in life... as for the rest, you may as well ask me to make sense of the color of my eyes or the color of my hair.

I am what I am. (No, I'm not Popeye.)

"I'm willing to discuss and dig deeper with you, I'll take the time, but a meaningful conversation is two-way in which we both probe the other guys ideas and see how logically consistent they are, see how they explain these difficult questions.

To be honest, I have zero interest in your ideas, as I've been subjected to those ideas all of my life; you're just one more believer in a long line of seemingly identical believers.

"And that is my point. The deeper I dig the more your ideas unravel and fly apart."

My guess is that any ideas that you do not already hold yourself, or that you already agree with, would "unravel and fly apart" in your eyes.

You seem to be pretty set in your ways.

"All you seem left with is a comment, not a proof, not a well thought out logical explanation."

Well, I have no proofs or explanations to offer you; besides, you already have your belief system, shouldn't that suffice for you?

"Sorry to be so blunt."

Are you serious?

That is what passes for blunt in your mind?

Were you raised by poodles?

TWMATTHEWS,

Almost forgot.

Am I ever going to get an answer as to what is was that you "understood" about my computer analogy?

TWMATTHEWS,

TW said: “I contend that the God of the bible has not defined a standard of morality even if what was written in the bible were true (okay, get your DeLorean back out so that I can demonstrate to you that much of what's written in the bible is historical hogwash) the God as described would be unworthy of worship let alone following his guidelines with respect to morality -- unless you are of the ilk of believing in "Do as I say, not as I do".

You have no idea how much I would like to take you up on this one. The things you have said so far about the bible indicate that this is not one of your strong points apologetically. If we go there, you will be playing entirely on my own field, and you will have very few (if any) arguments that I have not heard and dealt with before.

Additionally, I have yet to encounter an atheist who had a firm grasp of scripture. Maybe you can change that pattern, but I doubt that you have the “silver bullet” that will slay theism. Men of every level of intellect and discipline have tried for 2000 years to refute scripture and have failed to do so.

And the old “unless you are of the ilk of believing in ‘Do as I say, not as I do’" argument? You have no idea how poorly that kite flies.

That being said, if we get back to discussing the foundational presuppositions of our respective positions, we will eventually get to the whole “bible thing” anyway and you can take your shot.

So whaddaya say Doc? Want to play “sound-byte apologetics” or have a meaningful discussion?

Ball's in your court.

TWMATTHEWS,

TWM said: “I don't think we need or want an objective standard of morality any more than we want or need an objective standard of happiness. My views of morality are probably vastly different than yours just like what makes me happy is probably vastly different from what makes you happy. Why are yours better or mine?”

And

TWM said: “Morality is highly personal and, like happiness is not subjected to a standard of measurement.”

Wow. Ok. Let’s equate morality and happiness. Both are subjective (in your estimation), so that means each individual (or group of people) determines what is moral/immoral and each individual determines what makes them happy.

Now take a journey with me “back in time” to Hitler’s Germany. As this is an analogy, I take the liberty of declaring that you and I are Jews.

Old Adolph has decided that it is **not immoral** to gas Jews. What’s more, gassing Jews makes him happy. You and I (remember, we are Jews) are on a slow train to Auschwitz II-Birkenau. Not knowing what is in store for us, we are having a philosophical debate about morality. I am contending that morality has an objective source and that there are certain absolutes that determine what is moral or immoral. You are contending that morality is subjective, just like happiness, and is determined by the individual.

Fast forward. We are standing in the “showers.” The first fumes of the gas that will take our lives reach our nostrils, and it quickly dawns on us that our lives will be over in a matter of a few seconds.

**At that precise moment, would you contend that morality should be a subjective construct and should not be subjected to a standard of measurement?**

TW, my dear cyber-friend, you do **not** want to live in a world where there is no objective standard of morality.

TWMATTHEWS,

**NOTE: Everyone on this thread needs to read this post.**

TWM said: “Here's the problem I have with this argument. It presumes there is a God -- that has not be demonstrated in the least by anyone commenting here. I've heard no evidence to back that up. It also implies that we need an objective standard of morality.”

This is rich. Do you recall the focus of our discussion on the other thread? Was it not a debate over whether or not there is an “Intelligent Designer” (i.e. God) behind all the order and complexity of our universe? This is **precisely** what I meant when I told you in a previous post that the direction you were going was getting the “cart ahead of the horse.”

Now you want to contend that the problem with arguing for an objective source of morality is presuppositionally flawed because no one has “demonstrated” that there is a God. Do you not realize that such an argument works equally well the other way? I could say: “Well, TW, your argument that morality is subjective is problematic because you have not yet proven there is no God who has established an objective moral code.” And round and round we go, where it stops…well,…nobody knows.

Do you see the problem here? There are two groups of people on these forums (theists and atheists) who are arguing from two completely different sets of presuppositions. Atheists argue from the presupposition that there is **no** God….while theists argue from the presupposition that there **is** a God. Unless we start from the point of our presuppositions in our debate (this is called presuppositional apologetics) we are destined to be forever “talking past” one another.

This is exactly why every atheist on this board thinks that every position a theists takes is ignorant, illogical, stupid, “Bronze Age,” (you name it and it has been said at some point). Conversely, the theists on this board view every atheistic position in similar terms. The reality is this: The atheistic position is logically coherent when one begins with the presupposition **there is no god**. And it is equally true that the Christian position is logically coherent when one begins with the presupposition **there is a God**. NOTE: I am **not** saying that **every** goof-ball position proposed by either side is coherent.

I’ve got a new spin on the now infamous appeal of that West Coast philosopher :) Rodney King. Instead of “Can’t we all just get along?” I propose the following: “Can’t we all just understand that it is our presuppositions that are causing all the confusion?” Until we do, the conversation will be pointless.

Ok. I know. That wasn’t a “short” post. But a recognition of what I just said would **radically** transform the discussion on this thread.

TWMATTHEWS,

Aw, TW, TW, TW. You are “stepping in it” all over the place here. Your last post is literally full of contradictions. In our exchange on the other thread your dialogue was far more cogent than it has been on this one so far.

For “effect” I am going to respond to you in a series of short posts rather than one long one.

NOTE: Rather than using ALL CAPS, I will be using ** to bracket phrases or words that I want to emphasize. Here we go:

RCO said: "I'm not "talking around the issues." I am just reticent to engage in "scatter-shot" apologetics "sound-byte" responses when reasoned, focused discussion can be had. As I recall, you seemed to agree with me on this earlier in our discussion."

TWM: “Maybe you are. I just can't seem to get you to address any of the issues -- too much of your response seems to me to be me asking for evidence and you circling the DeLorean back to other issues. For example, your reply to me tries to define an objective standard of morality and I guess, by implication when you say; "Without God how do you achieve objectivity?"

Good grief, man. I have nowhere on this thread (yet) tried to “define an objective standard of morality.” I have pointed out the **need** for such a standard (and your last post is a case study for such a need), but have **not** tried to define said objective standard. And you quote PETERHUFF’s statement "Without God how do you achieve objectivity?" (I didn’t say that, though I agree with him) as evidence that I am “talking around the issues.”

Hi PSolus,

No, it is evident you mock the Christian world-view. You ask a question and when I respond you respond in the kind of manner listed below,

ME: "My intent is to show the absurdity in anything that does not have as its base an ultimate, absolute unchanging source or reference, and by necessity that Source being the Christian God."

PSOLUS: “Here we go again...”

ME: "To come on a forum and challenge a world-view shows that some things do matter to you. It is obvious."

PSOLUS: “Is it absolutely obvious? Then why all the questions? I understand. The Bible explains...Here we go...”

ME: "No, He is my Lord and Savior..."

PSOLUS: “Here we go again...”

PSOLUS: “I don't need superstition; I don't need a b-geyman.”

PSOLUS: "Don't you already have a b-geyman who is supposed to determine this for you?"

ME: “No we have the necessary ultimate Being in order for there to be absolute truth or meaning or purpose or goodness to life."

PSOLUS: “That is your b-geyman.”

What are you offering that is constructive to a meaningful dialog? You don't refute my claims, you ignore them by making comments. You don't answer my questions. You ignore them by making comments.

I'm asking you to make sense of your belief system, your world-view, your ideas on important questions in life, your nothing matter, nothing is true, hedonistic, nihilistic, postmodern, relativistic, secular system of thought.

I'm willing to discuss and dig deeper with you, I'll take the time, but a meaningful conversation is two-way in which we both probe the other guys ideas and see how logically consistent they are, see how they explain these difficult questions.

And that is my point. The deeper I dig the more your ideas unravel and fly apart. All you seem left with is a comment, not a proof, not a well thought out logical explanation.

Sorry to be so blunt.

Hi TWMatthews,

ME: "Yes I do claim that only because God's word is necessarily true, not just because I as an individual happen to believe it. It is a matter of making sense of anything without this fixed standard and measure."

ME: "And you confuse what people have done 'in the name of' as opposed to the standard that God has laid down - the Bible. It is His reference, His teaching, His standard, His instruction, His revelation for us. God does not change, people do. We are relative, He is absolute."

TWM: "First, your claim that God laid down a standard is debatable."

Oh come on. What do you call the Ten Commandments? The Ten Commandments are still cited in the New Testament. As Galatians 3:24 states,

"But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith." (Galatians 3:23-24)

God has laid down laws that if broken lead to the demise of culture such as stealing, murdering, lying, committing adultery, coveting something that belongs to someone else or worshiping false gods, no matter whether they be physical icons or spiritual ideals such as the love of money (greed). These laws are in effect to protect what is good and decent. The penalty for breaking just one of these laws is death - separation from God because God is holy, He is pure and He is just, and He always does what is good. That is the dilemma of mankind. Man has broken them and is answerable to God.

Jesus fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17) by living a perfectly just and good life on this earth (1 Peter 1:19) in the place of those who would believe. But more than that He paid the penalty of our sins by becoming a substitutionary offering in our place; that is in the place of those who by faith have put their belief, their faith, their trust and reliance on Him. He took the penalty of our sins upon Himself that we may live and not suffer the wrath of God for all the evil committed when we were alienated from God.
By faith we receive a new spirit and nature, a nature and spirit that is open to God.

Jesus also defined a standard of conduct in the New Testament many times, including the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-7:29).

TWM: "Your point about confusing what people have done in the name of God as opposed to what God says to do is precisely my point."

Nevertheless, there is a correct way of interpreting the Scriptures (2 Timothy 2:15)

TWMATTHEWS (a.k.a. “Doc”)

In our post to PETERHUFF and me you pose the following question:

TWM: “If God clearly laid down a moral standard by which we should all live, why have so many millions of people in good faith (word used intentionally) gotten it so wrong? Is there just the slightest probability that those morality rules/guidelines were not so clearly defined?”

To support your inference that God has not laid down a clear moral standard you give two examples which you summed with the following questions:

TWM on SLAVERY: “If God, as described in the bible doesn't have a problem with slavery then do you conclude that slavery is morally acceptable today?”

and

TWM on INQUISITION: “Why is it, if God has a specific moral path defined for us, that there has never been a time where God has unequivocally corrected bad moral behavior, especially when it's done in his name?”

I would like to respond to both of these examples, one at a time. Starting with slavery, I would like to first ask you why, in your opinion, is slavery immoral?

If you choose to engage me here, keep your flux capacitor fueled, Doc. You are playing on my turf now. :)

RCofield,

"PETERHUFF says: "You critique the Christian world-view."

PSOLUS replies: "When did (I) do that?

One particularly glaring example comes to mind from R. Albert Mohler's thread.

I offered some "food for thought" (Romans 1:18-21) to another poster. This was your reply:

PSOLUS: "That's not food for thought; that's pablum for superstitious belief."

Did it not occurr to you that perhaps I was simply commenting on your taste of "food for thought"?

Should I have assumed that you were representing the "Christian world-view" when you wrote that?

Can you tell me what the "Christian world-view" is, so that I recognize it the next time that I see it?

RCO said, "I'm not "talking around the issues." I am just reticent to engage in "scatter-shot" apologetics "sound-byte" responses when reasoned, focused discussion can be had. As I recall, you seemed to agree with me on this earlier in our discussion."

Maybe you are. I just can't seem to get you to address any of the issues -- too much of your response seems to me to be me asking for evidence and you circling the DeLorean back to other issues. For example, your reply to me tries to define an objective standard of morality and I guess, by implication when you say; "Without God how do you achieve objectivity?"

Here's the problem I have with this argument. It presumes there is a God -- that has not be demonstrated in the least by anyone commenting here. I've heard no evidence to back that up. It also implies that we need an objective standard of morality.

I don't think we need or want an objective standard of morality any more than we want or need an objective standard of happiness. My views of morality are probably vastly different than yours just like what makes me happy is probably vastly different from what makes you happy. Why are yours better or mine?

Is it moral for me to let my 21 year old son visit me in my house and sleep with his girlfriend? I think it's impossible for anyone to say anymore than anyone can say whether I should be happy listening to Steely Dan and reading Newsweek?

Morality is highly personal and, like happiness is not subjected to a standard of measurement. This statement also implies something as to the existence of God.

I contend that the God of the bible has not defined a standard of morality even if what was written in the bible were true (okay, get your DeLorean back out so that I can demonstrate to you that much of what's written in the bible is historical hogwash) the God as described would be unworthy of worship let alone following his guidelines with respect to morality -- unless you are of the ilk of believing in "Do as I say, not as I do".

So, give me some evidence that let's me believe there is a god and that your god, as opposed to Thor or Mercury is the one and only, God. And then explain to me why we need an objective moral standard. I think this country is doing just fine leaving morality out of law and basing laws not on morality but on ideas of individual freedom and property.

As an aside, the town next to mine still has on the books "moral laws" making it a crime for unmarried people to live together. A person working in the sheriff's department was fired for violating that law (she sued, won, reinstated with back pay....amen).

JUSTACOMMENT,

RCO: “Quick question. You having spent 9 years with Jesuit priests, can I presume that you have a functional knowledge of the Old and New Testaments and how they relate to each other?”

JAC: "You can presume what you wish, this is not relevant to the existence of an absolute morality or that God exists, which is the topic at hand."

Whether or not you have a functional knowledge of the Old and New Testaments and how they relate to each other is not relevant to the existence of an abosolute morality or the existence of God?!

You made quite an issue of your having sought God and not found him. If you think the bible is not relevant to the existence of God...it is painfully obvious why you have not found Him.

To contend that you have looked for "evidence" for the existence of God and then not bother to be familiar with the bible (assuming you are not) would be fundamentally dishonest.

To assert that you spent 9 years with Jesuit priests and then not be somewhat familiar with the bible (assuming you are not) would, as well, be fundamentally dishonest.

You have demonstrated a distinct lack of familiarity with the whole narrative of the bible in your posts. This is not consistent with either your claim of having searched for evidence of God or your claim of having spent 9 years with Jesuit priests.

What am I missing here?

By way of illustrating my point, I will relate the account of a friend of mine.

This friend was born to Catholic parents, but during the course of earning a degree in history from a prestigious university in Europe he rejected Catholocism and became an atheist.

Several years after graduating and becoming an established historian, he decided he would do some investigating and prove that Jesus Christ never existed. As his chosen field of historical analysis required, he dealt with the evidence both honestly and rigorously.

Two years after he began his research, having read and examined the OT & NT from a purely historical perspective, he was converted to Christianity and embraced the Baptist faith. I will leave you with his own words:

"I set out disprove both the existence and claims of Jesus Christ of Nazareth...and in so doing, I met a man...Jesus Christ of Nazareth."

So again I ask: Do you you have a functional knowledge of the Old and New Testaments and how they relate to each other?

TWMATTHEWS,

TW: "Sometimes I get the impression that RCO talks around the issues without directly confronting the issues."

I presume you have not read my post of July 30 4:26 PM. In that post I point out that you broached no less than 5 topics and I proposed that we should just pick up where we left off last time.

I'm not "talking around the issues." I am just reticent to engage in "scatter-shot" apologetics "sound-byte" responses when reasoned, focused discussion can be had. As I recall, you seemed to agree with me on this earlier in our discussion.

Why not pick a subject and have meaningful dialogue? I suggested that we return to our (un)intelligent design discussion that was interupted by the thread terminating.

PSOLUS,

PETERHUFF says: "You critique the Christian world-view."

PSOLUS replies: "When did (I) do that?

One particularly glaring example comes to mind from R. Albert Mohler's thread.

I offered some "food for thought" (Romans 1:18-21) to another poster. This was your reply:

PSOLUS: "That's not food for thought; that's pablum for superstitious belief."

Peterhuff:

There are so many flaws to your arguments that I keep getting my comments held because they apparently take up so much space. But here's an attempt.

PH:
A relationship with the living God, a confirmation that, as I said before, without God it is impossible to make sense of anything ultimately, because a relativistic bases is always shifting and never definite.

Me: Really. And what kind of relationship can anyone really have with a mythical creature? Really, do you have any children? If you did, suppose you treated them the same way God treats people. You children ask to see a movie. They talk to you for hours on end. Maybe they think you are giving approval, maybe they think you are not giving approval. You never say anything definitively to them.

What kind of a relationship is that?

PH: Then there is the Bible itself, its composition, its claims, its historical veracity, its prophecy and its central themes that present a unity through its over forty different human authors and vast span of time, that reveals mans inhumanity to man and also the Person of Jesus Christ, from cover to cover.

Me: Really. And what if I said that the Harry Potter books reveal far more about human nature, what ultimately we strive for, where we are heading. What proof have you supplied that your conclusions about the bible are more accurate than mine about Harry Potter?

Certainly you aren't saying it's historically accurate -- show me the evidence for a great flood, the killing of the innocents, the expulsion of the Jews. Show me a prophesy that isn't a vague reference about war -- which has been going on since man climbed down from the trees (the reference to evolution was intentional).

You seem to be mixing up science -- which tries to explain how things happened and when they happened with faith -- which tries (poorly I might add) to explain why things happened. Maybe the "why" is all you're interested in. But to me, the how is of more interest because when it comes down to it, the why may be nothing more than "because".

And finally, the talk about God being everlasting, forever when everything else you say concludes that everything must have a start, conveniently excludes God from having a start. Is that your idea of evidence -- define rules and then conclude that said rules don't apply to God?

peterhuff,

"'A god' is a man made image or belief that is worshiped."

And, there seems to be a lot of them out there.

"God is the ultimate Being that created the natural realm and all that is in it. He is eternal in that He has no beginning or end and time is something made for His creatures. He is almighty in that nothing is to difficult for Him to do. He is omniscient in that He knows all things. He is benevolent and the standard for everything that is good. He is Spirit and as such He cannot be seen physically. That is just for starters."

There you go again...

"That is not true."

You attempt to zing me with an online dictionary definition?

I thought we were friends!

"Regardless, you believe it."

No, I learn from it.

"You put your trust in the experience."

No, I use it as a reference.

"That is belief."

No, it's experience.

"Sure it is. Try building on anything without a conviction that it is true. Conviction is belief. You believe, mistakenly, that the foundation that you build rests on nothing."

Again, wrong, I believe nothing.

"The letter 'a' rests on a belief that it means 'one' or a solitary unit of measure. 'A' rabbit is one rabbit. A rabbit does not mean ten rabbits. You have used the letter 'a' in this post. You either believe that it means the same thing I do or we have failed to communicate."

You are confusing belief with knowledge, experience, and adherence to standards.

"In the same manner, when you see a red traffic light as you are driving you believe it signifies that you should 'stop.' You believe this or you would continue driving through the intersection."

Are you familiar with the "law of the hammer"?

"Try living without this belief and see how long you live."

So far, I have lived quite a long time with no beliefs.

Continued...

"No, you have one, your just like playing games."

Then, tell me what my belief system is.

"But I think it is obvious to anyone who reads this post."

Then, someone else should be able to tell me what my belief system is.

"For your information it is a way of looking at the world through the eyes of Christ, with His understanding in mind."

There you go again...

"Whether or not I believe in it doesn't change its truth."

Not to you, at any rate.

"It remains true regardless of my belief."

It remains true to you.

"Can you say the same for your belief system?"

I don't have a belief system.

"I think we have exhausted our conversation then. Thanks!"

You're welcome.

Continued...

"None that you have given at least."

Perhaps it's simply that you have perceived none.

"You critique the Christian world-view."

When did do that?

"I'm asking for your ultimate standard that you can know truth by. What is it?"

I have no ultimate standard, for truth or anything else.

"Where is your good derived from?"

Good stuff?

"How do you know that they are real?"

Common sense, experience, trial and error.

"It could be an illusion or hallucination."

Perhaps illusion or hallucination is the only reality.

"Is your mind that accurate in its judgment of reality?"

So far, it has been.

"It's made unless you can refute it logically. So far nothing."

Are you the Parker Bros.? Do yo make the rules?

"I know that."

Good.

"Lots of people come to different conclusion through common sense, trail and error."

Yes, this has been my experience.

"Certainly not from what you have displayed. And if you don't know then how can you evaluate its truth claims honestly?"

What makes you think that I want to or have attempted to evaluate its truth claims, honestly or otherwise?

To Peterhuff (and RCO)

Part 2 of 2

God, as described in the bible and Jesus his only begotten son (this is a point to be discussed at some other time but isn't it strange that the creator of the universe can only have one son -- can only come to earth once until the end of days? Ah, but I digress)....where was I, oh yeah, God apparently had no problems with slavery. The bible describes how long one should keep a slave without offering freedom; what happens to children formed by the union of slaves (they are "owned" by the master); it describes what happens when you offer freedom after 7 years to a slave to his/her kids (they stay with the master) BUT NOWHERE does the bible say slavery is wrong. Nowhere does it say one person shall not own another person.

Here's an example of a moral standard that I suspect, has changed over the years. If God, as described in the bible doesn't have a problem with slavery then do you conclude that slavery is morally acceptable today? Or will you admit that moral standards do change?

And why is it, if God has a specific moral path defined for us, that there has never been a time where God has unequivocally corrected bad moral behavior, especially when it's done in his name? Why, for example didn't the first few Popes that started the inquisition suffer a brain hemorrhage or a heart attack or come down with testicular cancer? Why didn't he make an appearance and declare it unquestionably wrong? I don't seem to recall from my reading of history lightening bolts coming from the sky and killing the inquisitioners.

These were not people of little or no faith. These were people who believed (yes, that word belief has certainly caused lots of problems throughout history) they were doing what is right to save someone's eternal soul. So I ask you, why hasn't God supplied better guidelines? Why are they so subjective. Yes, you and RCO claim there are objective moral standards but history contradicts those claims. History says that moral standards evolve (slavery), are subject to interpretation (it's better to torture someone to get them to repent than it is to leave them alone in sin) and there is no one up there to provide definitive feedback. Heck, the all powerful creator of the universe still relies on a one-way, error prone, not always working form of communication (prayer). Now talk about inventing a communication vehicle without error checking. Even my original 1200 baud modem had a CRC algorithm (in the days of dial-up modems, CRC stood for cyclic redundancy check and was used to ensure that the letters and numbers going across a phone wire were delivered correctly). Yet there are no such checks with prayer. What's to prevent millions of people from misinterpreting their responses? Nothing and that's why millions of people misinterpret no response to mean something.

Wouldn't you think the creator of the universe would be able to read text messages and make a cell call?

Peterhuff,

Part 1 of 2:
I'm glad you jumped in. Sometimes I get the impression that RCO talks around the issues without directly confronting the issues. And since you were good enough to "pick up the cross" so to speak, let's talk a little about your comments.

Peterhuff said, Yes I do claim that only because God's word is necessarily true, not just because I as an individual happen to believe it. It is a matter of making sense of anything without this fixed standard and measure.

And you confuse what people have done 'in the name of' as opposed to the standard that God has laid down - the Bible. It is His reference, His teaching, His standard, His instruction, His revelation for us. God does not change, people do. We are relative, He is absolute. "

First, your claim that God laid down a standard is debatable. Your point about confusing what people have done in the name of God as opposed to what God says to do is precisely my point.

If God clearly laid down a moral standard by which we should all live, why have so many millions of people in good faith (word used intentionally) gotten it so wrong? Is there just the slightest probability that those morality rules/guidelines were not so clearly defined?

I can give plenty of examples in which God's guidelines are subject to interpretation and based more on the cultural standard of the time than they are universal and eternal. Here are a couple:

(continued)

Hi PSolus,

ME: "That you are capable of explaining ultimately anything without God."

PSOLUS: "What is a "god"?"

'A god' is a man made image or belief that is worshiped. God is the ultimate Being that created the natural realm and all that is in it. He is eternal in that He has no beginning or end and time is something made for His creatures. He is almighty in that nothing is to difficult for Him to do. He is omniscient in that He knows all things. He is benevolent and the standard for everything that is good. He is Spirit and as such He cannot be seen physically. That is just for starters.

ME: ""That is an impossibility, or you would not be able to communicate."

PSOLUS: "And yet, I believe nothing, and I communicate."

That is not true.

http://www.tfd.com/believe

ME: "You believe that certain words strung together in a sentence communicate ideas."

PSOLUS: "No, I learned that from experience."

Regardless, you believe it. You put your trust in the experience. That is belief.

ME: "There has to be a foundation for any thought or any idea. You have those."

PSOLUS: "But, for me, that foundation is not belief."

Sure it is. Try building on anything without a conviction that it is true. Conviction is belief. You believe, mistakenly, that the foundation that you build rests on nothing. The letter 'a' rests on a belief that it means 'one' or a solitary unit of measure. 'A' rabbit is one rabbit. A rabbit does not mean ten rabbits. You have used the letter 'a' in this post. You either believe that it means the same thing I do or we have failed to communicate.

In the same manner, when you see a red traffic light as you are driving you believe it signifies that you should 'stop.' You believe this or you would continue driving through the intersection. Try living without this belief and see how long you live.

part 2

ME: "Your belief system is cloaked in a bunch of nonsense, however, for it is not capable of explaining itself."

PSOLUS: "I have no belief system, you just chose to believe that I have a belief system."

No, you have one, your just like playing games. But I think it is obvious to anyone who reads this post.

PSOLUS: "I don't believe that there is a "christian world-view"."

For your information it is a way of looking at the world through the eyes of Christ, with His understanding in mind.

PSOLUS: "So, it is simply something that you believe in."

Whether or not I believe in it doesn't change its truth. It remains true regardless of my belief. Can you say the same for your belief system?

ME: "Please read the link provided for a better understanding on what I am getting at.
Read 'Focusing on the Inside of the Box'"

PSOLUS: "I prefer not to."

I think we have exhausted our conversation then. Thanks!

Hi PSolus,

ME: "There is no reason behind that statement."

PSOLUS: "You believe that there is no reason behind that statement."

None that you have given at least.

PSOLUS: "It doesn't give evidence or answer the question."

You critique the Christian world-view. I'm asking for your ultimate standard that you can know truth by. What is it? Where is your good derived from?

ME: "What is reality?"

PSOLUS: "Things that are real."

How do you know that they are real? It could be an illusion or hallucination. Is your mind that accurate in its judgment of reality?

ME: "Then my point is made."

PSOLUS: "No, you believe that your point is made."

It's made unless you can refute it logically. So far nothing.

ME: "You speak from ignorance."

PSOLUS: "I am ignorant of your beliefs."

I know that.

ME: "Again, how do you know this?"

PSOLUS: "Common sense, experience, trial and error."

Lots of people come to different conclusion through common sense, trail and error.

ME: "Then how do you know that what the Bible says is not true?"

PSOLUS: "What makes you think that I know what the bible says?"

Certainly not from what you have displayed. And if you don't know then how can you evaluate its truth claims honestly?

Hi Daniel,

DITLD: "So, to Peter Huff, I will be brief. Your arguments don't make sense."

DITLD: "Say them better, so they make sense, please."

Which ones Daniel? I need more interaction. Please be more specific.

Hi CalicoJ,

CJ: "I am actually inclined to agree with you that everyone has a "worldview" of some sort."

I'm glad we agree on that. Some people find it hard to concede this point.

CJ: "What I really want to know is, why do you think a worldview has to include a "Why?" when it comes to stuff like "Where did life come from?" and "What happens when we die?"

Because everything in the natural universe appears to have had a start and a world-view that does not attempt to answer such questions is something that is a pretty loose system of belief. It has no explanatory power.

CJ: "All the evidence of our eyes and minds suggest life just sorta happened in a mud puddle somewhere and when we die, we rot. That's all folks! These thoughts don't frighten me, and I don't get the need to read great meaning into any of it."

That is the thought of a group of natural philosophers that have been influenced by Darwinism. How do you know your eyes or your mind are accurately seeing or understanding events that happened before man was around to witness them? You look at similarity and say evolution. Do you presuppose this or do you actually see it happening today? Evidence needs interpretation and the shape of your world-view will determine where you end up. A fossil does not come stamped '20 million years old' or 'evolved from such and such.' These are what you interpret to happen based on similarity. I would contend that we share similarities because we share common environments. The amount of adaption is limited or bound by 'kind.'

CJ: "You say, "I don't buy you [sic] mirage of 'I don't care.'" Guess what, bro, it's no mirage. And exactly what part of Atheism do you believe is "cloaked in nonsense" and incapable of being explained, anyway?"

Its starting premise that everything came from nothing, or on the other hand that the universe is eternal don't make sense; that intelligence came from a non-thinking, impersonal process; that laws came from something other than mind, and yet it takes a mind to discover them; that matter and energy alone produced being; that complexity and order came from mindlessness; that the uniformity of nature came from chaos and chance, and the list goes on.

Hi CalicoJ (hence CJ),

CJ: "So you just came right out and said it, huh? "My intent is to show the absurdity in anything that does not have as its base an ultimate, absolute unchanging source or reference, and by necessity that Source being the Christian God."

Yes.

CJ: "Well, I doubt anyone here or in any other internet argument is ever likely to be actually converted to another religious viewpoint."

That is something that is left to God's discretion, not mine. I attempt to show how only the Christian view of things has an adequate explanation, when all but the core belief is stripped away.

CJ: "I suspect we're mostly just here because we all believe pretty firmly in our current opinions and we're the sort of people who enjoy a good debate and the occasional gratuitous insult (or is the gratuitous insult part just me?)."

I'm here because I believe truth matters. Where does your truth claims ultimately come from? What is your ultimate measure? Does it come from inside yourself or is there an outside source? Is that source objective? If so, then how do you show it to be so?

CJ: "The best you can practically hope for is running across someone who knows their stuff and can construct a solid, reasonable case which makes you really think about your beliefs, which is something everyone ought to do."

That is a good start. The purpose is to expose the logical inconsistency of a false premise or world-view and the utter inability of say the atheist to answer the ultimate questions in life.

CJ: "If that quote above is what you consider a precursor to logical debate, you're not gonna be that person, are you? I'll argue you anyway, I'm just sayin'."

Then how do you get goodness from a relative, subjective standpoint? Where does 'better' and 'best' ultimately come from?

My posts won't post.

So, to Peter Huff, I will be brief. Your arguments don't make sense.

Say them better, so they make sense, please.

Hi JAC,

JAC: "The evidence that a real god exists has prove highly elusive to me."

PH: That could be because you have approached it from a secular standpoint...

JAC: "I already told you I'm open minded, nevertheless you are right, I'm secular. But knowing that you are not secular, tell me what is the evidence from a non-secular standpoint."

A relationship with the living God, a confirmation that, as I said before, without God it is impossible to make sense of anything ultimately, because a relativistic bases is always shifting and never definite. There is no way of knowing if such a basis is real or true. Then there is the Bible itself, its composition, its claims, its historical veracity, its prophecy and its central themes that present a unity through its over forty different human authors and vast span of time, that reveals mans inhumanity to man and also the Person of Jesus Christ, from cover to cover. It explains why things are the way they are (the Fall) and God's plan of redemption for His people, all bundled up in the Lord Jesus Christ. He is the subject of Old and New Testaments. And 'in' Him is 'hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.' (Colossians 2:3)

JAC: "Besides it be very helpful to look at the evidence for God now that the topic of absolute morality has been linked to God."

And it is a question that anybody that makes a claim of goodness or truth has to face if they want to be honest with their world-view. How does it answer the questions of qualitative values and explain justice? I'm still waiting to see how you handle this question, but I usually have to wait a long time - like never - for such answers.

PH: That could be because … haven't asked the right questions.

JAC: "Probably. My bad. If it's not a problem please help me with hints about the right questions."

Why are we here, what difference does it make, what happens when we die and how do we know? If a persons world-view hasn't examined these questions how can it critique those that have?

PH: Have you counted the cost of following Jesus?

Part 2

JAC: "I don't have a clue what you mean with the cost of following Jesus. Educate me on this (sorry for the pile of requests)."

As Jesus said to the crowd and to His disciples,

"If anyone wishes to come after Me he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it. For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and yet forfeit his soul?" (Mark 8:34b-36)

Or again,

"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take up
his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me." (Matthew 10:37-38)

He calls us to follow Him, to put our faith in Him, in His accomplishments on our behalf, on what He has done, not some religious system. He calls us to follow Him, just as He called the twelve, and immediately they left everything to follow Him (Matthew 4:17-22, esp. 20, 22). They gave Him their allegiance, they gave Him their trust, they gave up everything. That is the cost. Or will you be like the rich young man who considered the cost too great (Matthew 19:21-22)? Are you willing to give up all, to put Jesus above all (Matthew 10:24, 32-38)? That is the cost. Are you willing to face ridicule because of Him (Matthew 5:10-12)? That is the cost. By the world's standards this does not sound appealing to most, but His promise is that if you follow His teachings and believe, truly believe in Him, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. (John 8:31-32)

PH: And what makes you think that the Jesuits are the standard to interpret the Bible by?

JAC: "Nothing because I don't think that there is an standard to interpret the Bible."

It claims their is a correct way of handling the Scriptures, which it calls the word of truth. (see 2 Timothy 2:15)

The Bible interprets itself. You either accept it as the highest authority or you put yourself or someone else's in its place. It either judges you or you judge it. You either treat it for what it is, the word of God, or you place yourself as god over it.

JAC: "More clearly, interpretation of vague passages, contradictions, mistranslations, plain mistakes on dates, wrong numbers, identity of the authors, etc is anybody's guest. The scribes and eyewitnesses are dead and the wireless line they had with God was lost."

Again, He has refined and preserved His word to us. Either you accept it for what it says and as that standard or you become your own god and place yourself as judge over it. It is where your highest form of authority is to be found. Is it placed in a relative, subjective authority or in an eternal, absolute and objective authority - God?

peterhuff,

"That you are capable of explaining ultimately anything without God."

What is a "god"?

Are you talking about your personal b-geyman?

"That is an impossibility, or you would not be able to communicate."

And yet, I believe nothing, and I communicate.

"You believe that certain words strung together in a sentence communicate ideas."

No, I learned that from experience.

"There has to be a foundation for any thought or any idea. You have those."

But, for me, that foundation is not belief.

"Your belief system is cloaked in a bunch of nonsense, however, for it is not capable of explaining itself."

I have no belief system, you just chose to believe that I have a belief system.

"To do so it must borrow capital from the Christian world-view."

Must it?

What is a "christian world-view"?

Is it something that you believe in?

I don't believe that there is a "christian world-view".

"It is a belief that philosophical naturalism and natural or physical naturalism causes is what accounts for all that is. To put it differently, it is a belief that matter and energy is the starting foundation for everything that is and the sum total of the universe. It is analogous of a box in which everything happens and can be explained within the realms of the box. Nothing exists outside the box."

So, it is simply something that you believe in.

"Please read the link provided for a better understanding on what I am getting at.
Read 'Focusing on the Inside of the Box'"

I prefer not to.

To be continued...

Continued...

"Everybody does that is capable of thinking, forming ideas and formulating opinions. You build on a foundation, on core principles where certain ideas are non-negotiable. To deny these basic core values and belief would be to jettison your belief, and since you are not willing to do that, you make the attempt to justify these core beliefs in some way or another. But when someone starts to peel back these false premises that you hold on to it becomes clear that your feet are firmly planted in mid-air, as a Christian philosopher once said."

That is simply something else that you believe in.

"In other words, the basis for your belief system crumbs because it is not built on solid ground (Matthew 7:24-27)"

There you go again...

"Basically that translates to you don't know."

Actually, it translates to it doesn't matter.

"There is no reason behind that statement."

You believe that there is no reason behind that statement.

"It doesn't give evidence or answer the question."

I'm not a detective; nor am I Jeeves.

"It is nonsense."

Because it clashes with your beliefs.

"What is reality?"

Things that are real.

"Then my point is made."

No, you believe that your point is made.

"You speak from ignorance."

I am ignorant of your beliefs.

"Again, how do you know this?"

Common sense, experience, trial and error.

"Then how do you know that what the Bible says is not true?"

What makes you think that I know what the bible says?

"Well they are questions that have perplexed many of the greatest philosopher of the ages, including Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus, to name a few, who spent much of their lives in pursuit of meaning."

I hope that they found some meaning.

"I don't buy you mirage of 'I don't care.'"

That's OK, it's not for sale.

@ Peterhuff

I am actually inclined to agree with you that everyone has a "worldview" of some sort. What I really want to know is, why do you think a worldview has to include a "Why?" when it comes to stuff like "Where did life come from?" and "What happens when we die?" All the evidence of our eyes and minds suggest life just sorta happened in a mud puddle somewhere and when we die, we rot. That's all folks! These thoughts don't frighten me, and I don't get the need to read great meaning into any of it.

You say, "I don't buy you [sic] mirage of 'I don't care.'" Guess what, bro, it's no mirage. And exactly what part of Atheism do you believe is "cloaked in nonsense" and incapable of being explained, anyway?

@ Peterhuff

So you just came right out and said it, huh? "My intent is to show the absurdity in anything that does not have as its base an ultimate, absolute unchanging source or reference, and by necessity that Source being the Christian God."

Well, I doubt anyone here or in any other internet argument is ever likely to be actually converted to another religious viewpoint. I suspect we're mostly just here because we all believe pretty firmly in our current opinions and we're the sort of people who enjoy a good debate and the occasional gratuitous insult (or is the gratuitous insult part just me?). The best you can practically hope for is running across someone who knows their stuff and can construct a solid, reasonable case which makes you really think about your beliefs, which is something everyone ought to do.

If that quote above is what you consider a precursor to logical debate, you're not gonna be that person, are you? I'll argue you anyway, I'm just sayin'.

Hi Peter H and Rcofield,

Me: "The evidence that a real god exists has prove highly elusive to me."

PH: That could be because you have approached it from a secular standpoint...

I already told you I'm open minded, nevertheless you are right, I'm secular. But knowing that you are not secular, tell me what is the evidence from a non-secular standpoint. Probably this secular issue was the problem that make us leave the topic unfinished. Besides it be very helpful to look at the evidence for God now that the topic of absolute morality has been linked to God.

PH: That could be because … haven't asked the right questions.

Probably. My bad. If it's not a problem please help me with hints about the right questions.

PH: Have you counted the cost of following Jesus?

I don't have a clue what you mean with the cost of following Jesus. Educate me on this (sorry for the pile of requests).

PH: And what makes you think that the Jesuits are the standard to interpret the Bible by?

Nothing because I don't think that there is an standard to interpret the Bible. More clearly, interpretation of vague passages, contradictions, mistranslations, plain mistakes on dates, wrong numbers, identity of the authors, etc is anybody's guest. The scribes and eyewitnesses are dead and the wireless line they had with God was lost.

Hello PSolus,

PSOLUS: "BTW, what notions am I entertaining?"

That you are capable of explaining ultimately anything without God.

ME: "There is no ultimate grounding for what you believe."

PSOLUS: "That's because I believe nothing."

That is an impossibility, or you would not be able to communicate. You believe that certain words strung together in a sentence communicate ideas. There has to be a foundation for any thought or any idea. You have those. Your belief system is cloaked in a bunch of nonsense, however, for it is not capable of explaining itself. To do so it must borrow capital from the Christian world-view.

ME: "(And that is the plight of atheism)"

PSOLUS: "What is this "atheism" you speak of?"

It is a belief that philosophical naturalism and natural or physical naturalism causes is what accounts for all that is. To put it differently, it is a belief that matter and energy is the starting foundation for everything that is and the sum total of the universe.

It is analogous of a box in which everything happens and can be explained within the realms of the box. Nothing exists outside the box. Please read the link provided for a better understanding on what I am getting at.

Read 'Focusing on the Inside of the Box'

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Can_Science_Explain_How_Life_Began

PART 2

ME: "I'm just exposing this and asking you to do so. Show me why your ideas and world-view is valid."

PSOLUS: "What makes you think that I have a "world-view"?"

Everybody does that is capable of thinking, forming ideas and formulating opinions. You build on a foundation, on core principles where certain ideas are non-negotiable. To deny these basic core values and belief would be to jettison your belief, and since you are not willing to do that, you make the attempt to justify these core beliefs in some way or another. But when someone starts to peel back these false premises that you hold on to it becomes clear that your feet are firmly planted in mid-air, as a Christian philosopher once said. In other words, the basis for your belief system crumbs because it is not built on solid ground (Matthew 7:24-27)

ME: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

PSOLUS: "Because there is something, rather than nothing."

Basically that translates to you don't know. There is no reason behind that statement. It doesn't give evidence or answer the question. It is nonsense.

ME: "What is real?"

PSOLUS: "Reality."

What is reality?

ME: "How do you know what is true?"

PSOLUS: "I don't."

Then my point is made. You speak from ignorance.

ME: "What difference does it make?"

PSOLUS: "It doesn't."

Again, how do you know this?

ME: "What happens when you die?"

PSOLUS: "I don't know... yet."

Then how do you know that what the Bible says is not true?

ME: "These are questions that you might find helpful to look into."

PSOLUS: "You mean as I did when I was twelve?"

Well they are questions that have perplexed many of the greatest philosopher of the ages, including Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus, to name a few, who spent much of their lives in pursuit of meaning.

I don't buy you mirage of 'I don't care.'

Hi JAC (from your 6:57am post),

JAC: "If you keep with the list of evolving cultures you will get to cultures that are characteristics of regimes like the ones that govern Sweden, Holland, Canada, Spain, USA, Switzerland, etc. All subjected to defacto measures of goodness."

You still haven't dealt with the question of where these measures came from that makes them 'good.' Who decides and why are they right? If there is no rightness to them then how can you call them 'good?' If group A calls gay marriage 'good' and group B calls it bad you have two contradictory standards. So which of these two is the actual good? Let's not mistake this with personal preference. Show me where the measure for 'better' or 'good' comes from.

JAC: "In those cultures people have negative moral reaction against slavery, even when it still was accepted by the standard of morality of some religions."

It still doesn't answer the question of how a relative being can determine goodness outside of an absolute and objective standard. How do you know something is good? Is it based on your feelings? What if mine feelings are contrary? Then who is right?

JAC: "Same thing happens with strong negative moral reaction against killing civilian population when attacking enemies in a war. To kill civilians, specially children, is not accepted today in a long list of countries influenced by different cultures that have progressed since the era of the Bible..."

There again, you are making a qualitative judgment based on what? Members of Al Qaeda believe that if flying a plane into a building furthers their cause then it is good. Why are they right in their assessment and you wrong or visa versa?

PART 2

JAC: "when that was accepted and even requested by gods or by the leaders of religious communities. At that time killing children was not condemned by what you call an objective standard of morality based on Christian principles. Moral evolves even if religions move slower."

You still have to show that your standard for 'good' is of a higher degree than someone else's. You need to establish where you get your measure from and why it is a true measure.

JAC: "Yep. If the morality of a culture is hijacked by a radical theist group that dominates a nation, you end up with a murderous theocracy that kills you just for not thinking the way they want."

So what makes that bad? Obviously they believe it is good.

JAC: "I guest there is no need to cite examples. Same can be said of atheist groups that establish horrendous dictatorial regimes. You already listed examples."

Again, what makes Hitler's Germany or Mao's China bad?

RCOFIELD: "I have never been able to find an atheist who can offer an objective standard of morality without appealing to Christian principles in one form or another.”

JAC: "I agree with you that no one will be able to find an objective standard of morality, with or without Christian principles, because objective morality doesn't exist in the real world."

How do you know? Does your idea of the real world necessitate it is true and right and good? If so, on what grounds?

I'm interested in your answers because I don't believe you can make sense of any of this without God.

Hi Rcofield,

“You're not actually interpreting this passage to mean you should seek/knock/ask me (or anyone else on this thread), are you?”

Obviously no. In my post to Peter H the topic for an evidence of God existence came out before you brought up this passage. I will never assume that who ever wrote the passage thousand of years ago was thinking in me asking you or other posters in this blog.

“Quick question. You having spent 9 years with Jesuit priests, can I presume that you have a functional knowledge of the Old and New Testaments and how they relate to each other?”

You can presume what you wish, this is not relevant to the existence of an absolute morality or that God exists, which is the topic at hand.

If you posit God as the center of the absolute morality the question for evidence of God is germane. Later will resume on this more directly. Peace.

peterhuff

"Just to show the absurdity and foolishness of entertaining such ideas."

Why, thank you.

"If it wasn't so painfully silly it would be laughable, but it makes me sad that you are allowing yourself to entertain such notions."

Oh, don't be sad...

BTW, what notions am I entertaining?

"There is no ultimate grounding for what you believe."

That's because I believe nothing.

"It is like the shifting wind. It changes direction and you don't know where it will blow next."

Oh, my...

"You have come on this forum to challenge ideas but cannot supply anything of worth to justify your own."

Did they show "Chapter Two" on cable last night?

"(And that is the plight of atheism)"

What is this "atheism" you speak of?

"I'm just exposing this and asking you to do so. Show me why your ideas and world-view is valid."

What makes you think that I have a "world-view"?

"I'll apologize in advance if it gets personal."

Now, now, no need to be dramatic.

"My intent is to show the absurdity in anything that does not have as its base an ultimate, absolute unchanging source or reference, and by necessity that Source being the Christian God."

Here we go again...

"Why is there something rather than nothing?"

Because there is something, rather than nothing.

"What is real?"

Reality.

"How do you know what is true?"

I don't.

"What difference does it make?"

It doesn't.

"What happens when you die?"

I don't know... yet.

"These are questions that you might find helpful to look into."

You mean as I did when I was twelve?

GLOBALONE,

I think we are more or less on the same page, though I would point out that the original texts of the NT were written in Greek and Aramaic, not Hebrew.

While I agree completely that we are charged to hold one another accountable in the household of faith, we are clearly forbidden to take penal judgment into our own hands (see the extensive list I posted earlier). Such judgment is the jurisdiction of God alone (Ro. 12:19), and the past attempts of the church to cross that jurisdictional boundary have been atrocious. And they have been done in direct disobedience of the clear teaching of scripture.

Whether we are holding one another accountable within our respective fellowships or making a non-penal assessment of circumstances, to whatever extent we judge we do so by God's clearly established standard (scripture), not our own.

Hi JAC,

JAC: "The evidence that a real god exists has prove highly elusive to me."

That could be because you have approached it from a secular standpoint and haven't asked the right questions. Have you counted the cost of following Jesus? And what makes you think that the Jesuits are the standard to interpret the Bible by?

Hi RCOfield,

Thanks for the support. I like what you have said to JAC and others. You are under the hot seat, but that is to be expected on an atheist forum. (^8

RCOFIELD: "Piper, eh? Good man."

Yes, a definite Reformed position. But that is in house debate among Christians.

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: "Is it absolutely obvious? Then why all the questions?"

Just to show the absurdity and foolishness of entertaining such ideas. If it wasn't so painfully silly it would be laughable, but it makes me sad that you are allowing yourself to entertain such notions. There is no ultimate grounding for what you believe. It is like the shifting wind. It changes direction and you don't know where it will blow next.

You have come on this forum to challenge ideas but cannot supply anything of worth to justify your own. (And that is the plight of atheism) I'm just exposing this and asking you to do so. Show me why your ideas and world-view is valid. I'll apologize in advance if it gets personal. My intent is to show the absurdity in anything that does not have as its base an ultimate, absolute unchanging source or reference, and by necessity that Source being the Christian God.

Why is there something rather than nothing? What is real? How do you know what is true? What difference does it make? What happens when you die? These are questions that you might find helpful to look into.

PETERHUFF,

PETERHUFF: "Sorry to cut in again RCofield, but this type of dialog fuels a response."

ME: By all means. I'm glad to have you, and I hope you stick around.

Piper, eh? Good man.

JUSTACOMMENT,

"For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
That has not been my experience, even if the Bible says so. When I have asked the more frequent response is that for the Lord to come to me first I have to really really really really believe. Nice, if I believe that will be the evidence."

You're not actually interpreting this passage to mean you should seek/knock/ask me (or anyone else on this thread), are you?

Quick question. You having spent 9 years with Jesuit priests, can I presume that you have a functional knowledge of the Old and New Testaments and how they relate to each other?

Sorry to cut in again RCofield, but this type of dialog fuels a response.

To TWMatthews (TWM for short),

TWM: "Is there an objective standard of morality anywhere in the world?"

Without one there would be nothing moral, just each persons preference.

TWM: "I haven't checked what the other bloggers have said but you need to define some terms and then you'd have to demonstrate for me what a standard of morality is to begin with."

A standard of right and wrong. Without an objective standard where does the measure come from? By objective I mean fixed, ultimate and universal to everyone, regardless of whether you personally believe it or live by it. An objective standard is one that is true, not subject to relativism. Without God how do you achieve objectivity? Someone who is all knowing, almighty, eternal, unchanging is necessary for objectivity or for an ideal or qualitative value to be true for without a highest degree of objectivity what do you have to compare 'better' or 'best' to? How can there be a 'better' or 'best?'

TWM: "If you are trying to claim that Christianity has defined a standard of morality which hasn't changed since the time of Christ, I would certainly take exception with such a claim."

Yes I do claim that only because God's word is necessarily true, not just because I as an individual happen to believe it. It is a matter of making sense of anything without this fixed standard and measure.

And you confuse what people have done 'in the name of' as opposed to the standard that God has laid down - the Bible. It is His reference, His teaching, His standard, His instruction, His revelation for us. God does not change, people do. We are relative, He is absolute.

TWM: "Why don't you elaborate on your statement a little so that I can give it the attention is so well deserves. And then, after I have a better grasp about what you are stating, I can define for you not what my standard of morality is but how I derived my own standard of morality."

Is your source yourself or is there something higher than your opinion that you base it on? The point we have been making is that it cannot be justified without an objective source.

Even more to the point, demonstrate why your standard is right, why it is true.

"Mt 7:1 ¶ “Judge not, that you be not judged"

You are misinterpreting the verse.

First, and most important, the Hebrew word that is used does not translate to how we use the word "judge" in today's society. Translated in today's language, a better word choice would probably be "accountable."

Second, by using the Hebrew as originally intended, we can reconcile Luke 6:42 " . . . First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye."

We are commanded by God to "judge" (again, bad word translation) each other. If a brother or sister is involved in drugs or pornography, we are too hold them accountable for those actions, and vice versa.

peterhuff,

"That is just my point. For someone who doesn't care why take the time? If it is all meaninglessness why are you extracting meaning from it? Btw, how do you extract meaning from meaninglessness???"

You are just confusing yourself; relax, and breathe into a paper bag until your head clears.

"That is a depressing world-view, to live life with no ultimate purpose, no ultimate truth."

Actually it isn't, I feel fine. Your mileage may vary, however.

"But as soon as it becomes personal it matters. As soon as..."

Wow... Life is rough, you need to grow a tougher skin.

"To come on a forum and challenge a world-view shows that some things do matter to you. It is obvious."

Is it absolutely obvious? Then why all the questions?

"I understand. The Bible explains..."

Here we go...

"No, He is my Lord and Savior..."

Here we go again...

"How can you know or judge truth or..."

Don't assume that your needs are my needs.

I don't need superstition; I don't need a b-geyman.

RCofield,

"Nah. Just want them to know what your b-geyman looks like. Tooth brush moustache and such..."

You can tell them that I don't have a b-geyman, and that they don't have to have one either, if they don't want one.

Hi PSolus,

PSOLUS: "I was quoting RCofield, I was not asking. I don't care."

That is just my point. For someone who doesn't care why take the time? If it is all meaninglessness why are you extracting meaning from it? Btw, how do you extract meaning from meaninglessness???

PSOLUS: "That's what I was thinking - this is all meaningless."

ME: "Is what you are saying meaningless?"

PSOLUS: "Ultimately, probably."

I agree, unless you have an absolute source for meaning!

Then why bother? What is the point of our exchange of ideas in a meaningless universe? No, you display a contradictory system of philosophy that has no ultimate answers, as is apparent.

That is a depressing world-view, to live life with no ultimate purpose, no ultimate truth. But as soon as it becomes personal it matters. As soon as the gunman shoots a family member it matters. As soon as someone steals your wallet it matters. As soon as someone cuts in front of you in a line-up it matters. As soon as someone hits you in the mouth for no apparent reason it matters. And it is these things that betray your world-view of nothing ultimately matters because they ultimately do matter to you, I'm sure. It is easy to say nothing matters, but much harder to live as if nothing matters. Usually those who do are nut cases, which you do not strike me as being.

To come on a forum and challenge a world-view shows that some things do matter to you. It is obvious.

Part 2

ME: "If not I contend that in order to find meaning God is the only answer."

PSOLUS: "That seals it; I'll stick with meaningless."

I understand. The Bible explains your position very well. (1 Corinthians 1:18-24) Soloman went through the same crisis, eventually coming to the conclusion to 'Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.' (Ecclesiates 12:13b-14)

PSOLUS: "Don't you already have a b-geyman who is supposed to determine this for you?"

ME: "No we have the necessary ultimate Being in order for there to be absolute truth or meaning or purpose or goodness to life."

PSOLUS: "That is your b-geyman."

No, He is my Lord and Savior, the freer of my soul. As Jesus said to the Jews of His day, while He walked this earth, "If you hold to My teaching, you are really My disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31)

ME: "What do you have to determine this?"

PSOLUS: "I don't need "absolute truth or meaning or purpose or goodness to life".

You still haven't answered the question, just side-stepped it. How can you know or judge truth or goodness or beauty without an ideal or perfect standard, a standard that is unchanging? How can you judge qualitatively without a fixed measure, an ultimate measure? Where does it come from? In other words, how do you come up with 'good' or the degrees thereof without an idea of the highest degree of goodness. With a shifting standard how can it ever be fixed? If it can't be fixed then why is it 'good?' What makes it so? If good is subjective to each persons experience then what we have is not good, just opinion - just hot air. And that is the dilemma you are in. You have no measurement by which to gauge goodness by, just mere opinion. As John Piper says, someone should point out that the Emperor (what man outside of God worships) has no clothes on. The pompous ass is parading around naked, much to the amusement of his subjects.

JUSTACOMMENT,

Hey man. Didn't mean to appear to be shouting. Don't have underlining or italics capability on this processor. No offense (or shout) intended.

Nice head-fake on the ask, seek, knock passage...never heard that one before...:)

Seriously though. You pullin my leg on the Jesuit priests thing? That would be a huge window of insight to help me understand where you are coming from if it is true.

Peace brother.

PSOLUS,

RCofield, "Same answer. I have children and grandchildren..."

"Are you worried that your b-geyman won't be able to protect them from the atheists?"

Nah. Just want them to know what your b-geyman looks like. Tooth brush moustache and such...

TW,

"Using the bible to back up a claim because it supposedly was divinely inspired is....well, how can I tactfully state this......oh I got it, nonsense."

Man! Somebody put gunpowder in your coffee this morning? I wasn't "using the bible to back up a claim." I was just pointing out to JUSTACOMMENT that sitting on ones butt waiting for proof of a truth-claim to fall into one's lap is not the typical method of investigation.

Wow. What shall we discuss? Biblical inspiration...or absolute truth...or eternal life...or objective morality...or evidence for God (as in "is the bible all you got?!")...or...hey! Here's an idea. We could pick up where we left off a couple of weeks ago on (un)intelligent design. How 'bout that?

Everlasting life?! Gee whiz. Talk about getting the cart ahead of the horse. We've hardly even begun discussing the beginning and you want to jump all the way to the end. You know you can miss a lot of good stuff that way, don't you?

If I recall correctly I had posited some "truth-claims" about my computer. You stated that you "understood what I was trying to say." Then, when I began to work out from what I thought you "understood," you responded "now you've got me confused again, etc."...and then the thread terminated.

So...what did you mean when you said you understood what I was trying to say with my computer analogy?

Gotta go patch things up with JUSTACOMMENT. Thinks I'm screaming at him.

Keep your flux capacitor fueled, Doc.

RCofield,

"Same answer. I have children and grandchildren..."

Are you worried that your b-geyman won't be able to protect them from the atheists?

Hi Rcofield,

The evidence that a real god exists has prove highly elusive to me.

“Ask, and it will be given to you...”
I just asked you for evidence and your response is a cite that tells me to ask. I was educated by Jesuits and after 9 years with them they could not give me a satisfactory answer either. I asked to a buddy priest and he came back questioning me why I did not believed, so no luck there either.

“..seek...”
Again, I just mentioned that I have been seeking (or better pounding the pavement) with no results.

“...knock, and it will be opened to you...”
Knock where? You can help me here with tips. I promise you that I'll keep pounding the pavement.

“For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.”
That has not been my experience, even if the Bible says so. When I have asked the more frequent response is that for the Lord to come to me first I have to really really really really believe. Nice, if I believe that will be the evidence.

Hi Rcofield,

You screamed at me that “A culture can be "hijacked" by radicals ONLY WHEN THERE EXISTS NO OBJECTIVE SOURCE FOR MORAL STANDARDS.”

OK, I heard your opinion, but still need some clarification. What is it that you call *objective*, the morality itself or the source of the moral standards? Or better, tell us what do you understand for an *objective morality* and provide evidence that it exists in the real world.

Once again, in comment to RCO:
Sherlock, you old gumshoe, you know that the really good cases don't just come to you. You gotta get out there and "pound the pavement."

Matthew 7:7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened."

Me: Using the bible to back up a claim because it supposedly was divinely inspired is....well, how can I tactfully state this......oh I got it, nonsense.

To use a book that supposedly was authored by the entity which you are trying to prove exists, is at the least, circular logic.

Is the bible all you got as far as evidence for God is concerned? And of course the question which arises is, what's your evidence supporting that the bible is anything more than the Book of Mormon, the Koren, or my personal favorite, the divinely inspired "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"?

RCO said, "I have never been able to find an atheist who can offer an objective standard of morality without appealing to Christian principles in one form or another."

From TW:
Is there an objective standard of morality anywhere in the world?

I haven't checked what the other bloggers have said but you need to define some terms and then you'd have to demonstrate for me what a standard of morality is to begin with.

If you are trying to claim that Christianity has defined a standard of morality which hasn't changed since the time of Christ, I would certainly take exception with such a claim.

Why don't you elaborate on your statement a little so that I can give it the attention is so well deserves. And then, after I have a better grasp about what you are stating, I can define for you not what my standard of morality is but how I derived my own standard of morality.

JUSTACOMMENT,

You state to PETERHUFF: "In reference to my request to prove that a real God exists, we had a long conversation about that last year. My position in this is to be open to believe in this extreme claim if somebody provide my with a commensurate evidence. So far I have not find one, so here I'm awaiting."

Sherlock, you old gumshoe, you know that the really good cases don't just come to you. You gotta get out there and "pound the pavement."

Matthew 7:7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened."

RCO,

Oh, it's good to see you back and engaged. I thought maybe you had taken a vacation.

You:
Nah, I’m not confusing truth claims with statements of opinion. For instance, you claim, without qualification, that there is a “complete” lack of evidence for the claim that eternal life is found exclusively in the person of Jesus Christ. You didn’t state that there doesn’t “appear” to be any evidence, or “in my opinion” there exists no evidence, or “I’ve not seen” any compelling evidence. Just a flat, unequivocal claim that there is a “complete” lack of evidence. Not even an acknowledgement that you might not be aware of all the claims of evidence that exist...

Here's a minor correction to your statement. The truth claim that I was paraphrasing was made in the bible. It claims that the ONLY way to achieve eternal life (whatever that is) is through a belief in Jesus Christ as the holy savior.

Here are my two points. First, the source making such an extraordinary claim is the person(s) responsible for supporting such a claim. I didn't make a claim. I simply concluded that this is an absolute truth claim with many adherents (you being one I assume). It's the responsibility of the truth claimer to back that claim up with supporting evidence. Have you seen any evidence for eternal life other than similar claims by the same source? Did the bible support these claims by identifying people who have already achieved eternal life?

Is there any evidence supporting this truth claim in the bible? I don't think so and that's why I made the statement that this claim went unsupported.

The second point I would make has to do with a definition of terms. Again, the phrasing in the bible leaves much to interpretation. What does it mean to have eternal life? Does that mean that your body lives forever? Does that mean that your memory by friends and loved ones lives forever? Does it mean you go to an interdimensional way station where you are sorted by belief, religious affiliation and maybe blood type; to be directed somewhere else? Again, the no evidence clause that I stated above includes no clear definition of the terms used in the truth claim.

Now if you were to tell me that you were really 1,800 years old. That you lived during the time when the first source documents that would later become known as the new testament were written and during that time you would be able to personally vouch for the claim of eternal life. Well, that would color this discussion differently.

But, I have seen no supporting evidence to back such a claim and I conclude that it is an unsupported claim. I have also seen no terminology definitions and so, it's easy to make a claim without knowing what you are claiming.

We seem to be back where we started. Show me your evidence for such a claim? Show me your evidence that demonstrates there is such a thing as eternal life.

I'll address the topic of morality later.

PSOLUS,

"No, the question was: Why does the fact that you think that "have never been able to find an atheist who can offer an objective standard of morality without appealing to Christian principles in one form or another" matter to you?

Same answer. I have children and grandchildren...

Hi Peter H,

Thanks for your comments.

Our exchange of ideas overlap in some topics the conversation I'm having with Rcofield. Please check my post at JULY 30, 2010 6:57 AM.

In reference to my request to prove that a real God exists, we had a long conversation about that last year. My position in this is to be open to believe in this extreme claim if somebody provide my with a commensurate evidence. So far I have not find one, so here I'm awaiting.

You: “Btw, how do you know the universe is infinite?”

I used this concept liberally to emphasize what I was saying about having all the right in the world to question a king, a president, a pope, an imam or a god if there is something that affect us as creatures. Only slaves have masters that cannot be questioned.

JUSTACOMMENT,

You state: "Yep. If the morality of a culture is hijacked by a radical theist group that dominates a nation, you end up with a murderous theocracy that kills you just for not thinking the way they want. I guest there is no need to cite examples. Same can be said of atheist groups that establish horrendous dictatorial regimes. You already listed examples."

The point you are so painfully missing is simply this: A culture can be "hijacked" by radicals ONLY WHEN THERE EXISTS NO OBJECTIVE SOURCE FOR MORAL STANDARDS.

Put another way, when morality becomes a subjective social construct--the very moral code you are positing--the door is wide open for radicals to take over. If you look back at history, every single instance where mass human atrocities were perpetrated there existed no OBJECTIVE standard of morality. This holds true for pagan atrocities, atheistic atrocities, AND "CHRISTIAN" atrocities.

You really, really don't want to live in a society where, as you put it, "objective morality doesn't exist in the real world." Assuming you are an American citizen, you do live in a world where objective morality and its resultant law and order still exist, though they are fading fast.

We are living on the dwindling capital of a nation long ago established on the borrowed foundations of Judeo-Christian principles. But those who hold atheistic, subjective worldviews such as yours are unwittingly spending that capital and eroding those foundations at a break-neck pace. The "hijacking" has begun.

RCofield,

"Why does this (morality) matter so much to you?"

No, the question was: Why does the fact that you think that "have never been able to find an atheist who can offer an objective standard of morality without appealing to Christian principles in one form or another" matter to you?

peterhuff,

"PSOLUS: "Can you? Can anyone on this thread?""

I was quoting RCofield, I was not asking. I don't care.

"Only if there is a God. Otherwise this is all meaninglessness."

That's what I was thinking - this is all meaningless.

"It doesn't matter."

Again, just as I was thinking.

"Is what you are saying meaningless?"

Ultimately, probably.

"If not I contend that in order to find meaning God is the only answer."

That seals it; I'll stick with meaningless.

PSOLUS: "Don't you already have a b-geyman who is supposed to determine this for you?"

"No we have the necessary ultimate Being in order for there to be absolute truth or meaning or purpose or goodness to life."

That is your b-geyman.

"What do you have to determine this?"

I don't need "absolute truth or meaning or purpose or goodness to life".

PETERHUFF,

Solid series of posts.

PSOLUS,

"Why does this (morality) matter so much to you?"

Because I have children and grandchildren...

Hi PSolus,

RCofield said,

"I have never been able to find an atheist who can offer an objective standard of morality without appealing to Christian principles in one form or another."

To RCofield you said,

PSOLUS: "Why does this matter so much to you?"

Why does it matter to you? Why would you take the time to reply unless it mattered to you? What makes your opinion of such great worth, or mine, or anyones for that matter, unless there is truth behind it.

PSOLUS: "Can you? Can anyone on this thread?"

Only if there is a God. Otherwise this is all meaninglessness. It doesn't matter. Is what you are saying meaningless? If not I contend that in order to find meaning God is the only answer.

PSOLUS: "Don't you already have a b-geyman who is supposed to determine this for you?"

No we have the necessary ultimate Being in order for there to be absolute truth or meaning or purpose or goodness to life. What do you have to determine this?

In reply to RCofield you said,

JAC: "I agree with you that no one will be able to find an objective standard of morality, with or without Christian principles, because objective morality doesn't exist in the real world."

But how do you know this? How do you know that the Christian standard doesn't have objective moral principles? How do you know anything as certain? Is this again just your opinion; an opinion that has no truth to it? Why 'should I or anyone believe it? Establish where truth comes from please.

This statement almost slipped by without making a comment on it.

JAC: "If the creature is affected by actions of the Maker, specially in a negative way, the creature has all the right in the infinite universe to judge the actions of his Maker."

Who gave the creature the right? If I made something, would I not have the right to determine the purpose I made it for? Would I not have the right to determine the boundaries or uses for the thing I made? Would I not determine what was in the things best interest? If I made a beautiful clay jar then put it on a ledge exposed to the howling wind, would that be in its best interest if I wanted to preserve it?

Hi JAC,

I just dropped in to find out which forum Walter and Pam are off to next. I like what Rcofield has been saying. It fits in with the way I view many things - that is a presuppositional approach that challenges how a world-view such as yours can make sense of anything without borrowing from the Christian framework.

ME: “Creatures cannot know every circumstance involving every situation, nor can they know objectively without an objective standard, an ultimate absolute measure or reference point. That is God. He is that standard.”

JAC: "Problem is we have first to prove that a real God exists, prove that the one we use as reference point is actually the true one, and understand His/Her/Its message. Bible as main conduit has contradictions and is subject to interpretations. The latest make the message not consistent, losing its objectivity."

Well we continue to ask you, the atheist, how you make sense of this world without God (and I will only argue for the true and living God - the God revealed in the Bible), and the message I am getting from you is everything is relative and contingent.

I would argue that God is necessary for truth and goodness. Without Him all you have is subjective opinion. Only if He exists can there be a standard of goodness, for there must be an unchanging measure, a fix reference that good can be understood by. And as Rcofield put it, truth itself, in order for it to be true, must be based on something that is absolute and objective, otherwise all you have is another shifting opinion that is based on coercion of one kind or another.

ME: "“What gives a creature the right to judge the actions of his Maker (whom he does not know or have a relationship with)?”

JAC: "If the creature is affected by actions of the Maker, specially in a negative way, the creature has all the right in the infinite universe to judge the actions of his Maker."

Since God is good what He decrees is good. Adam was given one condition that He could not do without consequences. It was not in His best interests to question what God forbids. Look at the results. Every man his own god, deciding for himself what the standard will be. Is it any wonder we have so many conflicts, wars, greed, injustice, selfish and self-centeredness. Who makes the rules???

Yes, we are affected by the decrees of God. They are there for our best interests. Do not steal, do not lie, do not commit adultery, do not kill (murder), honor your father and mother, don't covet something that belongs to someone else are just some of the decrees for humans to get along together.

Btw, how do you know the universe is infinite?

PART 2

ME: “Why is your relative sense of justice the standard that measures and determines what goodness should or ought to be?”

JAC: "I haven't said that. I agree that no individual person can dictate the standard that measures and determines what goodness should or ought to be."

But how do you know that? Is it based on your personal opinion, and what makes your opinion 'right?' I mean if it is just your opinion then how do you gauge if it is true? Do you determine what the truth will be and that makes it true? Or is truth something that is true regardless of whether you believe it or not?

JAC: "Group of humans, trough evolving cultures can and in fact dictate the defacto measures of goodness."

Where do they get the defacto measure from? Do they just pull it out of thin air and say, 'This is the standard?' Is it all based on survival of the fittest? And why ought I follow it when another culture or group or 'leader' is stating a contrary defacto measure? Why aren't they 'right' instead of you or your culture?

Which group is 'right' when two opposing standards clash? What is the measure of goodness? Force? Is goodness established by a group that can force its opinion on another? In some cultures they love their enemies and in others they love to eat 'em. Which do you prefer, good taste or something that tastes good? Is all goodness based on preference? Is goodness based on numerical opinion? Whose?

No, you can't establish good without an ideal form or image of goodness. Without God can you show me where this ideal form comes from? If not then everything is relative and nothing matters. BUT that is not how you conduct your life. You borrow from the Christian framework that goodness does matter, or else you wouldn't be taking the time to refute the Christian world-view. You believe that what you believe is good and trustworthy or else it is highly unlikely that you would believe it. BUT, again, the proof cannot come from a relative subjective standard and still retain its meaning without first showing that there is something ultimate that it is based on. Again, can you show that something or someone?

JAC: " In the process they use a god or gods (religion) to help secure the strict compliance of goodness."

Again, I would only contend for the One and Only, the unchanging, holy, just, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal God of the Bible. All else is false.

Jesus said, "I am the way and the TRUTH and the life." That is very exclusive and rightly so. You can't have two different gods, both stating something entirely different both being right. It goes against logic and common sense.

Hi Rcofield,

“So...how would you like being subjected to the "defacto measures of goodness" of such "evolving cultures" as the Third Reich...or Stalin's regime...or Pol Pot's regime...or.... Well, you get the point. This could actually be a very long list from every era of recorded history.”

If you keep with the list of evolving cultures you will get to cultures that are characteristics of regimes like the ones that govern Sweden, Holland, Canada, Spain, USA, Switzerland, etc. All subjected to defacto measures of goodness. In those cultures people have negative moral reaction against slavery, even when it still was accepted by the standard of morality of some religions. Same thing happens with strong negative moral reaction against killing civilian population when attacking enemies in a war. To kill civilians, specially children, is not accepted today in a long list of countries influenced by different cultures that have progressed since the era of the Bible, when that was accepted and even requested by gods or by the leaders of religious communities. At that time killing children was not condemned by what you call an objective standard of morality based on Christian principles. Moral evolves even if religions move slower.

“If history has taught us anything it has taught us the dangers of "group morality." It is utterly subjective, can turn on a dime, and is undeniably deadly.”

Yep. If the morality of a culture is hijacked by a radical theist group that dominates a nation, you end up with a murderous theocracy that kills you just for not thinking the way they want. I guest there is no need to cite examples. Same can be said of atheist groups that establish horrendous dictatorial regimes. You already listed examples.

“I have never been able to find an atheist who can offer an objective standard of morality without appealing to Christian principles in one form or another.”

I agree with you that no one will be able to find an objective standard of morality, with or without Christian principles, because objective morality doesn't exist in the real world.

RCofield,

"I have never been able to find an atheist who can offer an objective standard of morality without appealing to Christian principles in one form or another."

Why does this matter so much to you?

"Can you? Can anyone on this thread?"

Don't you already have a b-geyman who is supposed to determine this for you?

JUSTACOMMENT,

You state: "I agree that no individual person can dictate the standard that measures and determines what goodness should or ought to be. Group of humans, trough evolving cultures can and in fact dictate the defacto measures of goodness."

So...how would you like being subjected to the "defacto measures of goodness" of such "evolving cultures" as the Third Reich...or Stalin's regime...or Pol Pot's regime...or.... Well, you get the point. This could actually be a very long list from every era of recorded history.

If history has taught us anything it has taught us the dangers of "group morality." It is utterly subjective, can turn on a dime, and is undeniably deadly.

I have never been able to find an atheist who can offer an objective standard of morality without appealing to Christian principles in one form or another.

Can you? Can anyone on this thread?

@ GLOBALONE

I argued that Christ specifically FORBIDS the taking of JUDGMENT into our own hands...

You state: “FYI: That's actually an incorrect statement. Are you basing this on a specific verse in the Bible?”

Le 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.

Pr 24:29 Do not say, “I will do to him as he has done to me; I will pay the man back for what he has done.”

Mt 5:39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Mt 7:1 ¶ “Judge not, that you be not judged.

Mt 26:52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

Lu 6:27 ¶ “But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.

Lu 6:37 Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven

Ro 12:14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.

Ro 12:17 Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all.

Ro 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Ro 14:13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.

1Co 4:5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then each one will receive his commendation from God.

Jas 4:11 ¶ Do not speak evil against one another, brothers. The one who speaks against a brother or judges his brother, speaks evil against the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge.

Jas 4:12 There is only one lawgiver and judge, he who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?

TW!

Where ya been, man? Good to hear from you. The thread shutting down caught us in mid-stride didn’t it?

Lol. Man, if you don’t think SECULAR makes absolute truth claims you ain’t readin’ him. He may be the only person I’ve ever seen who can cram 6 patently absurd truth-claims and the word “bigot” into every other sentence. He even prefaced one of the claims to which I was referring with “The fact is…” I don’t think HE thought he was just stating an opinion.

Nah, I’m not confusing truth claims with statements of opinion. For instance, you claim, without qualification, that there is a “complete” lack of evidence for the claim that eternal life is found exclusively in the person of Jesus Christ. You didn’t state that there doesn’t “appear” to be any evidence, or “in my opinion” there exists no evidence, or “I’ve not seen” any compelling evidence. Just a flat, unequivocal claim that there is a “complete” lack of evidence. Not even an acknowledgement that you might not be aware of all the claims of evidence that exist...

I find it more than mildly interesting that many who are vehemently opposed to any Christian claim of absolute truth unwittingly wind up having more than a few absolute truth claims of their own. And right at the top of their list is the classic “there ARE no absolute truths.” Are they sure that is the case? Absolutely! This has become so common in the Western mindset that it has earned its own moniker—“postmodernism.”

Bottom line—it is impossible to function in a world where there exists no absolute truth. As I stated earlier, truth, by definition is absolute and unalterable. A truth cannot be an "untruth" (falsehood) at the same time it is true. When two truth claims are posited that contradict each other, logical necessity demands that one or the other truth claim is false and therefore not truth at all. Otherwise, there is only chaos.

“And speaking of evidence, you never did supply any evidence to back up your claim of an intelligent designer.”

Yeah. Right. Only a universe that is of such order and complexity that, after centuries of inquiry by the most brilliant of minds, we still discover something new and challenging every single day. No end in sight.

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools.

Keep your powder dry.

Rcofield,

"I argued that Christ specifically FORBIDS the taking of JUDGMENT into our own hands"

FYI: That's actually an incorrect statement. Are you basing this on a specific verse in the Bible?

@ Rcofield

So I'm officially on the new thread now. By all means, please elaborate--what impossible presumptions have I made?

I'd also like to throw my two cents in on your comment to Susan Jacoby.

"But...doesn't your first statement raise your atheistic beliefs to the level of absolute truth, at least for you and the referenced child?"

No, actually, her statement doesn't have any effect on how fervent an Atheist she is, just that she would find it impossible as a parent to let her child believe in what she feels is a fairy tale. From her position it would be the same as letting her child believe in Santa Claus into his/her thirties. It's not a matter of religion as much as it's just Atheist-style good parenting.

Personally, I've always been profoundly grateful for how I was raised, namely, in a determinedly religion-neutral fashion. I don't think I could let any child of mine be raised any other way.

Peter H, long time no see,

“Creatures cannot know every circumstance involving every situation, nor can they know objectively without an objective standard, an ultimate absolute measure or reference point. That is God. He is that standard.”

Problem is we have first to prove that a real God exists, prove that the one we use as reference point is actually the true one, and understand His/Her/Its message. Bible as main conduit has contradictions and is subject to interpretations. The latest make the message not consistent, losing its objectivity.

“What gives a creature the right to judge the actions of his Maker (whom he does not know or have a relationship with)?”

If the creature is affected by actions of the Maker, specially in a negative way, the creature has all the right in the infinite universe to judge the actions of his Maker.

“Why is your relative sense of justice the standard that measures and determines what goodness should or ought to be?”

I haven't say that. I agree that no individual person can dictate the standard that measures and determines what goodness should or ought to be. Group of humans, trough evolving cultures can and in fact dictate the defacto measures of goodness. In the process they use a god or gods (religion) to help secure the strict compliance of goodness.

Peter and Walter,
I posted here:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/brad_hirschfield/2010/07/statistics_about_inter-marriage_are_funny_things.html

Rcofield

I wasn't ignoring you; Ijust hadn't come back to read yet.

The following lines that I attributed to you were a cut-and-paste mistake:

"Knowledge is what we believe to be true. It is the understanding of what has been learned, a body of facts and principles."

At the end of my comment, I had made a list of simple definitons for truth, knowledge and belief. I typed it all up in the wrong order, and I meant to cut and past it all in the right order. By mistake, I lift that definiton of knowledge at the top, and it looks like I am citing it as a quote from you. Later, I re-posted the list correctly, thinking this would be acknowleging my mistake.

Sorry about that.

Below is the list (once again) as I had originailly intended, to show how hard it is to define thses concepts in a satisfying way, since some of these definitions are obiously not very satisfying:

"Truth is the quality of being in accordance with facts or with reality."

"Truth is what actually is."

"Reality is a synonym for truth."

"Truth is the perfect perception of existence."

"Truth is existence, unperceived, unmeasured, unnoticed."

"Belief is the conviction or acceptance that something is true."

"All knowledge is belief, a conviction of what is true."

"Knowledge is what we believe to be true. It is the understanding of what has been learned, a body of facts and principles."

RCO said, Is that a fact? Are you trying to make statements of absolute truth here?.......:)

I think you are confusing claims of absolute truth with a simple statement of opinion. The way the term was used by Secular and by Susan indicates claims of truth with no chance of mistake.

The claim that ONLY through a believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God would lead to eternal life is an absolute truth claim. It's characterized by a complete lack of supporting evidence and yet, in the minds of those making such claims, there is no room for variation.

And speaking of evidence, you never did supply any evidence to back up your claim of an intelligent designer.

Hi Rcofield,

My comments follow each of your five points:

1)To “command by example” is nonsensical given the definition of the word command is to direct authoritatively. You are intentionally conflating unequivocal concepts (leading by example/commanding by authority) in an effort to sustain your premise.

In the context of my argumentation, attrocities like crusades and inquisition were committed by Christians in the name of God with the blessings of those who God gave power in the earth. Command by example in this case only validates what the leaders has been told by God in Leviticus and other part of the books (Example: "He who sacrifices to any god, except to the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed." It's barely short of kill infidels).

2)The authoritative commands of Christ clearly forbid us to take issues of penal judgment into our own hands.

If I remember correctly I already touched on this when you referred to not taking vengeance. What I recall to have said was not to refute your argument but to highligth how God (in this case trough Christ), forbids creatures to take justice in own hands in order to save for Him/Her/It the execution of the vengeance. This comment continues in the next point.

3)Anyone who commits atrocities in the name of Christ is doing so in direct disobedience to his clear commands. (It should be noted here that you have revised your original premise with the non sequitur “commanding by example.”).

I'm not aware of any specific verse in the books that forbids atrocities as such, but I may be wrong. I'm aware of God commanding to destroy all inhabitans of Sodom and Gomorrah even if there were innocent children there. Or command to kill a son if he desobeys the father. Today we know that this is kind of talibanesque type of justice: blow one infidel even if we blow hundreds of our own children.

4)Your premise (and subsequent arguments) fail to acknowledge commonly accepted jurisdictional distinctions.

The jurisdiction I'm trying to deal with is the relationship between the supposed creator and its creatures, being the creatures the part affected by atrocities committed among themselves in the name of unproven gods.

5)You erroneously presuppose and then insist that the Flood was an “atrocity” perpetrated by God despite the fact that those who perished were warned of the coming judgment and provided an avenue of escape. To the extent innocent children (those not yet able to make their own decisions) were affected, culpability lies at the feet of their parents.

What you have stated is as horrendous as it can be. Picture this: God warned adults but when taking action sacrificed also the children, washing Her/His/It hands dumping culpability on the parents. From my point of view this is not fair justice in any kind of jurisdiction.

Peace

Susan wrote, "I could never raise a child with someone who wanted to instill belief in an all-powerful and loving God in his offspring...."

While, as an atheist, I wholeheartedly agree, I also feel the need to point out that childrearing is not the sole purpose of marriage. People do marry for reasons other than having and raising children, and many married couples choose not to have children at all.

I try not to be close-minded, but I would also have a hard time sharing my life with someone who had a fundamental belief in a supreme being, regardless of the question or children. It's right up there with music taste for me.

CALICOJ & JUSTACOMMENT,

Looks like they shut the other thread down, so this is "bleed over."

CalicoJ states: "Since religion is subject to interpretation and subjective analysis, it makes it all the more important that the actions of the state and matters of objective reality (i.e., science) are kept absolutely free of religion, at least in my view."

To which JUSTACOMMENT resoundingly responds: "AMEN!"

And some people don't think atheism is religious.....:)

Though I think Calico's statement may presume some things that are not possible, both of you may be surprised at my position on this one.

I will try to post on this tonight.

Peace

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

I will ask you again (this is the third time). The first 3 lines of your post on July 28, 2010 5:23 PM are erroneously attributed to me.

PLEASE POST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THOSE LINES ARE NOT MY STATEMENTS!

JUSTACOMMENT,

PART 2 of 2

1) To “command by example” is nonsensical given the definition of the word command is to direct authoritatively. You are intentionally conflating unequivocal concepts (leading by example/commanding by authority) in an effort to sustain your premise.

2) The authoritative commands of Christ clearly forbid us to take issues of penal judgment into our own hands.

3) Anyone who commits atrocities in the name of Christ is doing so in direct disobedience to his clear commands. (It should be noted here that you have revised your original premise with the non sequitur “commanding by example.”)

4) Your premise (and subsequent arguments) fail to acknowledge commonly accepted jurisdictional distinctions.

5)You erroneously presuppose and then insist that the Flood was an “atrocity” perpetrated by God despite the fact that those who perished were warned of the coming judgment and provided an avenue of escape. To the extent innocent children (those not yet able to make their own decisions) were affected, culpability lies at the feet of their parents.

You state: “You argued extensively that the Christian God never ordered in the Bible to commit atrocities, but this is not part of my argumentation.”

First, you misrepresent my argument. I argued that Christ specifically FORBIDS the taking of JUDGMENT into our own hands. And you then dismiss my (misrepresented) argumentation by claiming that it is not part of your argumentation?! I would think that should be rather self-evident. This appears to be a rather typical attempt to “close” your premise and insulate it from questions concerning its logic.

Each of the 5 points listed above directly question the logic of your premise. If your premise is logically sound, you should be able to refute each of these 5 points. To merely dismiss them as “not part of my argumentation” is nonsensical.

Again, if you dismiss (without refutation) arguments that speak directly to the credibility of your premise, I don't see how this exchange can be productive.

Peace

JUSTACOMMENT (a.k.a. “Sherlock”)

PART 1 of 2

You state: “I have not refuted what is not essential to prove my statement that both Muslims and Christians have committed atrocities commanded by their respective God. For my assertion to be valid does not need me to address contentions that do not affect directly the truth of my premises.”

Let's recall your original premise:

"Inquisition and Crusades were executed by individuals under the direct command of the Catholic Church whose God himself killed the whole humanity (except for Noah and his critters) and later said in Matthew 10:34 KJV: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword..”

Sherlock, your premise is clearly flawed. I have already demonstrated (and you grudgingly conceded) that your use of Matthew 10:34 was flawed. Following is a list of reasons why your premise is illogical, some of which I have already pointed out but which you erroneously dismiss as not “affecting directly” the truth of your premise. Additionally, I will point out reasons your premise is flawed that should be self-evident, but, because you are beginning with flawed presuppositions, are not evident to you.

TBC

JAC: "One rebuttal point that you brought forward was that the divine justice is different than human justice, by which I believed you implied that God can do things that creatures cannot do."

Creatures cannot know every circumstance involving every situation, nor can they know objectively without an objective standard, an ultimate absolute measure or reference point. That is God. He is that standard.

JAC: "I try [to] deal with it with the assertion that we were the creatures affected by the divine justice, which in the mentioned case was not just for our side. In our sense of justice as creatures we don't accept to hurt innocent children, then we cannot give a pass to God on this."

What gives a creature the right to judge the actions of his Maker (whom he does not know or have a relationship with)? Or maybe I could put it another way. Why is your relative sense of justice the standard that measures and determines what goodness should or ought to be?

Hi Rcofield,

“I have disagreed with your original premise and have offered extensive argumentation supporting my rebuttal. Each time you respond you largely ignore my argumentation and simply repeat your original premise without presenting any new supportive argument.”

“Unless you either refute my argumentation or concede the point our conversation on this particular topic cannot proceed productively.”

On the contrary dear Watson, in mi opinion we have been very productive. I have not refuted what is not essential to prove my statement that both Muslims and Christians have committed atrocities commanded by their respective God. For my assertion to be valid does not need me to address contentions that do not affect directly the truth of my premises.

My line of logic has been:

*Since commanding atrocities can be done by example showing with actions how to behave and God has commited atrocities, attrocities committed by Christians in the name of God has been commanded by God by example.*

The proof of my argumentation is that premise 1 (commanding atrocities can be done by example),and premise 2 (God is claim to have commited atrocities) are truths that you have not contended directly. Then my argumentation is that attrocities commited by Christians (not contested by you) has been commanded by God by example (contested by you, vality of the argumentation depends which is stronger, "do as I say" or "do as I do").

You argued extensively that the Christian God never ordered in the Bible to commit atrocities, but this is not part of my argumentation.

One rebuttal point that you brought forward was that the divine justice is different than human justice, by which I believed you implied that God can do things that creatures cannot do. I try deal with it with the assertion that we were the creatures affected by the divine justice, which in the mentioned case was not just for our side. In our sense of justice as creatures we don't accept to hurt innocent children, then we cannot give a pass to God on this.

So, here is where I believe we are (you can restate our positions in a different way). What ever I did not try to refute from your argumentation was because I considered that was not essential to destroy my original statement, and so I said to you. If you believe that you have direct rebutals that I have skiped, you can bring them back now that I have summarized my position.

As allways would like to hear from you on this.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

I will ask you again. The first 3 lines of your post on July 28, 2010 5:23 PM are erroneously attributed to me. Please post acknowledging that those lines are not my statements.

JUSTACOMMENT,

If you will look back at our last 4 exchanges you will see a pattern.

I have disagreed with your original premise and have offered extensive argumentation supporting my rebuttal. Each time you respond you largely ignore my argumentation and simply repeat your original premise without presenting any new supportive argument.

Unless you either refute my argumentation or concede the point our conversation on this particular topic cannot proceed productively.

Peace

Hi Rcofield,

“What happened to “Sherlock” and “Watson.” Thought we had a good thing going there. :).”

Nothing has changed on my side.

All I did in my previous post was to tell you why I think that Christianity and Islam, directly or indirectly command they followers violent acts. Hope this doesn't offend you, this is just part of the exchange of ideas.

I know that people react in different ways to a same events. You cite this verse of the Bible: “Vengeance belongs to me: I will recompense” saith the Lord.” My reaction is that who ever said that is a vindictive person that ask you not to take violence against an aggressor because s/he will take care of the dirty work. But I also understand that more likely your reaction is that God ordered humans not to commit vengeance, meaning not to be violent. The conclusion is open to discussion, depending on what one believe is more strong, “do as I say” or “do as I do”.

My contention is that following the example of the divine justice in action has resulted in historic violence committed by Christians.

As before, would like to read your comments.

RCofield

In defining truth, knowledge, and belief, you end up with circular definitions, each referring to the others. How can this be? The meanings of these words would seem to be so obvious, for they seem to represent easilty imaginable concepts. But they don't. If you don't believe me, try it yourself.

"Truth is the quality of being in accordance with facts or with reality."

"Truth is what actually is."

"Reality is a synonym for truth."

"Truth is the perfect perception of existence."

"Truth is existence, unperceived, unmeasured, unnoticed."

"Belief is the conviction or acceptance that something is true."

"All knowledge is belief, a conviction of what is true."

"Knowledge is what we believe to be true. It is the understanding of what has been learned, a body of facts and principles."

RCofield

" ... are you saying that man is driven purely by base instinct devoid of any relationship to God?"

In this line of speculation, I am not saying anything about what drives man, and I am not saying anything about a relationship between man and God. You have read those things into it.

What I am saying is that animals live in a landscape of experience; but the do not wonder; they just experience being.

We live in the same landscape of experience. We walk on the same earth; we drink from the same streams; we see the same sun. But we know we are here, we know we exist, we wonder about this landscape of experience, we wonder what it is, and why we are here.

But we do not wonder these things all of the time, just occasionally, maybe at night, sometimes. When we are not wondering about things beyond the experience of the animals, then we exist ourselves, like animals, not "driven by base instinct," as you would put it, but simply sharing, with animals, the sublime experience of existence upon the earth.

To survive and navigate this landscape of experience, we do not need to know the answers to the many questions that set us to wondering and worrying. We just need to know the difference between safety and danger. We need to know how to get food; we need to know how to secure shelter from the weather, and a safe place to live. We don’t need to know if God exists or not; we don’t need to know if evolution is true or not. When we drive a car, we don’t need to know how it works anymore than a bird knows how its wings work. When we listen to an ipod, we don’t need to know how it works anymore than the animals need to know why rushing water makes musical sounds. And that is how most of us regard the world and everything in it, including all of the manmade things in it.

When a pilot flies a plane, all he needs to know is how the controls work; he does not need to know any more about gravity than any animal in the meadow or forest, like a deer, a fox, or even a bird. All he needs to know of gravity is how to navitgate its effects on the landscape of experience.

JUSTACOMMENT,

What happened to “Sherlock” and “Watson.” Thought we had a good thing going there. :)

“If the creator drowns most of the sentient creatures, you mean that is not our business? Hey, we are the creatures and the creator is not been just with us. S/He/It drowns adult sinners together with innocent children. I will not call that divine justice or absolute love. What is more, we should not be surprised if the creatures commit crimes like crusades and inquisition that are minor in comparison with the one committed by the creator.”

So...applying your logic here to the father/sons analogy I offered, you don't think we should be “surprised” if a son physically inserts himself into areas of discipline that are obviously the sole jurisdiction of his father and that we should then impugn the father for the actions of the son?

Let's carry the analogy into another area of jurisdiction. By your logic we should impugn a sitting judge if, say, a local plumber decides to take a lead pipe and brain an axe-murderer who is on trial and about to be convicted in the courtroom of said judge.

And we are moving ever further away form your original attempt to make a one-to-one equivocation between Islam and Christianity. Again, taking into account the clear teachings of Christ forbidding violence and the jurisdictional distinction between the Creator and the creature, you are trying to make a case that cannot be logically made.

That you are conflating is elementary, my dear Sherlock....No...wait....that “dear” thing only worked the other way around, didn't it? :)

Where ya at on the abortion issue, detective?

Romans 12:19 Never take vengeance into your own hands, my dear friends. Stand back and let God punish if he will. For it is written: “Vengeance belongs to me: I will recompense” saith the Lord.

Peace, brother

Hey Daniel,

Please post acknowledging that the first three lines you attributed to me in your last entry are not mine.

As for your warning, it is duly noted and I appreciate your concern.

Peace

Hi Rcofield (from the old tread),

“I think where I disagree with you may lie in that you are not distinguishing between the Creator (God) and the creature (man).”

I don't think we disagree here. Even if I'm atheist I do clearly understand the difference between what you call Creator and the creature.

“...the point is that Divine judgment of the creature is a jurisdictional issue and belongs exclusively to the Creator.”

If the creator drowns most of the sentient creatures, you mean that is not our business? Hey, we are the creatures and the creator is not been just with us. S/He/It drowns adult sinners together with innocent children. I will not call that divine justice or absolute love. What is more, we should not be surprised if the creatures commit crimes like crusades and inquisition that are minor in comparison with the one committed by the creator.

RCofield,

"If I am a passenger I don't want a pilot who is a relativist when it comes to the effects of the laws of gravity on our airplane."

I agree; we've all seen what happens to gravitationally relativistic pilots - their airplanes fly out into outer space, never to return.

RCofield

You said:

"Knowledge is what we believe to be true. It is the understanding of what has been learned, a body of facts and principles.
If I am a passenger I don't want a pilot who is a relativist when it comes to the effects of the laws of gravity on our airplane. I want an absolutist, a pilot who is so thoroughly convinced of the absolute truth of gravity that he will do everything in his power to keep that sucker in the air between take-off and landing. You smellin' what I'm steppin' in?"

This is a bogus and pretentious argument. Please don't use it in a serious setting. I am not saying this to bust your chops; I am saying it as a warning, to help you in serious discussion, so that you may be taken seriously.

The pilot that you mentioned in your story does not need to know anything about gravity to fly the plane; he just flies the plane; just like a waiter serves the food; just like a truckdriver drives the truck; just like a dress designer designs dresses.

If you are interested in finding out about truth, then read some of these definitons, geven below. They are not any of them, of course, satisfactory, but they are all sincere and good-faith definitions. It just so turns out that truth, knowledge, and belief are difficlut to define:

Truth is the quality of being in accordance with facts or with reality.

Truth is what actually is.

Reality is a synonym for truth

Truth is the perfect perception of existence.

Truth is existence, unperceived, unmeasured, unnoticed.

Belief is the conviction or acceptance that something is true.

All knowledge is therefore belief, a conviction of what is true.

A paradigm is an overall concept accepted by most people of a community."

JSMITH4,

"Regarding the topic of this thread, my position is: if one party to a marriage believes that her religion has the *only truth,* it would be better if she married within that religion and didn't stray."

I concur.

I would be interested in getting your take on my last post to JUSTACOMMENT.

May the Force be with you.

Marriage is often a misunderstood institution. Many Americans see marriage as a religious institution purely and with that being the case we have various religions claiming to have the monopoly on who can marry who. Of course when two people of different religions decide to get married, people from both religions sometimes get offended.

First, I don’t really understand why Chelsea Clinton’s interfaith marriage has anything at all to do with this issue. It seems this has more to do with the Washington Post’s love of celebrity then it has to do with actual interfaith marriage.

You can read the rest of my response to this topic:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m7d28-On-Faith-Interfaith-marriages-secularize-religion

I will be responding to every issue posted in the 'On Faith' section. If you would like to be notified when my new response is up, please subscribe.

JUSTACOMMENT (a.k.a. “Sherlock”)

Watson here.

Sorry, I overlooked your earlier post on this thread. As you have no doubt discovered by now, I did read and respond to your last post on the other thread. What is your take on my father/sons analogy?

Here, you state: “Your statement imply that today there is absolute truth. Does that means that your religion is the only one with the absolute truth or that each religion has its own absolute truth?”

The context of my statement was not necessarily religious. I contend that absolute truth is necessary in every area of our existence. One very simple example could be offered in reference to a flight, say from California to New York.

If I am a passenger I don't want a pilot who is a relativist when it comes to the effects of the laws of gravity on our airplane. I want an absolutist, a pilot who is so thoroughly convinced of the absolute truth of gravity that he will do everything in his power to keep that sucker in the air between take-off and landing. You smellin' what I'm steppin' in?

Any number of examples of the necessity of absolute truths could be offered.

You ask: “Who are those who hold this bias against truth that continue to multiply?”

The rejection of objective, absolute truth has become part of the landscape of the postmodern mindset of Western cultures. These blogs are an undeniable example of what I am talking about. There seems to be an astounding and growing number of people out there who think that truth is a personal construct.

Many seem to have the attitude that whenever they subjectively determine what truth is “for them,” the entire universe will recalibrate to accommodate their construct, no matter how irrational it may be. You have no doubt encountered a few of these individuals yourself. We have somehow lost sight of the fact that an “alternate reality” is the stuff of science fiction.

Truth by definition is absolute and unalterable. And, if something is true, what I believe about it doesn't alter that truth one iota. If truth is not absolute (at least in the minds of most people) the world we live in can get very, very dangerous very quickly.

You state: “My impression is that today different groups honor different truths, and things among groups are not going that well. Absolute truths has been and continues to be the reason (or at least a key ingredient) in big and small wars.”

I would submit that “different truths” is a misnomer. A truth cannot be an "untruth" (falsehood) at the same time it is true. When two truth claims are posited that contradict each other, logical necessity demands that one or the other truth claim is false, and therefore not truth at all. Otherwise, there is only chaos.

What think ye?

Peace, brother

Scofield, my brother or sister

Thank you for your humility. We all need help. I know I do.

My "absolutes" comment was intended to make the point that the declaration of "absolutes" is a very tricky, if not meaningless and self-contradictory, enterprise.

"we are, mostly, all human beings trying to do the best we can" is as *close* to an absolute as I can create.

Regarding the topic of this thread, my position is: if one party to a marriage believes that her religion has the *only truth,* it would be better if she married within that religion and didn't stray.

love
j

RCofield

I am not an expert on philosophy. I have just read a little and thought a little. Therefore, anything that I might say about philosophy, you do not have to take as any kind of accepted theory, because it is not. It is just what I personally think.

JSMITH4,

I am just a dim-witted theist, so I am not sure what you are saying in your last two posts.

As you did not answer my question about the absolutism of your declaration that there ARE no absolute truths, I may need a little help here.

If you could, at the conclusion of each sentence you write, attach either (MO) or (AT). MO will be taken to mean that you are saying the statement is "My Opinion" and AT will be taken as a statement of "Absolute Truth."

Maybe that way I can keep up.

Whaddaya think? :)

Hi Walter, Pam,

I guess our last forum timed out. This is our default forum. Where are we off to next?

safiyah1111,

"The children are generally the biggest losers as they choose to expouse nothing but a very vague notion of what it meant to be what the parents were called before the marriage."

You say losers, I say winners.

And their children may be even bigger winners.

Why would an Atheist weight in on this? Religion is a way of life so how could two completely difference ways of life co-exist within the intimate confines of the structure referred to as family? The truth is they can't. I guess in a world where religion has been reduced to ritual maybe you can but for those who don't feel like this it just isn't going to work. Generally people who subscribe to the latter view just aren't interested in this kind of thing. It is not that it is prosribed so much as they just aren't interested.
As an aside, what happens most of the time is over time the spouses become even more disconnected from their belief system than before the marriage. The children are generally the biggest losers as they choose to expouse nothing but a very vague notion of what it meant to be what the parents were called before the marriage.

"Even if there were, peope of differing religions would no doubt fall in love, have sex, make babies, and have to decide what, if any religion to teach them.
Posted by: lepidopteryx

You know it! I just don't understand all the flapdoodle over adjectives. People get married, all the time, and it's no one's business but theirs. We do not live in a theocracy and we're better off for it.

An absolute statement about God:

God is love.

(except when "he" isn't, as when he is torturing young children with illnesses or tsunamis that the children did nothing to deserve).

(and sorry, Daniel, for mistaking you for Scofield - a LARGE mistake).

Oh Daniel,
you caught my little paradox.

"God" is the "absolute."
It's just that we can't say anything meaningful about "God."
Unless you understand infinity.
Or have memorized Zen.

JSMITH4,

You write: "Of course, there ARE no absolutes."

Are you absolutely sure your statement above is true?

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

You state: "Proclamation of an absolute truth is an arbitrary proclamation. Therefore, it is not absolute, but the opinion of the person making the procalamtion. Attribution of the proclamation (to God) is likewise arbitrary since it is an individual human being that makes this attribution; it is people who tell us what God thinks, and therefore even to appeal to God for absolute truth is ultimately arbitrary."

But...what if God HAS told us what He "thinks" and has given irrefutable attestation that He has done so? Would you view proclamations of absolute truth by God Himself as arbitrary? If so, would not such a view itself be arbitrary?

Of course, there ARE no absolutes.

Let's all be grateful that there is no law (yet--I don't doubt that someone is going to propose it) banning people of different religions/lack of religion from getting married.
Posted by: Skowronek

Even if there were, peope of differing religions would no doubt fall in love, have sex, make babies, and have to decide what, if any religion to teach them.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

I like the nature of you musings, though I would obviously not agree with your conclusions. Nevertheless, these are a good starting point for a conversation. I'll try to not be so abrasive this time around.

You ask: “I wouldn't call this a thesis; it is just common sense. So? what is the problem?”

If you follow the line of argument on that thread (and within the New Atheism) there is a prevailing contention that science has (and will) tell us all we need to know. Many are carrying science to the extreme and embracing logical positivism as an existential worldview. That is utterly antithetical to both logic and Christianity.

You state: “Your comments here about me are a little stalker-like. I believe what I believe, and my religious heritage is what it is, whether you approve of it or not. You may think that my beliefs have anything to do with Christianity, but I can assure you that I was raised in a conservative Christian family, and all that I am now, I owe to that.”

Not questioning or disapproving your religious heritage. Just pointing out the incongruity between your stated faith and your posts. This is very common in christianity today, and I must confess I never have quite understood how this disconnect takes place.

You state: “There must be an intelligent designer because the world seems intelligently designed. This is the thought of an intelligent and self-aware animal, experiencing a narrow landscape.”

What do you mean when you speak of “experiencing a narrow landscape”?

You muse: “What if nothing causes anything to happen? What if there are no laws of nature, no laws of sceince, no nature, no chaos, no randomsness? What if all that exists defines all else that is? What if pure order is behind all our sensations of experience? What if the universe is defined by pure order, without purpose, at least without animal purpose such as we imagine purpose to be?”

There appear to be a number of logical inconsistencies, and even a few disconnects from reality in this line of questioning, but I must confess that may be due to the fact that I have no idea what you are getting at. Even so, they do seem rather odd questions coming from a Methodist scientist. Could you maybe expand on this a little? Sounds very esoteric.

You state: “The purpose that human beings seek is an animal sensation defined by our existence as animals in an animal world. It has nothing to do with God.”

Assuming this is the conclusion you draw from the above line of questioning, are you saying that man is driven purely by base instinct devoid of any relationship to God?

Peace brother.

Let's all be grateful that there is no law (yet--I don't doubt that someone is going to propose it) banning people of different religions/lack of religion from getting married.

SECULAR, my old satanic adversary...:)

You state: “Rcofield, you called me a "Satanic adversary", trust me I have not seen any evidence of the existence of satan just the same as for god. That said you used it in a very pejorative manner. That is ashame.”

You mean I used in in a pejorative sense much the same way you use terms like “you theists” and “bigots” virtually every time you post? Get a skin, man. :)

You state: “Regarding the question from the other blog, I have answered that question regarding your magical friend in the sky.”

No, actually you didn't, and I think you know that. Of course, if there is no such thing as absolute truth you can just make it up as you go along, right? Read the 2 closing paragraphs of my last post over there.

I asked: "is that a fact? Are you trying to make statements of absolute truth here?.......:)"

And you responded: “Yes it is aelf evident fact. But it should read "theiests like you" instead of "You theists"

So you DO believe there are such things as absolute truths?

... I meant to say, attribution to God ...

Proclamation of an absolute truth is an arbitrary proclamation. Therefore, it is not absolute, but the opinion of the person making the procalamtion. Attribution of the proclamation is likewise arbitrary since it is an individual human being that makes this attribution; it is people who tell us what God thinks, and therefore even to appeal to God for absolute truth is ultimately arbitrary.

There must be an intelligent designer because the world seems intelligently designed. This is the thought of an intelligent and self-aware animal, experiencing a narrow landscape.

What if nothing causes anything to happen? What if there are no laws of nature, no laws of sceince, no nature, no chaos, no randomsness? What if all that exists defines all else that is? What if pure order is behind all our sensations of experience? What if the universe is defined by pure order, without purpose, at least without animal purpose such as we imagine purpose to be?

The purpose that human beings seek is an animal sensation defined by our existence as animals in an animal world. It has nothing to do with God.

Rcofield, you called me a "Satanic adversary", trust me I have not seen any evidence of the existence of satan just the same as for god. That said you used it in a very pejorative manner. That is ashame.

Regarding the question from the other blog, I have answered that question regarding your magical friend in the sky.

You asked "is that a fact? Are you trying to make statements of absolute truth here?.......:)" Yes it is aelf evident fact. But it should read "theiests like you" instead of "You theists"

Hi Rcofield,

“A world without absolute truth would be a frightening world indeed, and we just might get to see that kind of world first hand if those who hold this bias against truth continue to multiply.”

Your statement imply that today there is absolute truth. Does that means that your religion is the only one with the absolute truth or that each religion has its own absolute truth?

Who are those who hold this bias against truth that continue to multiply?

My impression is that today different groups honor different truths, and things among groups are not going that well. Absolute truths has been and continues to be the reason (or at least a key ingredient) in big and small wars.

Personal note: the old thread is still open if you want to read my latest post.

In my first marriage,
my wife was an atheist,
and I was an agnostic.

We didn't know which religion NOT to bring the children up in.

The facts of this issue (3x higher divorce rate among intermarryers) argue for postponing marriage until the couple is mature enough to understand what is involved.

Getting married to one of another faith when one intends to be intolerant and absolutist about one's beliefs is idiotic and irrespeonsible.

A person should understand what s/he is getting into, and have clearly laid out with the partner that they are going to celebrate the diversity of their backgrounds rather than have their marriage reenact history's innumerable religious wars.

Rcofield

On the previous thread, I gave up reading your comments to me, because they seemed increasingly hostile. The reason why I am not interested in disucssing evolution with you is because I have already had this discussion with people like you many times before, and it always devolves into a pissing match. My conclusion is that no particular person needs to beleive evolution is true. And if you do not, then that is fine with me.

Your comments here about me are a little stalker-like. I believe what I believe, and my religious heritage is what it is, whether you approve of it or not. You may think that my beliefs have anything to do with Christianity, but I can assure you that I was raised in a conservative Christian family, and all that I am now, I owe to that.

The gist of my comment to Susan was that intolerant people might be happier sticking with their own kind. Do you think that I am wrong to say that?

You also posted this, which I had not read until this evening:

"Guys, let me try to sum up what I am saying. This is my thesis: Science CANNOT answer questions of the ORIGIN of life on this planet, it cannot define for us the MEANING of our existence, it cannot codify MORALITY for us, and it cannot, in any way, give us any insight concerning our ultimate DESTINY."

I wouldn't call this a thesis; it is just common sense. So? what is the problem?

SECULAR,

My old, satanic adversary you....

You state: "The fact is the folks who make absolute truth claims are the ones who are unable to provide adequate evidence for their claims."

And:

"You theists are intransigent in accepting the view point of atheism. The atheists do not have any delusional based belief system."

Is that a fact? Are you trying to make statements of absolute truth here?.......:)

Better think about that one for a minute before you pound out an indignant retort.

....and you STILL did not answer my question I posed to you on the other thread.

Peace brother

RCofield you said "A world without absolute truth would be a frightening world indeed, and we just might get to see that kind of world first hand if those who hold this bias against truth continue to multiply". The fact is the folks who make absolute truth claims are the ones who are unable to provide adequate evidence for their claims.

Your further stats, "But...doesn't your first statement raise your atheistic beliefs to the level of absolute truth, at least for you and the referenced child? And doesn't your atheism rise to the level of religious belief, at least at the points of marriage and child rearing"? You theists are intransigent in accepting the view point of atheism. The atheists do not have any delusional based belief system. But we are always prepared to accept evidence based facts. In other words we are willing to accept if any set of the religious truth claims are backed by evidence.

All these discussions are totally inane, whether you are for it or not. The two persons who are going to be married, will do so no matter whether the bigots approve or not. As long as there is no law that will be promulgated preventing such marriages. In fact I actually propose a law that prevent the spouses having to convert to the other spouse's religion, for at least 5 years after the wedding day. This will prevent less assertive spouse being forced to convert because of an overbearing spouse.

Hi, SUSAN

You write: "But as far as I'm concerned the more people who don't insist on absolute truth claims, the better."

Are you sure that's how you feel? I can think of more than a few situations you might find yourself in where you would certainly want your own absolute truth claims to be accepted. A world without absolute truth would be a frightening world indeed, and we just might get to see that kind of world first hand if those who hold this bias against truth continue to multiply.

You also write: "I could never raise a child with someone who wanted to instill belief in an all-powerful and loving God in his offspring" and then "However, this question is not about marriages between atheists and religious believers."

But...doesn't your first statement raise your atheistic beliefs to the level of absolute truth, at least for you and the referenced child? And doesn't your atheism rise to the level of religious belief, at least at the points of marriage and child rearing?

What am I missing here?

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN,

A Methodist, eh? May I gently remind you of a couple of your posts from just a few weeks ago?

"No Jesus isn't the real thing; it's Mohammed; no, no, that's not right ... it's not Mohammed; it's Bhudda; no! that's not right either ... it's Moses ... it's gotta be Moses ... no, no, that's not it ... no it's, let's see, is it Confuscious? No! It's Gamesh ... is that right ... Thor? Zeus? Lucifer? No it can't be Lucifer ... he's the bad guy ... it says so right in the Apollo Creed ..."

And:

"I don't think that Cal Thomas is very interested in any of this stuff. He has got Jesus, case closed, on every topic, issue and question."

I'm sure John & Charles Wesley and George Whitefield would have been quite tolerant, amused even, at such tolerant statements coming from a one of their parishioners....Do you think?

As a Methodist, I know that one of the things that Methodists pride themselves on is tolerance. Growing up in my small town, the Baptist Church and the Methodist Church were on the same block. The Baptists were always salivating at the chance to proselytize the Heathen Methodists. The Methodists were always thinking up ways to embarrass the Baptists by arrangeing Ecumentical Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving services and daring the Baptists to decline their invitations to participate.

As an adult raised in the Methodist Church, I am suprised at how many people are not only intolerant, but they know they are intolerant, they take pride in their intolerance, and they belittle and make fun of the whole doctrine of religious toleration. I am suprised at how many people do not really believe in the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state.

If intolerance is a core belief held deep in your heart, you are likely to have problems on just about every venture in life, including marriage. For such people, it is best to stick with your own kind.