Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[dharveymi]

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.

That's like saying, I gave my son a tattoo, because half of the genes in his skin are from me.  Ridiculous.

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

This is what you actually said:

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.

A loving God desires to be with His creation, to enjoy their company.  Sin prevents this.  Why would a loving God leave his friends in the dark?  What would be loving about leaving your friends to fend for themselves?

You might notice I didn't answer your question.  I would have to quote scripture.  I know what that does to people's blood pressure.

[ladyattis]

Faith is based in the real not the unreal.

So faith that a child has that Santa Claus will give them presents if they're good, or the faith of an old man wanting to live ever after in some paradise is not unreal? Unreal means that which is not real, or specifically, things not of Nature or that contradict all percepts and concepts therein.

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.

Prove that claim by making a logic proof where God is non-contradictory to the nature of reality, such that God cannot trump reality. If you can't, will you obey the mandate of reason and retract all your falsehoods as stated prior?

-- Brede

[dharveymi]

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.

How polite!  Give this man a gold star!  Are you a man?  Doesn't matter. ...  Well, I'm sure it matters you and your family.

Not to be narrow minded, but, original sin (a phrase which does not appear in the Bible, along with "the rapture", "Trinity", and "Sunday") originated with the Catholic church.  As evidence for it some people use Rom 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"  Although this text does suggest the universal nature of sin, it does not suggest that it is original, or continual.  As a matter of fact, notice, "have sinned", past tense.  It may imply that there are those that have abandoned sin.  Considering the positive injuction attributed by the author of Matthew to Christ, Mat 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," this would be logical.  For what would be the purpose of commanding one to do the impossible?

[dharveymi]

So faith that a child has that Santa Claus will give them presents if they're good, or the faith of an old man wanting to live ever after in some paradise is not unreal? Unreal means that which is not real, or specifically, things not of Nature or that contradict all percepts and concepts therein.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, or life after death before the resurrection, but for the sake of argument:

There is evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, people make movies about him, the weather man talks about him, there are stories and images of him all over, people dress up like him.  Are these things unreal?  Is the joy of opening presents real?  There is evidence for Santa Claus' existence.  It's not great evidence, and many people have recanted their recollections, but there is still evidence.  I'm still waiting on the proof.

There is evidence for life after death.  There are the bright light, near death accounts.  There are traditions in every culture.  All of these things are real.  They are evidence for the things to which the testify.  They are not proof, but to say they are not evidence is the worst kind of closed-mindedness (is that a word?)

Do you presume to know all the precepts and concepts of nature.  Aren't physicists still working on a unified field theory?  Has everything been discovered?  Is there no unknown?  Can there not be a paradigm shift?  Have I called you a fundamentalist yet?  It's an oversight if I haven't.

Prove that claim by making a logic proof where God is non-contradictory to the nature of reality, such that God cannot trump reality. If you can't, will you obey the mandate of reason and retract all your falsehoods as stated prior?

-- Brede

Now this one is a stumper?  I really have no idea what you are talking about.  I've ciphered and ciphered, and I'm coming up empty.  It looks like a challenge of some kind, but nope!  I really can't figure it.

[ladyattis]

There is evidence for the existence of Santa Claus, people make movies about him, the weather man talks about him, there are stories and images of him all over, people dress up like him.  Are these things unreal?

They contradict Nature, therefore not evidence.

There is evidence for life after death.  There are the bright light, near death accounts.  There are traditions in every culture.  All of these things are real.  They are evidence for the things to which the testify.  They are not proof, but to say they are not evidence is the worst kind of closed-mindedness (is that a word?)

Actually this was refuted years ago, almost a decade ago to be honest, a US Airforce gravity force testing station noticed that at least 20% of its pilots would pass out and report after waking up that they had the same kind of experiences such as the lighted tunnel, the visitation of long dead relatives, and the feeling of bless/euphoria. So that means this argument is shot down. If you don't like, too bad. Science wins, faith loses. :3

Do you presume to know all the precepts and concepts of nature.

Knowing all does not imply knowing enough. We know enough via the laws of identity, causality, and non-contradiction [and the excluded middle]. So, we don't need to know the particular location of every atom, or every entity in Nature to know whether God is possible or not. If God violates any of the laws I've described, then God is not possible: period and end of story, do not pass go, do not collect two hundred FRNs, et. al. So, either you prove that the laws I've described are wrong, or yield. There are no other options on the table. No fanciful nether realms. No rabbit holes to dive into. And no contradictions will be accepted.

Now this one is a stumper?  I really have no idea what you are talking about.  I've ciphered and ciphered, and I'm coming up empty.  It looks like a challenge of some kind, but nope!  I really can't figure it.

Then you lose, yield.

-- Brede

[dharveymi]

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.

Did you notice that it rhymed?

[dharveymi]

They contradict Nature, therefore not evidence.

Owe!  Big bad Nature!  Can't contradict nature!
I'll take two natures and raise you one supreme being.

US Airforce gravity force testing station... Science wins, faith loses. :3

Yeah, isn't the US Airforce a branch of the US Government?  The Government never lies. Right!  Faith: 1, Government: 0.

All that monopoly stuff.

All of these presume a naturalistic epistemology, which I don't accept, and you shouldn't either.  Demonstrably you cannot always trust your senses.

Then you lose, yield.

I will not yield.  If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve; if assassinated, I will not die.

[ladyattis]

Owe!  Big bad Nature!  Can't contradict nature! I'll take two natures and raise you one supreme being.

Your behaviour proves my point.

Yeah, isn't the US Airforce a branch of the US Government?  The Government never lies. Right!  Faith: 1, Government: 0.

Prove that they're lying. If you're a paranoid SOB, you have the research by psychologists in which they used rare earth magnets to induce states of euphoria in the frontal lobes, which were similar to NDEs and alien abductions. So, that means, either you falsify it, or you get ignored for your acts of incredulity.

All of these presume a naturalistic epistemology, which I don't accept, and you shouldn't either.  Demonstrably you cannot always trust your senses.

Try reading Kelley's Evidence of the Senses. And J.J. Gibson's paper about Visual Perception of animals. If you don't accept it, too bad, but the senses are valid, even in optical illusions, because the senses are not what makes concepts, it is the mind that does that.

I will not yield.

Then you get ignored, enjoy your AIDS.

-- Brede

[dharveymi]

Then you get ignored, enjoy your AIDS.

This is my point.  If I don't agree with you.. well, I'm not sure what, some vague reference to a communicable disease.  Is this a threat?  Are you threatening me?

I'm just trying to lighten the conversation a little.  Are you really so blind that you can't recognize the logic behind what I am saying?  I said I didn't believe in life after death or Santa Claus.  All I'm saying is that there is evidence.  You may not like it, I may not accept the methods you use to invalidate it.  Can't you recognize that at the heart of each of your arguments is the assumption that God doesn't exist.  Don't you see that anything that threatens this precious idea, must be attacked with all the venom of a women scorned? (just an expression.)  Don't you recognize this is the conclusion that comes before every argument you make?  I'm not trying to prove that God exists, I really couldn't care less.  But, if He does exists, and He's like I think He is, I want to be with Him.  That's all.  I'm not trying to ram it down your throat.

P.S.  I question the methodology of the two studies you mentioned.  To address the real issue, they would have to show that the experience of test subjects was qualitatively different from that of the control group.  Oh, but wait, there was no control group...  Just kidding, didn't read them at all.  Doesn't really interest me.  I don't see what they could show besides the obvious, and I'm sure they are irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, but then you probably knew that, you just like name dropping.

[markuzick]

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.

That's like saying, I gave my son a tattoo, because half of the genes in his skin are from me.

How is that? Can you explain your analogy?

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

This is what you actually said:

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.

A loving God desires to be with His creation, to enjoy their company.  Sin prevents this.  Why would a loving God leave his friends in the dark?  What would be loving about leaving your friends to fend for themselves?

If God created Man, then the only sin would be for men to damn existence and their gift of life from God, by choosing to believe that nature of God's universe and the God given nature of Man was evil and then acting upon that destructive and ungrateful premise.

If God created Man, he did not leave Man alone in the dark. He gave Man eyes to see and a mind to think. He gave Man a spiritual capacity for pleasure, joy and happiness to be made more meaningful by pain, sorrow, guilt and fear. All these are the tools and guideposts to find our way through the darkness of confusion toward the light of wisdom.

You might notice I didn't answer your question.  I would have to quote scripture.  I know what that does to people's blood pressure.

If you understand scripture, then you can tell me, in your own words, the purpose of your life.

[markuzick]

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 descendants of Adam are cursed by God with original sin.

How polite!  Give this man a gold star!  Are you a man?  Doesn't matter. ...  Well, I'm sure it matters you and your family.

What does this mean? Are you implying that it's unmanly to be polite?

Not to be narrow minded, but, original sin (a phrase which does not appear in the Bible, along with "the rapture", "Trinity", and "Sunday") originated with the Catholic church.  As evidence for it some people use Rom 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"  Although this text does suggest the universal nature of sin, it does not suggest that it is original, or continual.  As a matter of fact, notice, "have sinned", past tense.  It may imply that there are those that have abandoned sin.  Considering the positive injuction attributed by the author of Matthew to Christ, Mat 5:48, "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect," this would be logical.  For what would be the purpose of commanding one to do the impossible?

I checked Wikipdia and found this:

Original sin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


According to Christian tradition, original sin is the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born (Psalm 51:5). Original sin is also called hereditary sin, birth sin, or person sin. Used with the definite article ("the original sin"), it refers to the first sin, committed when Adam and Eve succumbed to the serpent's temptation. This Biblical story of original sin is the sign and seed of future evil choices and effects for the whole human race. Christians usually refer to this first sin as "the Fall". Original sin is distinguished from actual sin as cause and effect: "a bad tree bears bad fruit" (Matthew 7:17, NIV). Original sin is not "personal" (in the modern sense of this word)—in that it is not the consequence of personal choice or personal failure to act—but nevertheless it is "personal" in the sense that every individual person is personally subject to the effects of original sin.

Jews do not believe in "original sin," but it is a key teaching for most Christians. In line with the Hebrew Tradition, contemporary Christian theologian Matthew Fox's doctrine of "original blessing" is sometimes used in contrast to original sin so as to recall, on the other hand, the many blessings of Creation with which God blesses the human race. For Christians, atonement for original sin (and actual sin) requires the redemption of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. Subsequently, many Christians require baptism either to wash away this sin or to make a public and symbolic representation of one's redemption. Some churches, such as the Unity Church, regard the concept as blasphemy, as they believe the concept of a perfect creator consistently creating a flawed creation implies an imperfect God.

By analogy the term is used in fields other than religion to indicate a pervading inherent flaw.

[dharveymi]

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.

That's like saying, I gave my son a tattoo, because half of the genes in his skin are from me.

How is that? Can you explain your analogy?

Sure...  I didn't choose for my son to have a tatoo, so I am not responsible for his appearance.  In the same way, God did not make our choices for us so he is not responsible for our nature.  If we had made the choices he intended, we would have the nature that he intended.

If God created Man, then the only sin would be for men to damn existence and their gift of life from God, by choosing to believe that nature of God's universe and the God given nature of Man was evil and then acting upon that destructive and ungrateful premise.

You seem to deny the change brought on by sin.  Although God created the universe and man, he endowed all beings with free will.  The universe, our earth, and man, although created by God, have been marred by sin.  They are not as He intended.    Because God is too holy to behold sin, he has been forced to withdraw Himself from us, or we would be destroyed by His presence.  The problem with this is that without God to sustain us, everything dies.  He wants very much to be reunited with us, but he values our freedom even more.  He has given us the way to overcome sin, and be reunited with Him, but few choose this way.

So, what is sin, and why is it so bad?  Sin is the transgression of the law?  What is the law?  Love for God and man.  So why should we love God?  Because He first loved us.  How do I know he loves me?  He was willing to give up the one thing that was most precious to Him, the one thing he couldn't replace, His only born Son?  So, why couldn't He replace Him?  He wasn't created.  If Jesus wasn't created, how did he come to be?  He was born before time.  Who was His Mother?  He had none, he came from the bosom of His Father.  Why should I love my fellow man?  Because God loves them.  So why is this the law?  Because this the way we were created, this is our purpose.  To fear (love, respect) God, and give glory to him (do things that are true to His character.)  It's like the laws of motion, it's the way that bodies in motion are supposed to behave.

If God created Man, he did not leave Man alone in the dark. He gave Man eyes to see and a mind to think. He gave Man a spiritual capacity for pleasure, joy and happiness to be made more meaningful by pain, sorrow, guilt and fear. All these are the tools and guideposts to find our way through the darkness of confusion toward the light of wisdom.

God is not the author of pain, sorrow, guilt, fear, darkness or confusion, anymore than the maker of a gun is the author of school shootings.

If you understand scripture, then you can tell me, in your own words, the purpose of your life.

Couldn't help myself, my words in parenthesis.

[Rillion]

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

Maybe, but I don't think very likely.  Because, see, everything you've been saying I have already heard at least 100 times before.  I know you want to think that you've got some new innovative perspective on Christianity, but honestly I've talked to people saying similar things probably more than I've talked to so-called "normal" Christians.  It's what happens when people seriously try to reconcile their Christian beliefs with reality-- I commend you for actually trying to do so, since many people can't be bothered.   Oftentimes the Christians you find on the web are the more thoughtful ones, because if they're actually interested in their faith enough to want to talk about it in some forum or some chat room, they are at least engaging their own beliefs and taking part in dialogs where they may be challenged. 

or barring that that people in general are due a little respect even if their beliefs are silly.

I don't recall calling you names or hurling abuse at you.  I respect you as a human being, but there's no reason for me to respect your beliefs. 

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?

It's not because you claim to be a Christian.  It's because, like Gene in many ways, you've been ducking and dodging honest questions and challenges (I'm not talking about Brokor, he's plainly been being a dick), and people don't have a lot of tolerance for that sort of thing.  We were doing okay talking about morality, but when it comes to the subject of your own belief in God and beliefs about God, you don't seem willing to say "I believe in God and believe that he is a certain kind of being but don't have any reason to do so which I can rationally justify," which is what it boils down to. 

I honestly don't have a problem with a theist who acknowledges frankly that their theism is not justified, and they "just have faith."   It's when they try to argue that it is, or argue that I have the same kind of beliefs but don't acknowledge it, or-- this is a great one-- that I was never really a Christian because I stopped being one, or that non-theists are morally bankrupt, or that people who reject the god in the Bible haven't read the Bible properly-- that I tend to get annoyed. 

[markuzick]

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.

That's like saying, I gave my son a tattoo, because half of the genes in his skin are from me.

How is that? Can you explain your analogy?

Sure...  I didn't choose for my son to have a tatoo, so I am not responsible for his appearance.  In the same way, God did not make our choices for us so he is not responsible for our nature.  If we had made the choices he intended, we would have the nature that he intended.

If God created Man, then he created a being whose nature it is to :

*have free will.
*develop his own character.
*choose his own values and form a moral code.
*experience spiritual reward and punishment from the development and exercise of his mental and physical faculties.

If God created Man with inherent characteristics that we call Man's nature, integral to that nature is free will and so what men do with this gift is not God's responsibility.

If God created Man, then the only sin would be for men to damn existence and their gift of life from God, by choosing to believe that nature of God's universe and the God given nature of Man was evil and then acting upon that destructive and ungrateful premise.

You seem to deny the change brought on by sin.  Although God created the universe and man, he endowed all beings with free will.  The universe, our earth, and man, although created by God, have been marred by sin.  They are not as He intended.    Because God is too holy to behold sin, he has been forced to withdraw Himself from us, or we would be destroyed by His presence.  The problem with this is that without God to sustain us, everything dies.  He wants very much to be reunited with us, but he values our freedom even more.  He has given us the way to overcome sin, and be reunited with Him, but few choose this way.

If God created Man, then, the change brought on by sin happens when men disrespect or abuse God's gift to them. The way to overcome sin and be reunited with God is to live by the morality that is in accordance with Man's God given nature, starting with self love, which then overflows into love for one's fellow man to the extent that we find in him a reflexion of what we esteem in ourselves.

So, what is sin, and why is it so bad?  Sin is the transgression of the law?  What is the law?  Love for God and man.  So why should we love God?  Because He first loved us.  How do I know he loves me?  He was willing to give up the one thing that was most precious to Him, the one thing he couldn't replace, His only born Son?  So, why couldn't He replace Him?  He wasn't created.  If Jesus wasn't created, how did he come to be?  He was born before time.  Who was His Mother?  He had none, he came from the bosom of His Father.  Why should I love my fellow man?  Because God loves them.  So why is this the law?  Because this the way we were created, this is our purpose.  To fear (love, respect) God, and give glory to him (do things that are true to His character.)  It's like the laws of motion, it's the way that bodies in motion are supposed to behave.

Since a loving God would not command us to follow a law that was contrary to our nature, then, as you said above, our purpose is to be found in "the way we were created". I.e., God's law is implied in our God given nature.

If God created Man, he did not leave Man alone in the dark. He gave Man eyes to see and a mind to think. He gave Man a spiritual capacity for pleasure, joy and happiness to be made more meaningful by pain, sorrow, guilt and fear. All these are the tools and guideposts to find our way through the darkness of confusion toward the light of wisdom.

God is not the author of pain, sorrow, guilt, fear, darkness or confusion, anymore than the maker of a gun is the author of school shootings.

As I said, they are a necessary part of the tools and guideposts that would be provided by a loving God to help us to stay on the right path.

[ChristianAnarchist]

US Airforce gravity force testing station... Science wins, faith loses. :3

Yeah, isn't the US Airforce a branch of the US Government?  The Government never lies. Right!  Faith: 1, Government: 0.

Actually, dharvey wins.  All you "non-faith" types keep talking about "government" and "US Airforce" etc, as if they actually exist.  The are FICTIONS.  They cannot be proved to exist.  Only faith in them causes people to THINK they exist.  There is no "government".  There is no "US Airforce"...

I notice, Mr. Dharvey, that your ridiculous fiction "karma" has been taking a hit lately.  It's because you have rattled the atheists and homosexuals on this board.  And you've done it by not even calling them names or being unreasonable in your assumptions and arguments.  All you've done is challenge their preconceived beliefs...