Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[theCelestrian]

Well, I bounce around in other topics, and other forums... I can't really respond to people shouting at each other in words I don't use. There's certainly no point in me getting into a debate of Bible criticism with an atheist because neither of use accept it as infallible

I understand, but I would suggest that this is what "pretending" and "imagination" is for.   I "pretend something is true" for the sake of the discussion all the time, and I know lots of people do on this BBS also.

Look at Markuzick.... total atheist but he often speaks from the assumption god exists when trying to make some points, particularly about man's "proper morality."

[ladyattis]

The mind is what allows us to have hope in the future, a belief in something real, not unreal. That kind of hope I can take to the bank, faith I cannot.

-- Brede

Semantics.

Everything is semantics. By virtue of the fact that everything that is defined comes from the integration of a percept into a concept. To integrate a concept, you have to know at least two different units from which you can identify the concept by, and to form its definition. Therefore, knowledge is based on semantics, thus as corollary all propositions are  about semantics.  Btw, we call that QED.

* Brede draws the square.

[ ]

-- Brede

[The Muslim Agorist]

The mind is what allows us to have hope in the future, a belief in something real, not unreal. That kind of hope I can take to the bank, faith I cannot.

-- Brede

Semantics.

Everything is semantics. By virtue of the fact that everything that is defined comes from the integration of a percept into a concept. To integrate a concept, you have to know at least two different units from which you can identify the concept by, and to form its definition. Therefore, knowledge is based on semantics, thus as corollary all propositions are  about semantics.  Btw, we call that QED.

* Brede draws the square.

[ ]

-- Brede

I'm feeling a little inundated, in that I know you are refering to concepts with huge information payloads that I don't have... but on the surface I think I agree.

But I believe semantics are a tool for integrating concept in dialog, not integral to a concept in and of itself. To the individual, for example AbsurdParadox's conception of god, the concept exists without definition or identification... it's only when he tries to convey the concept that the failing semantics reveals his lack of clarity... which is not a failure, but a work in progress.

[ChristianAnarchist]

My desire is not to ridicule you, but I am not obligated to respect the Bible or belief in it.  If you find that I believe in something you consider to be obviously non-factual and immoral, you are welcome to point it out to me. 

I'm sure there are all kinds of "non-factual" things (at least in the scientific sense) that you "believe" in.  How about "love", "beauty", "admiration" (add many others here)?

None of these are "scientific" nor can their existence be "proven", yet I bet you never even question their "existence"...

[markuzick]

Well, I bounce around in other topics, and other forums... I can't really respond to people shouting at each other in words I don't use. There's certainly no point in me getting into a debate of Bible criticism with an atheist because neither of use accept it as infallible

I understand, but I would suggest that this is what "pretending" and "imagination" is for.   I "pretend something is true" for the sake of the discussion all the time, and I know lots of people do on this BBS also.

Look at Markuzick.... total atheist but he often speaks from the assumption god exists when trying to make some points, particularly about man's "proper morality."

Only to make the point that Man's proper morality is inherent to his nature, regardless of his origin, and also to make the corollary point that a loving God would not command Man to follow a morality that was in conflict with his God given nature. A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.

[The Muslim Agorist]

Only to make the point that Man's proper morality is inherent to his nature, regardless of his origin, and also to make the corollary point that a loving God would not command Man to follow a morality that was in conflict with his God given nature.

I totally agree with this, and I think that's the tradition Islamic stance on morality, nature, and God's command.

A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself

Clearly he does, because we do. If didn't allow it, we wouldn't be able to do that. In fact the Quran commands this, and forbids blind acceptance, instructing us over and over to reflect. Although it's posed as a question, "Do you not reflect?"

Nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.

I'm not sure I accept this as a purpose for living, but a function of nature which preserves life. If God exists, and he interferes, it can only be to return man to his purpose for living. Further, If God exists, and created man, the purpose of living in His to define not ours. Although we are free, as you said, to reject that purpose, and create our own.

I don't accept the word "evil" to describe man's instinctive drive stuff. Original sin is a uniqly Christian concept (as far as I know). Muslims believe in something called "naffs" the lower soul, which is not evil, it just desires the pleasure and happiness of this world, which is good, in fact neccassary for the preservation of life, which is one purpose. But they also believe in the "Ruh" the higher soul, whose purpose is to seek and know God.

[The Muslim Agorist]

Look at Markuzick.... total atheist but he often speaks from the assumption god exists when trying to make some points.

Markuzick,
I hope you don't mind me argueing with this premise, at least with you. I assumed this was true.

[BKO]

I find myself in complete agreement with Ladyattis, and instead of making my own comments, I will just acknowledge what she said. I am no way near as well spoken, of course...and I am certainly rough around the edges, and I apologize for that.

[markuzick]

Only to make the point that Man's proper morality is inherent to his nature, regardless of his origin, and also to make the corollary point that a loving God would not command Man to follow a morality that was in conflict with his God given nature.

I totally agree with this, and I think that's the tradition Islamic stance on morality, nature, and God's command.

A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself

Clearly he does, because we do. If didn't allow it, we wouldn't be able to do that. In fact the Quran commands this, and forbids blind acceptance, instructing us over and over to reflect. Although it's posed as a question, "Do you not reflect?"

Nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.

I'm not sure I accept this as a purpose for living, but a function of nature which preserves life. If God exists, and he interferes, it can only be to return man to his purpose for living. Further, If God exists, and created man, the purpose of living in His to define not ours. Although we are free, as you said, to reject that purpose, and create our own.

If God created this "function of nature which preserves life" which I refer to as Man's nature and which gives him as a reward for successful use of his faculties, primarily Man's capacity for rational and purposeful thought and deed, pleasure, satisfaction, relief from pain and sadness, joy, admiration and love, aesthetic inspiration and happiness, then these "spiritual" rewards for achievement must be Man's purpose for living. To deny this purpose would be to put morality into conflict with Man's God given nature.

I don't accept the word "evil" to describe man's instinctive drive stuff. Original sin is a uniqly Christian concept (as far as I know). Muslims believe in something called "naffs" the lower soul, which is not evil, it just desires the pleasure and happiness of this world, which is good, in fact neccassary for the preservation of life, which is one purpose. But they also believe in the "Ruh" the higher soul, whose purpose is to seek and know God.

I know very little where the Bible is concerned, so please excuse me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that the concept of original sin started with the Jews, in their book of Genesis and its story about Adam and Eve and the doctrine that all descendents of Adam are cursed by God with original sin.

[dharveymi]

Only to make the point that Man's proper morality is inherent to his nature, regardless of his origin, and also to make the corollary point that a loving God would not command Man to follow a morality that was in conflict with his God given nature. A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.

The only concept I recognize in here is God.  Who said that the nature we have is a God given nature.  Doesn't sin affect a person's nature.  Every time a person does anything his character is changed; if he does good, it's changed for the good; if he does bad, it's changed towards evil.  Why do you then blame (credit) God with man's nature.

I also like your interpretation of man's purpose for living.  If that was my purpose for living, I would seriously consider suicide.

[dharveymi]

I find myself in complete agreement with Ladyattis, and instead of making my own comments, I will just acknowledge what she said. I am no way near as well spoken, of course...and I am certainly rough around the edges, and I apologize for that.

You were not apologizing to me.  No way!

But, if you were, right back at you.

[dharveymi]

The mind is what allows us to have hope in the future, a belief in something real, not unreal. That kind of hope I can take to the bank, faith I cannot.

-- Brede

Semantics.

Everything is semantics. By virtue of the fact that everything that is defined comes from the integration of a percept into a concept. To integrate a concept, you have to know at least two different units from which you can identify the concept by, and to form its definition. Therefore, knowledge is based on semantics, thus as corollary all propositions are  about semantics.  Btw, we call that QED.

* Brede draws the square.

[ ]

-- Brede

Big words, difficult concepts, head spinning.  Faith is based in the real not the unreal.  What is the unreal?  Is it like the undead, no that's another thread.

Seriously, the real problem you have with people like me is that you insist that nothing outside of the realm of observability, repeatability, testability, etc. is real.  This is demonstrably foolish, besides religion, history doesn't exist in this realm.  We don't exist in this realm, and certainly any sufficiently powerful being would not exist in this realm.  Please get over your bad self.

[markuzick]

Only to make the point that Man's proper morality is inherent to his nature, regardless of his origin, and also to make the corollary point that a loving God would not command Man to follow a morality that was in conflict with his God given nature. A loving God would respect his creation by allowing Man to make mistakes and discover morality for himself nor would he interfere with, thereby destroying, Man's purpose for living, which is the pleasure and happiness he derives from using his God given faculties to overcome evil in his instinctive drive toward safety, survival and prosperity.

The only concept I recognize in here is God.  Who said that the nature we have is a God given nature.  Doesn't sin affect a person's nature.  Every time a person does anything his character is changed; if he does good, it's changed for the good; if he does bad, it's changed towards evil.  Why do you then blame (credit) God with man's nature.

If you're saying that Man's character is changed by his deeds, then that itself would be one of the characteristics of Man's God given nature.

I also like your interpretation of man's purpose for living.  If that was my purpose for living, I would seriously consider suicide.

Then what is your purpose for living, if not the spiritual rewards inherent to the exercise of your God given faculties?

[dharveymi]

My desire is not to ridicule you, but I am not obligated to respect the Bible or belief in it.  If you find that I believe in something you consider to be obviously non-factual and immoral, you are welcome to point it out to me. 

Really! Hard to imagine, all this has been inadvertent. 

If I do, I would certainly approach you with much more respect than I have been afforded.  That's all I'm saying.  Is it possible, that maybe I have a unique perspective, or barring that that people in general are due a little respect even if their beliefs are silly.

Have I tried to ram my beliefs down anyone's throat?  Have I threatened anyone with violence?  Why is every other post about how silly, irrational, stupid, or immoral I am because I claim to be a Christian?

[dharveymi]

Wow, this got real nasty real fast.

Aren't we all "pro-liberty" people here, regardless of "faith" or "skepticism?" 

Harvey: You believe in the bible and have faith in the existence of God.

In case you hadn't noticed, I was responding to the usual Christians are stupid, irrational, immoral, and crazy crap, that passes for civil discourse on this thread.