Just out of curiousity...

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Outside of Christ, Ghandi died and went to hell.

You say that both Ghandi and Jesus Christ were Good, moral, and Just men. However Jesus Christ claimed He was indeed God incarnate. Can He state this and still be a Good Moral Teacher?

Secondly you mistake Christ's Humility for lack, rather it was and is Strength.

Peace,

Dave

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

YI,

P.S. Your rationale about Ghandi is limited to your vision.

Ghandi is Good based upon what measure of Righteousness?

Peace,

Dave

[Joshua-777]

Joe, you seem like you have some sincerity in what you are trying to say. I don't mean this to be offensive but it seems like your argument is a bit jumbled and relying on the idea that jesus is not only flawless but that people are incapable of good without him.

Well you have shown this by example. Now, if morality is based on the indivitual heart, then that means, that morality can be bent and twisted, so there for if ones moral standard murder, or adultery is ok, then by that ones moral standard is it made right? Now, lets look at morality in General, Jesus is the way to morality, not only on a social level, but he edifies the heart. You do not know Jesus, so you have no clue what it means to be refined.

Ok, you also seem to think it's my pride that keeps me from agreeing with you. So I'm going to leave you with one simple argument. Assuming that he never changed is public belief in hinduism (in other words, he never accepted Jesus) before he died, where do you think Ghandi went after he died? Is it possible in your understanding of christ that his sins were forgiven? Is his case or any case an acception to the rule of belief before salvation?

I honestly think Ghandi was cast into outer darkness, if he didn't accept the Lord, It is possible in my understanding that he was forgiven if he accepted Jesus in his heart, I don;t concider Ghandi an acception to the rule, God is God, he doesn't change, he provided one way to heaven, Not 2 not 3 , not a thousand, just one.

The reason that I ask about Ghandi is that in my opinion he was a wiser man and a far greater, more rightuous martyr than Jesus. Jesus Let himself die so he could be worshiped, but Ghandi put his life on the line with extreme humility to save many peoples who were not his own from genocide. Even if you disagree with that comparison, do some research on Ghandi, and tell me that you still think God hath smiten him for his insolence and disbelief in Jesus. At least, if you really did make it clear to me that you would claim such a thing, then I can rest easy thinking that you are just crazy and that no ounce of sincerety on this subject really exists in you.

Define righteous in your own words? and more of a righteous martyr then Jesus? well if you knew jesus then you would change your opinion, Jesus didn't let himself die so he can be worshiped, he let himself die to prepare the way for our salvation, and also fulfilled countless prophecies about how he died. Now, whats more righteous? preparing the way for salvation, or putting your life on the line to save many? it comes down to save many, or save all eternaly. I woul dhave to say, saved all eternaly was more righteous, and Honestly we do not go to heaven by our own works, cause God has given us all over to disobedience, so he may have mercy on all, and bring life to all who accept it. Now as far as Ghandi's religion,

Now your perception is very limited to your understanding, You see Jesus as a historical figure, I see Jesus work in my life every day, and he still strongly is just as a active today as he was, Now, Ghandi isn't in the same realm of Jesus, Now, what you don't understand, Jesus didn't die on the cross to be worshiped, he died on the cross to set us free. Look at this passage

This was written 700 years before Jesus walked the earth, and it is an extreemly accurate prophecy.

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our report?

And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,

And as a root out of dry ground.

He has no form or comeliness;

And when we see Him,

There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

3 He is despised and rejected by men,

A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.

And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;

He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

4 Surely He has borne our griefs

And carried our sorrows;

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,

Smitten by God, and afflicted.

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,

He was bruised for our iniquities;

The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,

And by His stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray;

We have turned, every one, to his own way;

And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,

Yet He opened not His mouth;

He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,

And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,

So He opened not His mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,

And who will declare His generation?

For He was cut off from the land of the living;

For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

9 And they made His grave with the wicked

[cjrose]

Joe, you seem like you have some sincerity in what you are trying to say. I don't mean this to be offensive but it seems like your argument is a bit jumbled and relying on the idea that jesus is not only flawless but that people are incapable of good without him.

Well you have shown this by example. Now, if morality is based on the indivitual heart, then that means, that morality can be bent and twisted, so there for if ones moral standard murder, or adultery is ok, then by that ones moral standard is it made right? Now, lets look at morality in General, Jesus is the way to morality, not only on a social level, but he edifies the heart. You do not know Jesus, so you have no clue what it means to be refined.

Ok, you also seem to think it's my pride that keeps me from agreeing with you. So I'm going to leave you with one simple argument. Assuming that he never changed is public belief in hinduism (in other words, he never accepted Jesus) before he died, where do you think Ghandi went after he died? Is it possible in your understanding of christ that his sins were forgiven? Is his case or any case an acception to the rule of belief before salvation?

I honestly think Ghandi was cast into outer darkness, if he didn't accept the Lord, It is possible in my understanding that he was forgiven if he accepted Jesus in his heart, I don;t concider Ghandi an acception to the rule, God is God, he doesn't change, he provided one way to heaven, Not 2 not 3 , not a thousand, just one.

The reason that I ask about Ghandi is that in my opinion he was a wiser man and a far greater, more rightuous martyr than Jesus. Jesus Let himself die so he could be worshiped, but Ghandi put his life on the line with extreme humility to save many peoples who were not his own from genocide. Even if you disagree with that comparison, do some research on Ghandi, and tell me that you still think God hath smiten him for his insolence and disbelief in Jesus. At least, if you really did make it clear to me that you would claim such a thing, then I can rest easy thinking that you are just crazy and that no ounce of sincerety on this subject really exists in you.

Define righteous in your own words? and more of a righteous martyr then Jesus? well if you knew jesus then you would change your opinion, Jesus didn't let himself die so he can be worshiped, he let himself die to prepare the way for our salvation, and also fulfilled countless prophecies about how he died. Now, whats more righteous? preparing the way for salvation, or putting your life on the line to save many? it comes down to save many, or save all eternaly. I woul dhave to say, saved all eternaly was more righteous, and Honestly we do not go to heaven by our own works, cause God has given us all over to disobedience, so he may have mercy on all, and bring life to all who accept it. Now as far as Ghandi's religion,

Now your perception is very limited to your understanding, You see Jesus as a historical figure, I see Jesus work in my life every day, and he still strongly is just as a active today as he was, Now, Ghandi isn't in the same realm of Jesus, Now, what you don't understand, Jesus didn't die on the cross to be worshiped, he died on the cross to set us free. Look at this passage

This was written 700 years before Jesus walked the earth, and it is an extreemly accurate prophecy.

Isaiah 53

1 Who has believed our report?

And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,

And as a root out of dry ground.

He has no form or comeliness;

And when we see Him,

There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

3 He is despised and rejected by men,

A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.

And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;

He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

4 Surely He has borne our griefs

And carried our sorrows;

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,

Smitten by God, and afflicted.

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,

He was bruised for our iniquities;

The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,

And by His stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray;

We have turned, every one, to his own way;

And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,

Yet He opened not His mouth;

He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,

And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,

So He opened not His mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,

And who will declare His generation?

For He was cut off from the land of the living;

For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

9 And they made His grave with the wicked

[MorningGlory]

[Kabowd]

What's you're final appeal going to be based on? Pride, Ego, Fear, Logic, Reason? Is the bible true to you because it speaks truth or because whatever the bible says to you must be true? Are you in any way ready to accept it if you are incorrect?

Ultimately, my belief in the Bible comes down to many things. However, one of the major portions of the groundwork was laid by logic and reasoning - both to be determined not just by mathematical propositions and historical evidence (or under naturalistic terms), but also philosophically accurate (i.e. it functions properly in the modern world, explains the condition of man adequately, etc.).

Also, I'm always ready to accept it. The only reason I am able to defend my faith is because it has been challenged so many times. I have sought to prove it wrong, and have never been able to.

Cool, now we have some definitions here. Ok, so faith by your opinion must have reason or else it is meaningless then, correct? Try to bear in mind that I am disproving your religion not because it has people with faith and little reason believing in it, but rather because the christian god requires this faith before he would judge you based on your moral standing. So the christian God finds faith without proof to be a moral value as well as the highest moral value. If faith wthout proof turns out to be amoral then the christian god would be expecting an unreasonable amoral virtue to define morality by his terms. Expecting others to believe in something as unreasonable as that is in actuality an immoral virtue for any god to have. Even if such were a real God, such a God deserves nothing of faith for he somehow managed to create beings more morally virtuous than himself.

If your theory, that faith s amoral, is correct, then you would have a point. However, I will get to this as you later try to prove this theory.

What's more, by your own logic, if chosing not to believe in something without reason is a valid point to have and one could reasonably reject christianity if such were the case in christian faith, then it should also be determined that if it is reasonable for an individual to not believe, based on all knowledge that is available to us, then the requirement of faith from the christian god would be unreasonable and an equally valid point to reject christianity based on.

Right, but again, this is a loaded hypothetical that assumes truth. In other words, you're saying that a person can reasonably reject God. I am saying that any rejection of Christianity is quite unreasonable and illogical, and though it has the illusion of reason behind the decision, ultimately it defies logic. Setting up hypotheticals doesn't do much to disprove anything unless these hypotheticals could be shown to actually occur and exist.

So to put it more simply If the christian god is real and he requires faith as a moral virtue then

1) faith cannot be an amoral or immoral virtue

2) To have this faith must have reason or else it is meaningless

3) As faith with reason is required, it must be shown that it is also unreasonable not to

To the first one, I would say that faith is moral, and would also agree with the next two. To the third one, the purpose of Christian apologetics is to show Christianity to be reasonable. Ultimately, especially when dealing with the metaphysics of the issue, if Christianity is reasonable, then atheism would be unreasonable, or a pantheistic religion would be unreasonable.

This is not to say that atheists, or non-Christians overall, are stupid and ignorant. It is also not to deny that there is some extremely good argumentation for all non-Christian beliefs. I am simply saying that when we weigh the evidence, Christianity (to an objective viewer) should come out as the most plausible choice.

What I'm asking your God to do is very simple. I'm asking him to be moral. When it comes to the question of whether or not an effect without cause that put time and existence into motion has a cognitive nature, I abstain from placing my certainty on any one possibility. I do believe in Justice and morality so I would like to hope that some justice for all severe immoralities exists, but the nature of this existence shows that such is not something to rely on. It is clearly your responcibility as well as mine to enforce basic moral necessities, or else such values become extinct. Don't steal, don't cheat, don't bully etc. Higher moral thinking ends up not being quite so necessary to enforce. It can only tempt people with it's benefits when they understand them. This cognitive cause for existance as we know it can also metaphysically be an infinate number of forms. I don't even throw out the idea that we could well be the universe itself comming unto it's own cognition.

I would say, look to both Plato and Aristotle. Plato had his Demiurge, the "form of all forms" if you will, and Aristotle had his unmoved mover. In Plato's case, you have all other forms flowing from this one ultimate form, in other words, all things begin and flow from one source. Aristotle is even more accurate (in my opinion) of an unmoved mover, or an uncaused effect. Now, neither of these ever took it to the next level of showing how these concepts of God created morality, but I would venture to guess that had they took it further, they would conclude that morality rests upon their forms of God than upon mankind.

The reason is that your logic is flawed when compared to empirical study. Humankind, no matter how bad it gets, or regressed, will still always hold to some moral code, that is almost similar among all cultures. Even the Aztecs, as bloody and violent as they were, held a moral code on murder. You say that it is up to man to hold this moral code together, or else it becomes extinct. This is based on viewing morals that are unique to a culture, instead of the universal moral codes we see. Rarely do we ever see a universal moral code (universal to be understood as almost all cultures have followed it, not as absolute) slip into extinction. Though this will be a major contention in our debate (and rightfully so), I would argue that it is impossible for man to completely reject universal morality for any duration of time. If he does (as a culture) reject a certain portion - say theft for example - at some point he will come back to rejecting theft, even if it were beneficial for him. I base this on looking throughout history and that even though certain cultures have attempted to shed their morality, they eventually came back to it.

The Romans, for instance, early in their history were very sexually promiscuous. Pedophilia, homosexuality, etc were all allowed as worship of a deity or even for personal pleasure - assuming you had the right cultural status. Yet, toward the second to third century, we see such acts being shunned upon in public. The Romans, in a few centuries, had gone from viewing certain sexual acts as acceptable, to persecuting those who committed them and it was known. They even accused early Christians of having sexual orgies and used this condemnation as partial justification for persecution.

Regardless, the point I am trying to make is that because cultures have no choice in coming back, there is something higher, a higher morality if you will, that draws human kind back to this moral stance. Though morality does not save us (because the ultimate immoral act is rejection of God), it does preserve us.

Believing that something made us is an inevitability, but what and the matter of it being a cognitive being is incredibly irrelevant. If I were a pilot in WW2, I'd still kiss and thank the plane I survived a dogfight in. I just wouldn't require myself to worship it.

Explain your premise for how something rational (man) could be created by something non-rational. The reason I ask is because I've never run across an agnostic that accepts the idea that we have been created, or could have been created, that did not think of the creating power as being non-rational. Of course, I could be misrepresenting and misunderstanding what you're saying, in which case please let me know - but then also explain what you meant.

If a cognitive cause to everything wants me to believe metaphysical details about itself, then he needs to be moral in doing so. If christ expects the same of himself, then he needs to be moral in doing so as well. So then, show me how it is unreasonable for anybody to be skeptical or to simply not believe in christianity.

Because at the point you assume that is a rational Being that created everything, you subsequently lose the right to judge it by its own moral standards. This stands for any religious or philosophical view of the world. If the Being created everything, this would include morality - it is therefore impossible to judge the creator of morality (who has a perfect epistemological understanding of morality, being the author of it) as a participator in the morality that we did not create (we have an imperfect epistemological understanding of morality, being the receiver of it). This is not to say that the created being is free to act as he pleases - he could self-limit himself to his morality. However, it still wouldn't make sense to judge him by his own morality because we wouldn't understand the inner workings, or understand it completely.

That being said, and maybe you've addressed it elsewhere and I haven't seen it, what is your argument for the Christian God to be amoral/immoral and non-cognitive?

You of course refur to biblical prophecies then. One point that should be clear is that there is a reasonable option for anyone to choose not to believe in anything one way or the other (to abstain from belief). Therefore, making the most logical choice still isn't a reasonable thing to require of anyone if it is reasonable for them to say "but I don't think anyone is necessarily right, I think the real answer could still be out there yet to be discovered"

Now mate, let's not go making straw men . Where did I refer to Biblical prophecies? It is my firm belief that, though they are rational, using them as evidence or as proof is absurd when facing a non-theist, or a limited theist (Deist, agnostic, etc). I am referring to cosmological (evidence from the universe), teleological (evidence from creation/biology), and anthropological (evidence from the human experience) - not to prophecy. There are really four main branches of apologetics, and I won't bore you with the details of each one (because it is boring). Though I could be labeled an integrative apologist (someone that uses all four at some point), the main thrust of my arguments is a classical approach - thus I deal more along the lines with presuppositions than I do with using the "Thus sayeth the Lord" argumentation (which prophecy falls under). I only say this so that we don't get side tracked into debating prophecy and the accuracy thereof.

As for your argument, you assume that all rejection of a truth value is reasonable. This is not always so. Though it is reasonable that we have a choice, this does not always mean the conclusion brought about by this choice is reasonable, and thus people must be held accountable for their choice. In other words, though I have the reasonable right to reject a deity, this does not mean the rejection is reasonable simply because the right is reasonable.

What do you think about people who are not astronomers or archeologists? Is it a requirement of reason in your faith to have these specialties before faith has meaning? The majority of people are incapable of learning such things, if for no other reason, they don't have the time to waste looking for God because they are looking for survival first. There's also the fact that you can't expect everyone to even read the bible out of reason unless you yourself can say that you have read and studied all books, all possibilities, and all other religions equally. Is being an expert in all of these things to be the expected priority of everyone's life according to your God?

This is taking my argument to the extreme. I am merely saying that all true cases of faith begin with a reasonable act, though it is not sola ratio. In other words, assume that an 18 year old accepts Christ - though this 18 year old has most likely not studied the history in any comprehensive fashion, or the ideological views behind this belief, there is something that caused her to believe that Jesus was real. There was some rational argument, somewhere along the way, that forced her to believe that Jesus really did do what the Bible claims, and this led to her belief.

I am not saying that we have to be experts on everything because, once again, as humans we have a flawed epistemology on whatever we do. Now, Christians with true faith, should look to all the evidence in order to enhance this faith. The more I study history and philosophy, the stronger my faith becomes. I look forward to my work in philosophy because it merely solidifies my belief in Christ. This is not to say that old Aunt May in Backwoods, Arkansas should go get her Ph.D in philosophy in order to have a true experience in faith. That is simply unreasonable because it requires certain people to do things that their minds may not be equipped to do. She should, however, at least have a cursory knowledge of what is reasonable about the faith and how to defend it.

Regardless, if I am understanding you correctly, you are asserting that in order to be reasonable in one's acceptance of the Bible, we have to have read every book and all possibilities concerning this issue? Why such an arbitrary standard? I fail to see how this would be a grounds for a reasonable stance on the issue, so please unpack this statement.

Also, what do you mean by suggesting that the Judeo-Christian god is more than a philosophical choice?

Most philosophies simly give you a way of looking at the world and subsequently acting through this view - though you are not obliged to follow the view in all instances. Christianity gives us a way of looking at the world (where we came from, who we are, and where we are going, the basic three problems that all philosophies attempt to answer) but then we are obliged to follow this way of thinking (though we can deviate from it). Likewise, it calls upon a relationship with the Lord, thus there are some existential elements of Christian faith, though I would not take it to the level of Kierkegaard. Though this is by no means an in depth view of what I am believe, I hope it is a good summary.

A good apologist/theologian/philosopher that really impacted me on this point was Francis Schaeffer. His most influential work (though I have read almost all of his works) is his Trilogy. The reason is that it covers everything that is a basic world view of Christianity, including why it is a philosophy that is more than a philosophy. The link is to amazon where you can purchase this work if you are interested. I'm assuming you already have a knowledge of post-modern philosophers as well as modern philosophers, which is where the main thrust of his argumentation goes (against them). One interesting point, since I'm on this tangent, he is one of the firs philosophers in America to actually deal with Foucault and show the impact his views would have on society. Just an interesting side note.

point out one loaded stament I have made here. Tell me why it's all loaded. I've made some claims that you claim are false in other comments here, but they are clear and unambiguous from my perspective. If you are trying to pick up on the ambiguity of the term 'skeptic' then I'm afraid it's your own ambiguity that is being applied. When I say 'skeptic' I always mean someone who does not agree with you unless you have more convincing information. A skeptic is not someone who refuses to believe, it's someone who finds what you are saying to be unlikely by their own honest reasoning.

This was an error on my part - I claimed you made loaded statements by using a loaded statement. Oops.

You asked me to prove that He was a moral faith creator but then how to explain this is even morally possible. I have no idea what your criteria is for rejecting this idea, thus I do not know how to present it to you in light of your objections. You also stated that my faith only justifies itself to those that already believe it - what is your evidence for this? This is why I came back and explained that you are essentially saying we cannot change our epistemological stance, though we have seen this occur. Your statement, if taken prima facie, would also run contrary to the fact that atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc all come to Christianity on a daily basis. This is not to say Christianity is absolute proof because people come to it, merely to say that it can be justified to those outside of its world view.

How MUST you rely only partially on logic? Where do you draw the line?

What I was saying is that we cannot come to faith sola ratio. I am not a believer in German Rationalism, or even Bartian theology. We look to the rational components of Christianity, that which can make sense in the physical world, that which does man sense philosophically, and when we come across a paradox we then accept it by faith. All philosophies must take this leap of faith at some point, whether it be materialist, limited theist, deistic, etc. For me, the supposedly irrational components of Christianity are the Incarnation, the Trinity, and things of this nature - most of the mysteries where a leap would be required deal mostly with the ontology of God. Where as a German rationalist would say we should not believe these things because they cannot be rationally explained, I would argue that because 95% has been rationally explained (and that is an arbitrary number used as an example, not to be taken literally), then the 5% which appears irrational should be accepted on the fact that the rest of the belief holds true. Just because we cannot understand something does not mean it fails to be true. Likewise, certain arguments can be made for such mysteries, but they are all basic at their level and ultiamtely must be accepted by a "leap."

To steal from Francis Schaeffer, imagine you are climbing a mountain. I'm not sure if you have ever been (I personally have not) but one thing that can occur is storms can come out of no where. When I have been skiing before, I have seen this occur. Now assume that you are climbing up a steep face of a mountain and a storm comes in and you are blinded by the dense fog. If you stay there overnight, you will die from freezing because you are exposed to the elements. Being on a steep cliff, you cannot simply unpack your things and go, you would fall to your death. A leap of faith, as proposed by disciples of Kierkegaard (though I would argue not by Kierkegaard himself) would be that you know there is a cave in your vicinity, to crawl to where you need to and drop down to it. This, of course, is illogical.

Imagine, however, that you hear a voice telling you where to go. You ask this voice how long he has lived on the mountain. He tells you all of his life. You ask this voice his name. He tells you his name, and the last name is common among those in mountain communities. He tells you that he has climbed this route many times. He then tells you to move over 12 feet to your left, and to drop down and you'll see the cave after a 5 foot drop. You now have a rational and reasonable basis, but you still must make a leap based upon this reason.

This is what I mean by Christianity. There are certain mysteries that simply cannot be explain but should be trusted because we have X and Y as evidence - just because Z is a mystery does not mean we should exclude and abandon X and Y. Does this analogy and explanation make sense?

are you implying that no one would be converted if it were a philosophy that only applies if you believe in it? There are many motivations for conversion, including fear, that peole allow themselves to believe in something for.

Correct, I am saying that if no one converted to it, if it only made sense to those already inside its realm of belief, then it would have no converts (at least converts that would stay). You assume that all converts must have come to Christianity out of fear, and though some do, it is too broad a statement to say that all do. C.S. Lewis came because he saw the arguments as reasonable, and not because he was afraid. There are many in the academic world that are orthodox Christians, many of whom came to Christ after being educated and doing so based upon the evidence, not upon fear.

Earlier I made a parallel version of a belief that expects faith like Christianity does. It was a belief that we are all encased within a jelly doughnut that nobody can see, but unless you believe that the jelly doughnut is there you wont be able to eat your way outward, to the crust of salvation. This is a belief that expects belief of the unseen. My earlier point was that even if the jelly doughnut was there, there's still no moral gain or loss for choosing to believe or not to believe in it. Still yet, people would believe in the jelly doughnut if I set up a great story around it. People believe in things because they have noting bette to believe in and they want the answers to be simply given to them. This is the fallacy of both belief and devine faith requirement.

Aside from this being an improper analogy, you are using the wrong judgment mechanism. You are stating that sight should be belief, i.e. we should look at theism through a naturalistic view. By doing so, we make naturalism trump theism, in which case theism becomes worthless. Instead, the two are competing ideologies and thus cannot be used to provide a view upon the other. In other words, I cannot say theism is false because it cannot be explained in a naturalistic way. You are saying that because we cannot see God, any requirement of faith He would make would be arbitrary - but this is using a competing philosophy to evaluate theism. You have to unpack it and prove why your method should be accepted. As I have stated above, there are required leaps of faith within Christianity, but all leaps occur from a rational basis. Why would God do this? The reason isn't simple, but I believe it is the best explanation. You are essentially asking for God to reveal Himself to us, even though we exist on different metaphysical plains of existence. Though He could if He wanted to, this would subsequently cause a further paradox in, "How could God, who exists on a different metaphysical realm, allow those below Him to understand Him comprehensively?"

The fact is, there are mysteries in a relationship, which is the primary purpose of God. In a marriage, though there are rational components, and one must look at love as partially rational if love is to work within a marriage, there is still an element of mystery. This is my theory as to why God would not allow us comprehensive knowledge of Himself (and, as I stated, it would merely provide for another paradox).

If a fly gets hit by a car, but the fly didn't see the car comming, is the fly somehow immoral for it? Ok, what if it had a clue that it was comming but the fly didn't quite know what it was or got hypnotized by the shock of what it predicted would be next? The only point to morally question was if the fly had some responcibility to get away from being hit by something that it didn't see clearly. Being killed is not evil, failing to avoid being killed is not evil (unless death were wanted and even then the idea of suicide being inherantly evil is still up for debate), only killing is evil, which by this metaphor is what you claim God will do to nonbelievers.

If one has knowledge of an impending death, if there is enough evidence that it will occur, then he is to be held responsible when it does occur. If I get a mysterious note saying that I will be killed at 3pm this afternoon, in a parking lot while trying to get into my car, and the note then goes on into detail about certain accounts in my life that aren't well known, I would still be held responsible for my own death (maybe not judicially, but logically). Likewise, you are looking at this in the wrong manner.

The reason people are condemned to hell by God is not simply because they lack belief in Him and His Son. The reason they are condemned is because they are ultimately immoral (by performing an immoral action) and have not sought out the one solution. You need to look to how salvation operates before trying to critique it.

I am not an atheist, but as an agnostic who does not fear any god, I justify morals based on social purpose. If there were no God, and there were no other people and somehow you knew this to be a fact, then nothing you can do could ever be deemed immoral, unless other beings enter the picture. You could hurt yourself, you could call out profanities, you could love yourself and spend the rest of your life as a complete hedonist becuase there are no other beings to which an immoral act could be effected. This is because morality only applies to social interactions between contious beings. I validate morality on the fact that so long as I promote the best for everyone as a whole I have the greatest likelyhood of getting the most for myself out of life for it. It's called ethical egoism. John Nash also proved this concept mathematically in his research on his noncooperative game theory. Honestly, it should never have taken a mathematician to point this out, it's ultimately how every ecosystem finds balance and survives as an ecosystem anyway.

Methodologically you're still an "atheist." All that means is that you still look at the world from a naturalistic point of view and evaluate it as such, thus your arguments are still going to fall into atheistic camps.

Regardless, your criteria for belief is skewed. You say that morality only matters with sociological interaction. If we assume a Theistic mindset in Christianity, however, morality matters because it is an offense to God. Even if we remove this from the picture, and evaluate your belief through your own standards, it still comes up short.

The reason is that it allows for moral subjectivity among society. If societal interaction causes our morals to have an impact, then it means there really is no absolute basis in morality. This assumes that society actually exists and is not a simulacrum. If we take the autonomous philosophers, they would tell you that society is only formed out of a contract, and thus you cannot base your morality upon something which is arbitrary and ultimately evil in itself. An extreme post-modern would look at your definition and criticize it because you are basing it upon something that ultimately does not exist. Baudrillard, for instance, would argue that you are basing your morality on a simulacrum that was formed as a manner to control people. Though you could defend yourself against it, it would lose all logic and true impact because you lack an absolute beginning.

What you are saying here is worth the research on my part to see how correct you might be.

I'd suggest getting The Reformers and Their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin. He goes into great detail and explains how many Christians rebelled against the sacral system that was put into place.

Still, a line must be drawn for any common people to ultimately know that the bible is proven in order for it to be significant that they believe, as well, the ability to determine clearly what battles are right or wrong to fight must be made so that crazy people who are just looking for a sence of belonging or food and shelter don't get caught up in hijackings. Where do you draw the line on what to believe and how do you expect that every person out there is capable of making a logical proof from the information you have. People aren't just intellectually lazy out there, the majority is actualy just extremely retarded and desperate. What is the moral significance of their faith?

I'm not sure I understand completely what you're asking. If you could clarify that would be wonderful.

Also, in the next debate (as you've already seen, the quote feature fails to work after a few quotes), you can just bold my replies and then maybe put yours in a different color. It certainly adds time and pain to creating and editing the post, but it would help with clarity.

I am enjoying this debate, it is nice to run into someone that is willing to take this issue into a deeper level.

This was an amazing post and you put alot of time and effort into it. I am bumping it, hoping youngidealist will read it and respond.

[MorningGlory]

You should visit a few southern baptist churches in Mississipi or in Tennessee. It's not a pretty picture. KKK still cliams to follow Christ, and at one point the KKK was a White Christian supremacy that reached millions across the states. Only the last two decades have come to suppress the wrongful deeds inspired by Christian Faith. Whether or not you agree with their interpretations they say the same prayers and make the same claims with the same book as you do. The concepts of fearing God and believing that a God will condemn you if you don't believe in him are a psychological and social disease. I hope you get well soon.

Your argument is still not arguable, youngidealist. The KKK was, and is, founded on White supremacy beliefs; these beliefs are not compatible with, nor inspired by, Christianity. BTK, the prolific serial killer, said the same prayers and used the same book as all Christians also (an active church member!); this doesn't mean he is a Christian nor that he was inspired to kill by our faith.

This 'disease', as you refer to Christian faith, has left me well and up to defending it from assault by atheists, agnostics, and false religions; thanks for your concern. Faith does not equal morality; morality does not equal faith. This is apples and oranges, to put in simple terms; what is it about that statement that you can't understand?

Wait, so you are claiming that your faith is not a matter of your moral choices but rather a matter of your own survival and immortality? You are telling me that your superstition's objective is not to be a good person in general but to live forever? If that's the case then step aside and let others call your bluff. What should you care about others going with you if you can be immoral but a belief will let you live forever. If morality doesn't matter in your beliefs then you should be fine with letting others enjoy life the way they see fit while you supress yourself for your beliefs. In other words, if this is truly what you believe, then you sould stay away from making your religious justifications enter any social law. Let gays marry and such if you think they're going to hell anyway. I'm fine with living out my life and letting you withold yourself from enjoying life for the sake of pleasing whom you think will make you immortal. If I have no moral regrets from it, then I could care less if a hypothetical god would smite me for the lack of a belief. It would be no different than worrying about what to do if a plane were to crash through my ceiling at any time. Could it happen? Yes. Does that mean I should move out? No.

I didn't tell you anything about faith/moral choices; those are your erroneous conclusions. A Christian is called upon to be moral in their daily lives and to spread the Word, my friend. We care about "others going with us". I, personally, am not standing in the way of or condeming anyone for their choices; you are free to live as you see fit. If you want gay marriage, fine, work to pass the laws; it will still be an abomination onto the Lord, legal or not. Living for the here and now, and the "if it feels good, do it" philosophy are the hallmarks of narcissism, BTW. Without faith in the Lord, you are headed for eternal damnation; that lasts a bit longer than the unpleasant effects of a plane crashing through your ceiling. But, if you don't care, then hell won't faze you.

I reiterate; your arguments are not relevant to your subject (Faith = morality) and are therefore moot.

[followerofjesus]

Due to the KKK and other hate groups not living by faith invalidates them because the Lord knows their hearts. They are considered as evil as a nonbeliever. It could be worse because they are using faith as a veil which any practical person of faith or not can plainly see making your argument very lame.

Under this premise the suicide bombers acting out of faith are dying for God. They worship the God of death which is a different master.

[followerofjesus]

Your right believing in a supernatural being does not make you moral. Someone claiming to be of faith means nothing that is why we are to judge by their fruits. The supernatural being has given us a moral code to live by which is the foundation of all mans laws. Do unto others etc...

This is one of the things that seperates us from the self righteous who live by their own law & understanding.

[followerofjesus]

No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.