I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but I feel like you've done a bit of a Gish Gallop on me here, saying so many things that are so wrong that it takes longer to refute them than it does to state them in the first place. So I think I'm going to skip the details and simply hit on the four big points where you seem to be confused.

The first point is in regard to the supposed "evidence" in favor of Christian religious beliefs. You seem to believe that atheists just wave their hands and say, "Oh, all religions are equally stupid," without having examined them individually, and that we have therefore missed the special unique rightness of Christianity. In fact, it is precisely by examining different systems of mythology individually, carefully, and sympathetically that one becomes aware of how similar Christianity is to all the rest, in terms of its historical development, the ways in which it is defended by believers, the quality of the "evidence" in its favor, and so forth. Christians have difficulty recognizing these similarities because Christians are immersed every day in Christian assumptions, and it is very difficult to see from such a perspective that one is accepting truth claims on behalf of one's own religion that one would find absurd and unsubstantiated if they were made on behalf of another.

It would be aside from the point to go into the details of the telling similarities between Christianity and other religions just now. The writings of Joseph Campbell might be a reasonable starting point if you want to learn more about this. But the bottom line is that any demonstration that Christianity is actually uniquely superior needs to be based on an informed and sympathetic analysis of other religions, and on a clear-eyed reading of history, not just a cutesy Pascal's Wager chart. And absent absolutely compelling arguments in favor of Christianity (which Christianity exactly, by the way?) there's no real reason that an atheist should bother to give it any particular notice in the midst of the vast mob of other silly, poorly-substantiated things that people have shown themselves perfectly willing to devote their lives to throught human history. Christianity needs to *earn* the standing required for anything more than off-handed dismissal as just as silly as all the rest; it has no right to demand such standing a priori. And in the opinion of many atheists, Christianity just hasn't distinguished itself well enough to demonstrate that it's anything special, which is why we feel perfectly satisfied to leave it in the, "They're all equally stupid," pile.

The second point is in regard to "spiritual faculties" and the evidence of things unseen. I would really like to know what in the world a spiritual faculty is, and how you justify comparing such things to real senses like sight, hearing, touch, taste, smell, and proprioception. You talk about someone who has never used their ears being startled that someone would think something is real when they hear it but don't see it, yet the person who hears could hook up a microphone to an acoustic analysis program on a computer and demonstrate to the person who doesn't that things that aren't visible can affect the readouts on the computer. Someone who thinks invisible particles called cosmic rays exist can build a bubble chamber and show the rest of the world that something is definitely coming from the sky and affecting the vapors in the chamber. What demonstration can you make to me that the things you "sense" with these supposed "spiritual faculties" have any effects whatsoever on the real world?

Moreover, typically people who do have a particular sense will be able to agree reasonably well on what that sense tells them. If I see a chair standing across the room from me, I can turn to another sighted friend and expect that that friend will agree with me (unless one or both of us have recently used hallucinogenic drugs). I could also turn to a blind friend and ask that friend to go over and touch the object and again, that friend would agree that it is a chair. But with their supposed "spiritual faculties", different people experience vastly different and contradictory religious sensations. Some "sense" the presence of the Christian god, while others find Allah, or benevolent aliens, or the oneness of all things. And people are told by their supposed "moral sense" to do things that my "moral sense" tells me are abhorrent, like flying airplanes into buildings and preventing gay people from gaining legal recognition for their families. So this whole "spiritual faculties" thing seems to me more like a bogus way for religious people to try to elevate their personal intuitions about how the universe should work to some kind of universal laws than it does like a genuine sense. I'm just not buying it.

The third point is related to this issue of faith. If Christianity was truly thoroughly intellectually justified it wouldn't require any kind of special "faith" to believe in it, such that "faith" would be touted as a Christian virtue. Nobody goes around being proud of their "faith" that the Earth is a roughly spherical world orbiting the sun which orbits the center of the Milky Way and so on. Nobody touts their "faith" in the existence of electrons, or the fact of evolution. Nobody talks about the importance of their "faith" in the existence of George Washington. We have giant heaping stacks of evidence which is accessible to anyone who wants to examine it and which is most consistent with a universe in which these propositions are true, such that to refuse to accept them as the best explanation of that evidence would be rather perverse. The evidence for Christianity is nowhere near this quality. If it was, the stories in the Bible would be studied as history and archaeology, the hows and whys of miracles would be studied as science, and believing in their truth would just be a matter of confidence in the workings of the scientific and historical processes. Instead reputable academics study Christian stories and miracles as mythology, and belief in the Christian story is (proudly) an act of faith. How is this consistent with something which is, as you say, not mere religion, but Capital-T-Truth?

The fourth and final point is the silliness of your assertion that people choose atheism because it's "safe". When I finally realized that my religious faith wasn't tenable any more and that I had no honest choice but to become an atheist it scared the crap out of me. I felt like I was jumping off a cliff and hoping to sprout wings on the way down. Fortunately it seems to have worked out okay for me, but let me assure you that if safety was my primary concern this is *not* the way I would've gone. Safety would have been sticking with what I knew, with a system that told me the "right" way to act and assured me that I would be rewarded if I obeyed the rules. Safety was definitely not consistent with striking out into the unknown, having to figure out everything for myself, and having no way of knowing whether it would turn out all right in the end. In a society where the vast majority of people are religious and despise atheism, and where there is little or no guidance on how to live successfully as an atheist, choosing atheism is anything but safe.

One more thing about the empirical reality of a human partner and a relationship w/ God.

See this definitive passage on faith, and how FAITH (not blind faith, see The Atheist's Caricature of Faith) replaces direct evidence in the divine relationship:

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Regarding blind faith, please also see
What is a Fundamentalist Christian?

>> ANNE: I'm a little startled to see you claim that as a point of pride the fact that Christianity goes beyond what can be intellectually justified.

I think that perhaps this is startling to someone who distrusts their spiritual faculties for the safety of intellect alone - it's like a person who has never used their ears and is startled to think that someone would think something is real when they hear it but don't see it.

When you say 'beyond what can be intellectually justified,' I hear two things. If you mean 'beyond what intellect and reason can grasp or evaluate,' I would agree - just as cosmic rays were at one time unmeasurable and unsensable, yet real, I am saying that the reality of God and spiritual things are currently that way UNLESS you find new ways to asses them.

Emmanuel Kant made an excellent argument about this, discussing the LIMITS of reason, and the logical limit that reason can not justify it's own verity because that would be circular (I may be misunderstanding, but I think that's it).

The point is, living by one's limited logic and reason alone is safe, but limited. If we take a principled approach to also using conscience, intuition, and communion when researching spiritual things (morality and God), we can reduce the risk of error and learn more than mere empiricism can teach us. We do not reject empiricism, we merely use it as a primary (but not solitary) tool in our arsenal of truth seeking.

>> ANNE: Would you find it respectable, much less admirable, if I went beyond what can be intellectually justified in order to benefit from what I believed to be the "wisdom" of Allah, Buddha, Athena, aliens, fairies, or Santa Claus, and to engage in a relationship of trust with their presence?....One would think that such a discrepancy might demand, you know, intellectual justification.

If you failed to use reason to discriminate between these sources, I would find is less than admirable. As I discussed in Pascal's Wager - Part II: debunking the 'all religions are equally improbable' ruse, not all claims at divine truth are equal.

In that post, plus Pascal's Wager - Part III: Evaluating the gods, I believe that I made an intellectual argument for my special pleading for Christianity, and to a lesser extent, Buddhism. BTW, Buddhists don't really believe that they have a relationship w/ Buddha.

>> ANNE: I think an apt comparison here might be to the act of falling in love with another human being.

That is the perfect analogy, which is why the Bible stresses that a *relationship* with God is true spirituality - or as Jesus said

And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. (John 17:3)

And this is why I discussed that for most Christians, they believe not primarly because their intellect told them so (though intellectual arguments may have led them to stop disbelieving), but because they quite literally fall in love after realizing that they ARE loved and are missing out on the most important relationship they could have.

>> ANNE: On the other hand, the commitment I have made to my partner is, I think, different from a commitment to a deity in several important ways, not the least of which is that I have pretty good empirical reason to believe that my partner actually does exist,

I think that this is the difference between having faith and having direct empirical evidence. Faith in God is not asking you to believe *despite* evidence, but *in leiu of* direct empirical evidence. While there are a slew of secondary reasons to believe in the God of the Bible (wisdom, ethics, historical, archeaological, and perhaps most importantly, philosophical), faith in God certainly IS different from a relationship w/ a flesh and blood mortal.

>> ANNE: The point of this comparison is that the reason atheists think religion needs intellectual justification is not that we're unwilling to make emotional commitments without complete intellectual justification.

I would say that there IS intellectual justification (good philosophical arguments), but no EMPIRICAL evidence outside of the historical and archeaological support for the Bible.

>> ANNE: In other words, people are welcome to believe whatever kooky made-up things they want if it makes them happy, but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to have much respect for their kooky beliefs,

I kind of disagree. As in wrote in my Pascal's Wager articles, if some spiritual systems are harmful (like those that denigrate women or violate human rights), we have a duty to confront them, even if they make some people 'happy.' Some religions ARE kookier than others.

>> ANNE: they *should* accept that the kooky, made-up parts of their beliefs ought to have no role in determining public policy.

This is a little ambiguous, and again, could mean two things, but I think I largely agree. As I have long argued, appeals to religious authority may be used in swaying public opinion (such as MLK did), but in public policy debates, we need to appeal to common ethics.

So for example, in the abortion debate, I would not say "because the bible says so," but rather, I would appeal to the constitutional "right to life," and argue that life and personhood begin at some scientifically reasonable point (like heartbeat) (cf. c-ral.org

However, since all legislation is in some part ethical and moral in nature, it is perfectly legitimate for me to want to have the law support what I think to be moral - things such as do not kill, do not steal, do not lie. And of course, religious laws have no place in public policy (like wearing head-coverings, for instance). So if you mean that I should not bring my ethical and moral convictions to bear upon public policy, I would say that's not true - as long as my moral convictions have to do with the ethics of being humane, not religious observance.

>> ANNE: So if you proudly admit that Christianity is not completely intellectually justifiable, you're of course welcome to go ahead and believe in it anyway.

I am not saying that. I am saying that, as much as spiritual things can be determined by logic and reason, Christianity stands head and shoulders above the others. However, if you mean that reason and logic alone can lead you to the knowledge and experience of God, I would say that you are living within your own vast limits.

>> ANNE: But you have to recognize that things that aren't completely intellectually justifiable can't reasonably be advanced as obligatory for others to adopt or even respect.

I admit that, which is why I must also respect people's right to NOT beleive, even though they have no way to empirically prove God's non-existence.

>> ANNE: You also have to accept that you can't argue somebody into falling in love with your religion, and that falling in love with it is the only way you can expect them to become committed to it.

I agree, although I would add that making intellectual arguments for faith CAN ELIMINATE erroneous barriers to faith that people have. This is the thrust of Paul's instruction to use logical argument (rather than force) as part of spreading the faith:

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.(Colossians 2:8)

Proverbs 4:7
Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding.

Proverbs 16:16
How much better to get wisdom than gold! And to get understanding is to be chosen rather than silver.

>> ANNE: And you need to see that when other people don't convert to your religion it's not because they don't have the courage to fall in love, it's because your religion just really isn't their type.

I am not endeavoring to convert people to religion, but to truth. If I am correct, than those that disbelieve are actually rejecting TRUTH, not religion. However, if my practice is not one of truth, but of mere outward observances, I would expect that others would reject it as 'not for them.'

Thanks for commenting!

>> Lawanda: Jesus stayed single, and so did John the Baptist, and others. And they were not sinning by doing so. It is NOT a sin to NOT reproduce.

I think you are confusing the issue a little. While Jesus, Paul, and JTB were single, as far as we know, ALL of the other apostles were married, and of course, Jesus WILL be married to the church ;)

But perhaps I should have said IF YOU ARE MARRIED. But I think you may be winning me over w/ your argument.

Still, I think that if you are enjoying the blessing of sex within marriage, you are GONNA have kids, so that leads to the discussion of birth control :D.
Should Christians Use Birth Control?
Christians and Birth Control
Should Christian Couples Use Birth Control?

Yeah, your rephrasings are of course better than my originals. I just worded them the way I did to connect them to your initial list.

In any case, I'm a little startled to see you claim that as a point of pride the fact that Christianity goes beyond what can be intellectually justified. Would you find it respectable, much less admirable, if I went beyond what can be intellectually justified in order to benefit from what I believed to be the "wisdom" of Allah, Buddha, Athena, aliens, fairies, or Santa Claus, and to engage in a relationship of trust with their presence? People have in the past and continue in the present to believe they have deeply meaningful relationships with all of these entities and more, yet adult Christians will for the most part think it's anywhere from simply wrong to totally silly to make the leap from finding these beliefs satisfying and meaningful to considering them to be true. It seems to me that there's kind of a double standard here --- religious people are willing to suspend disbelief for their own god myth, but only for that myth and no other. One would think that such a discrepancy might demand, you know, intellectual justification.

I think an apt comparison here might be to the act of falling in love with another human being. I love my partner, and allowing myself to fall in love with him was an act of the heart, an act of trust, although I did of course weigh carefully whether the emotional attachment I felt towards him was worth having to deal with certain difficulties I knew would inevitably arise. And despite the fact that we have indeed had to deal with those difficulties and many others, I believe that it's been more than worthwhile to have made that leap.

Of course, it would be near-impossible for me to construct a completely logical explanation for *why* I find our relationship so satisfying and valuable, or to explain what about my partner made me willing to commit myself to him. I can point to individual characteristics of his that I like, but if someone asked me to explain his total value in purely empirical terms I might be hard pressed, not to mention that I'd feel that they were kind of missing the point. So on that level, it makes sense to me to argue in favor of a willingness to make emotional commitments even in the absence of solid empirical justification.

On the other hand, the commitment I have made to my partner is, I think, different from a commitment to a deity in several important ways, not the least of which is that I have pretty good empirical reason to believe that my partner actually does exist, even though it's more challenging to justify precisely why committing to him was the right thing to do. Moreover, I understand that the rightness of this commitment is not a universal thing --- even though I think he's a very good person, I don't claim that everyone else could or should love him and commit to him the same way I do and have. I don't even claim that everyone else should like or respect him, or that they should consider it reasonable for me to love him, provided they leave us alone to live our lives the way we see fit (within reason).

The point of this comparison is that the reason atheists think religion needs intellectual justification is not that we're unwilling to make emotional commitments without complete intellectual justification. It's that we're unwilling to make factual claims about the nature of the universe without intellectual justification, and we're unwilling to make universal claims about what emotional commitments other people should engage in without intellectual justification. Moreover, we're also unwilling to let public policy be guided by ideas that don't have solid intellectual justification. In other words, people are welcome to believe whatever kooky made-up things they want if it makes them happy, but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to have much respect for their kooky beliefs, they shouldn't expect the rest of us to be willing to follow them down the rabbit hole, and they *should* accept that the kooky, made-up parts of their beliefs ought to have no role in determining public policy.

So if you proudly admit that Christianity is not completely intellectually justifiable, you're of course welcome to go ahead and believe in it anyway. But you have to recognize that things that aren't completely intellectually justifiable can't reasonably be advanced as obligatory for others to adopt or even respect. You also have to accept that you can't argue somebody into falling in love with your religion, and that falling in love with it is the only way you can expect them to become committed to it. And you need to see that when other people don't convert to your religion it's not because they don't have the courage to fall in love, it's because your religion just really isn't their type.

This was a good discussion :)

1. :) A point well-made.

2. How can a command be in a "gray area"?? ;)

3. I agree with this as well. And I also can see how a person who is selfish and worldly probably should not have many children... although I can also see why they should, too. But it is not my place to tell them either way.

4. It was only his opinion, but he had a lot of common sense, and like I said, Jesus stayed single, and so did John the Baptist, and others. And they were not sinning by doing so. It is NOT a sin to NOT reproduce.

5. Like I said above, how can a command be open to interpretation? that is the opposite of the very definition of the word. command: "to direct with specific authority or prerogative"

:)

I understand your points and they are good, but to argue that it is a command of God, rather than his blessing, it just doesn't make any logical sense.

And it is also saying that many good/obedient people are sinning when they have no children (whether by their choices in life or chance), or when they have very few children (whether by choices in life or by chance)...

Someone who is never blessed with a husband or children is not by default a sinner! Right? :)

>> Anne: Any thoughtful person who confidently holds a particular opinion about the nature of the world will have spent quite a bit of time reasoning in order to convince him or herself that that opinion is reasonable, even if he or she may have initially been set on the path of that reasoning by an event which on its own would not be sufficient to prove the truth of the opinion.

Sorry, I spelled your name incorrectly last time. The difference here, I think, is that, with Christianity, while intellectual arguments may clear the way for faith, most people make a faith commitment NOT upon initial intellectual conviction, but upon a heart conviction (intuition, conscience) and an experience of the Divine upon the heart.

Intellectual development usually FOLLOWS Christian conversion, and what is foundational is not an intellectual decision, but an experience of a heart-conviction of truth and experienced relationship/peace that begins the journey.

Such emotional foundations and beginnings can certainly be misleading and gone back upon when reason comes to bear, and I understand why an atheist/unbeliever would be skeptical of this order of operations, so to speak.

But Christianity is first and primarily a faith of the heart, of personal conviction of guilt and truth, and of God's love. As the scriptures say, it is 'the goodness of God that leads you to repentance,' (Romans 2:4) - that is, it is not first a head thing, but a heart thing.

In my opinion, many (most?) are atheists because of a combination of #2 and #5 - that is, due to the abuses of religion, they have retreated from anything that is not empirical, seeing empiricism as the only sure and safe way to explore reality.

Being unable to empirically PROVE God's existence, they prefer to live without faith because they don't trust any of their other faculties to help them know the truth (conscience, communion, intuition).

Rather than engaging in a relationship of trust with the wisdom and presence of another (God or the Bible), they prefer to live within the limits of their own intellect and ability to confirm truth.

I know that is a little pejorative, but I don't exactly mean it to be. I am trying to express the idea that I think that intellectual materialism and atheism are safe but limited ways of living. Faith (trust) allows you to live beyond your ability to understand or immediately validate, and benefit form the wisdom of others, including God.

Anna,

Those are good. I would rephrase them this way. "You are a Christian because:"

1. You were raised that way, and have never seriously considered any other viewpoint, nor seriously questioned your faith.

2. You made an emotional decision to become Christian during a dark time in your life (no change - said perfectly!)

3. Your conversion was based on the first good argument you heard, and you came from a position of weak ideological commitment - again, you may have never seriously considered any other viewpoint.

4. You are caught up in the novelty of your new Christian world view mostly because it is different, and will leave it when the novelty wears off (is that correct?)

5. Reason and experience have led you to your conclusion that Christianity is true.

Did I get those right? i will comment on the rest of your comment in my next comment :D

One could certainly find people who consider themselves atheists who are atheist for any of those reasons, but I think one could make a similar list for Christians (and other religious persons):

1. You were "Christian in the first place". (ie. raised that way, either explicitly or implicitly)
2. You made an emotional decision to become Christian during a dark time in your life.
3. You had a superficial or weak commitment to another religion or to skepticism that was not based on intellect and heart. (for example, you hadn't really thought very hard about it and someone came along with a seemingly impressive argument, or you didn't have much in the way of emotional ties to your current viewpoint then went to a church service and fell in love with the ritual and music)
4. You never had a chance to honestly question your faith in your prior religion, or your commitment to skepticism, and you will come back to your original view eventually after the novelty of Christianity has worn off.
5. You reasoned that Christian faith was reasonable.

I'm sure most Christians would preferentially cite the last item (even in cases where some of the others might also apply), while skeptics would probably point to the first four as being more common. In my opinion both of these views are somewhat correct.

It seems to me that any major conversion experience, whether it's religious to skeptic or vice versa, is likely to involve two things: a triggering event or discovery which causes a shift in perspective, and a slower process of reevaluation of one's reasoning about the world in light of that shift in perspective. Any thoughtful person who confidently holds a particular opinion about the nature of the world will have spent quite a bit of time reasoning in order to convince him or herself that that opinion is reasonable, even if he or she may have initially been set on the path of that reasoning by an event which on its own would not be sufficient to prove the truth of the opinion. So while the initial conversion "event" might be one of the first four items on the list, for a thoughtful person the effects of that event will persist because of the last item.

If one is solely interested in converting people, then it is probably very helpful to try to understand what generates those shifts in perspective, in order to learn how to facilitate them in others so as to give those others an opportunity to develop a reasoned commitment to the viewpoint you want them to adopt. However, if one is instead trying to decide which perspective is a more reliable guide to developing a "correct" view of the universe (ie. a view more likely to result in true predictions about future events), then the only real recourse is to compare the best reasoning available on both sides, with the understanding that the reasoning of the average Christian or the average skeptic might not pass this test. (And of course one should really not be comparing Christianity to only skepticism, but also to all the uncountably many other religions that are out there as well.) As a random drive-by commenter I don't know which of these two angles you're more interested in investigating at the moment, but good luck to you either way.

The _Queen for a Day_ storyline sounds like it might be cute, actually. I can see that one working out pretty well. And I completely agree that it's well past time for Disney to get beyond hetero romance. They've finally tiptoed outside of white protagonist territory with _Mulan_ and _The Princess and the Frog_, so I a GLBTQ love story sounds like a perfect next step.

>> MEK: It's difficult for me to imagine God as having certain ends.

Of course, finding it difficult does not make it untrue. It is logically *possible* that God can have ends, and the Bible does talk about God's 'will.'

>> MEK: For if God acts with an end in view, he must necessarily be seeking something that he lacks.

Again, another premise foundational to your view that I think is false - why must having a desired end mean there is a lack? If there is any lack, again, it can be seen as OURS not God's.

>> This assertion diminishes God's perfection insofar as everything that exists owes its being to God.

Well, that's a rehash of the difficult problem of evil. But it is entirely possible that evil exists, not because God created it, but because the fallen will of men and angels removed something - that is, darkness is not a substance or created thing, it is the ABSENCE of light. EVIL is the absence of good.

Not that we will resolve this well-debated problem, but what I am saying is that logically and philosophically, your point can be argued against, and is not a certainty by any means.

>> MEK: I said Nothing happens against God's will for that would imply God's imperfection. Further commentary on the meaning of this assertion is unnecessary. It is self-evident.

That is in many ways ambiguous and over-simplified. Many have argued that this view would then make God the author of evil.

I think that the bottom line is that, as scripture has stated, God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. Attributing God with evil is not only incorrect, it may be dangerous as well.

When Job tried blaming God for injustice, and then saw God, he said "When I knew ABOUT you, I thought I had a case against you, but now that I SEE you, I repent in dust and ashes, and admit that I did not know what I was talking about."

I think that is probably everyone's reaction when they curse God and then experience Him later. As confusing as the presence of death, disease, suffering, and evil are, scriptures still claim that God is perfect. That may be tough for some to swallow, but in the end, our limited reason may come to a brick wall on this issue, and have to admit that we don't know what we're talking about. So be it.

incorrect*

Thank you danielg

It's difficult for me to imagine God as having certain ends. For that much expresses him in the human form. For if God acts with an end in view, he must necessarily be seeking something that he lacks.

You said that 'imperfection of reality is not God's but ours.' This assertion diminishes God's perfection insofar as everything that exists owes its being to God.

I said Nothing happens against God's will for that would imply God's imperfection. Further commentary on the meaning of this assertion is unecessary. It is self-evident. Thus to say that this is incorrect assertion is to say that my concept of God is different than yours--and not that my assertion is inoccorect.

One more thing - his means to the ends is not the perfection of all that happens, but His perfect REDEMPTION.

The imperfection of reality is not God's, but ours.

>> MEK: Since nothing happens against God’s will, and since God is perfect, then anything that expresses reality pertains to perfection.

I think that the problem w/ your syllogism is that your first premise is incorrect. I'm not deep into this argument, but I think the correct first premise is

Nothing happens that God does not correct with justice and love in the end - that is, God can USE all things, and right all things, but that does not mean that God by action or inaction causes or approves of all things.

God's will is sure, not because all that happens is his will, but that he can conform all things to his desired ENDS.

Here is something i wrote in my paper that just relates to your discussion:
Since nothing happens against God’s will, and since God is perfect, then anything that expresses reality pertains to perfection. Thus, it is impossible to conceive that evil could ever express reality since evil expresses imperfection. And not only that, it would also be against God’s will. But nothing happens against God’s will for that would imply God’s imperfection.

Aaron, to make your argument valid with respect to existence of morality and God, the knowledge of indeterminate and determinate being is required. When both of these are possible and to what sorts of realities they pertain to.... If you do this, you will quickly realize that the meaning is in constant contradiction with the absolute being--a being that should pertain to God...
this is enough to start you thinking about things that make things you spoke of less deserving of contemplation (stultifying)...at least thats how I feel about it...

Eugenics is rooted in the same type of unfalsifiable hypothetical goo that Darwinism is. I posted on this here.

The relevant point:

To criticize the explanatory principle that the anthropological model provides in social Darwinism is equally to criticize the Darwinian principle that explains the evolution of species by reconstructing historical scenarios. It thus amounts to an attack on science (since Darwinism is deemed scientific, at least among biologists)...
(The Pure Society: from Darwin to Hitler by Andre Pichot :47-49)

Lawanda, I just reread this today, and want to add:

1. I agree that children are a blessing, that was one of my points.

2. However, I am also saying that having many children can be seen as a command, which you disagree with. Fine, this is a gray area. I disagree that a 'straightforward' reading of the relevant passages reveals that these are not commands. However, you make a good argument.

3. I re-assert that having a low view of children is often rooted in selfish, worldly thinking.

4. While Paul the apostle did recommend that people stay single, he did add that that was HIS opinion, not a command, as revealed in 1 Corinthians 7:6-10

But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband.

When I was a kid, I was told that the end absolutely never justifies the means. I guess my teacher got it wrong then. Oh, well. Maybe someday our elites in America will some day catch on to what is going on here, but I seriously doubt it.

I'm sorry you lack the discernment to tell the difference.

btw2: Here's what daniel stands for: Bible-based destruction of gay people. The difference between his brand of christianity and bin Laden's Islam is merely one of degree, not of kind. They are both clear, unadulterated evil.

Maybe stinker can have a good laugh out of this as well.

btw: Before I set sail for more humane shores I leave a couple of thoughts.
This blog used to be interesting. It has degenerated into something ugly and stupid. Aaron has disappeared. Cin and Keith don't post much. Even James left in the middle of a conversation I was hopeful was going somewhere. This leaves "seeker" (daniel, in his current incarnation). Needless to say, I find him and his writings emblematic of the worst of our current culture: proudly and arrogantly ignorant, intolerant, and cruel. Frankly, I have no comprehension of such thinking, if thinking one can call it. He even admitted his rank hypocrisy when he gave Gingrich's rampant corruption and immorality a pass because he agreed with the man's politics. daniel has no moral or intellectual integrity, so why continue to engage him?

Besides this, there is something off here I can't quite put my finger on something I can only name "evil." I guess it's the effect engaging with this person has on me. I have decided to avoid people like him as much as possible from now on, thus I will cease reading this blog. I may check in occasionally to see if Aaron has a post, but I will not read nor respond to anything seeker has to say. I urge Cin and Keith to join me in this boycott. Let the dead bury the dead.

The fact that you see this as small minded and mean spirited and hateful says as much about me as you. I think this is smartly humorous. Maybe you don't find these things funny. My lack or yours?

You are the most small-minded, mean-spirited, hateful person I have had the misfortune to run across.

You are instructive, however, an example of how an evil ideology can infect and darken the mind of even otherwise intelligent people.

I pity you.

As far as the tithing thing goes, I know that at the time that I left, tithing primarily occured within cell groups. Cell leaders were responsible for enforcing that their members tithed at meetings. Whether or not this is the case now, or if this explains why tithing was not discussed on Sunday I do not know.
I think that it is entirely possible that a cultlike church can grow out of it into grace. And, as I said earlier, I have not been back to Mercy in several years, so I cannot really say. At the time that I left, they had broken off from being the "Burn Vineyard Church", and seemed to be moving toward more cultlike behavior, rather than away from that. I am sure that in the past few years, the church could have changed.

>> LOUIS: Your opinion doesn't matter.

Only the truth matters. If I'm right, your hope for gay acceptance is in vain except in a society doomed to self-destruct.

Here's my previous arguments about hx.
Why did God create homosexuals?
Root Causes of Male Homosexuality

If I am wrong, than my opinion doesn't matter either.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

end

Bambo, that's good. Miss America should take some courses in editing. Or spelling. Or engrish.

But he's right about bamboo.

>> LOUIS: "Blatantly and obviously against nature" is an assertion without observable proof.

No, I gave you proof, you just don't find it convincing. What proof WOULD you expect for something 'against nature'? For you, since there is no design, this concept doesn't even matter to you. Killing? Not against nature, who said beings are meant to live?

Mortality and morbidity are the best measures - the many maladies associated with esp. male homosexuality are well known, and not just with the gross promiscuity of male homosexuals (2-10x worse than the gross promiscuity of heteros).

Total inability to naturally procreate is telling (as a rule, not an exception, like the dysfunction we find in heteros who can't procreate). So is level of associated mental illness and many other indirect factors such as prevalence of prior dysfunctional development.

But you see, I don't care if you or anyone THINKS it is not blatantly and obviously against nature and repugnant to the healthy conscience and pscyhe. If I am right about that, then my point stands. If I am wrong, than my opinion doesn't matter either.

What I am saying is that I am convinced that I am correct, and IF I am, your hope for acceptance outside of a totally depraved culture is in vain.

>> LOUIS: your invocation of right-wing, fundamentalist christianism

I am not asking you to fear God or Christianism. I am asking you to fear reality. If I am correct, your disdain for Christian morality is kicking at the goads, spitting in the wind, and crapping where you eat.

If I am wrong about reality, you have nothing to fear. But I doubt I am incorrect about homosexuality being aberrant.

>> LOUIS: The only hordes I'm worried about are the fundamentalist and literalist no-nothings, Christian or Muslim or whatever, who are the real threats to civilization.

As I've said, your only hope against the murderous Muslim hordes are not humanist panderings, but rather, the robust Christian viewpoint. That's why, right now, it is more dangerous to be a gay in Amersterdam than Atlanta - not because of progressive secularism - that's what they've got in Europe, and you see how well that protected them and gays from Islam.

Your best friend right now is your perceived enemy, Christianity. Not only does it NOT threaten you mortally and protects your basic human rights, it has the only hope to deliver you from the bondage of homosexuality.

>> LOUIS: The only depravity here is in your mind, a zone I don't pretend (and don't want) to understand.

Suppressing the truth (Romans 1) in your own life (except the truth of your homosexual dysfunction, which you must embrace), how can you understand anyone, let alone someone who attempts to think biblically?

Romans 8:5-8
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

"Blatantly and obviously against nature" is an assertion without observable proof. It is an assumption based on religionist propaganda, as is your invocation of right-wing, fundamentalist christianism to try to scare me. Nice try, but no cigar. The only hordes I'm worried about are the fundamentalist and literalist no-nothings, Christian or Muslim or whatever, who are the real threats to civilization. The only depravity here is in your mind, a zone I don't pretend (and don't want) to understand.

"Bambo," son of Rambo and Bambi, environmentally friendly scourge of the forest.

I have come to the conclusion people are self centered. Most people will only care about something that effects them personnally. Even if it has been said to effect them 10 years down the road. People wont worry about it or change there habits untill it happens.

Why do people still use the rain forest for there wood supply when we could use a more eviroment friendly product called bambo. Why did people vote for obama? People don't care about there actions untill the very second it effects them.

WAKE UP PEOPLE

hurry hurry everyone turn off your electric for a week to combat global warming..

I would like to discuss this. Any takers? It has two main points:

1. The fall of civilization after Rome fell was mostly due to Muslim hordes, not barbarians or Christianity.

2. Archaeology shows no 'Islamic golden age' in history, and most, if not all of the 'contributions' of Islam were either made by peoples they conquered (not Muslims) or the more liberal 'heretical' Muslims that failed to adhere to the tenets and teachings of the insane demon possessed pedophile prophet.

CAn't even admit your mistake?

I don't care much about the military issue, any more than I care that there are promiscuous or adulterers in the military.

And you should know that Christians are concerned when people desert the truth, but not because they feel alone or self-pitying, or because *they* feel deserted. They understand the cost of doing so for those who desert the truth, their children, and the culture.

I'm sure you hope that homosexuality will one day be as accepted as heterosexuality, but as I've pointed out numerous times, the fact that is is blatantly and obviously against nature means that it will never be seen as normal except in the most depraved of cultures - the kind that God had to destroy, like Sodom or the pre-deluvian world.

Once a nation or people reach that level of depravity (as Romans 1 describes it), God abandons such nations to their folly. We may get there, but that's not a great destination.

Be sure to welcome the Muslim hordes in while you are at it, as Europe has done. Abandon Christ and the Holy God who hates sin (homosexuality included) and you have little protection against real spiritual evil.

And make no mistake, those ARE your choices.

I'd say that things DO exist independent of their being observed.

"A truly unobserved event is one which realises no effect (imparts no information) on any other (where 'other' might be e.g., human, sound-recorder or rock), it therefore can have no legacy in the present (or ongoing) wider physical universe. It may then be recognized that the unobserved event was absolutely identical to an event which did not occur at all."

The supernatural leaves no evidence by definition.

Keith, just as an aside. I watched a show about quantum mechanics last night. Interestingly, there is something called the problem of measurement. That is, something must be observed before that something is in one state or another. They had Schrödinger's cat as an example. Basically, the cat is both alive and dead, at the same time, until someone opens the box and makes an observation.

But clearly you would say you only have evidence that material things follow this principle which means you have no evidence to justify using that principle in spiritual matters.

To me, when you say "spiritual matters," it's more like personal introspection. What I take you to mean though is supernatural beings and magical forces. I go back to the leprechaun claim as an example. You agreed with me that the leprechaun probably doesn't exist. I don't think this calculation of probability came straight from your gut. It's an informed calculation. But, how did you make an informed calculation of probability on the existence of a leprechaun? I was hoping you could take a stab at it as it's difficult to articulate. I'll try after you.

Here you assume that (let's say) The Q'uran is not a reliable source of truth wrt to the afterlife. This of course PRESUPPOSES the Q'uran is not from God since God would presumaby be a reliable source.

Yes, I do assume that. I assume the same for the Bible as well. The reason is that the claims in these books, like there is an afterlife with 72 virgins and Allah is the one true God and Mohammad is His prophet, do not meet the burden of proof. "He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim."

btw: Read this and weep. Even your own kind are deserting you, seeker. It's only a matter of time until gays finally achieve our constitutionally mandated equality, and you and your ilk are consigned to the dustbin of history with the other bigots and hatemongers where you belong.

"A little disingenuous"? Like a little pregnant.

There were also gay Nazis. So?

Runner,

Thanks for the input, very interesting, not rambling at all. I suspected that such *could* happen. Do you think the church might have changed since then? The one time I attended, Pastor Terry did not talk about tithing at all. Some cultlike churches grow out of it into grace.

>> HOME: There is definitely a strong argument that it is not possible to be a Christian without being part of a church community.

I would not go that far. I would say that you CAN be a Christian and not be part of a church (or parachurch) organization (the key is face to face fellowship, prayer, and worship), but you can't really be a mature, fruitful, or obedient Christian and maintain that stance except by some special grace (like Paul the Apostle for the three years after he got saved - and of course, as he matured, that totally changed).

>> LOUIS: My point, typically misunderstood, was that there is a difference between "the" Church Universal and "a" church, which is local and individual.

Not only that, many confuse the Church Universal with the teachings of some central body like the Catholic Church, or Reformed theology or something. But my definition above is less stringent - it's the somewhat 'mystical' body of believers across time.

Louis,

I agree, they are being a little disingenuous in that they are using some namecalling and derision. However, the important point is that they are not being anti-liberal. They really are about protecting the people from bad policy.

But they are not saying that Gore's film was liberal or socialist, but that they THE FILM MAKERS are. They are labeling themselves as 'for the people' so to speak.

“It’s a liberal, socialist film. It’s about poor people in Africa and America,” McAleer says. “We’re not interested in insulting anyone or winning political points,” McAleer continues. “I don’t care about your politics and I’m not going to demonize you.”

This guy is confused. He claims he's not interested in insulting people or "winning political points, or demonizing people, but labels those concerned about global climate change (a fact) as liberal and socialist (code words used to demonize and score political points). The fact is that he is interested in scoring political points and demonizing people. He has a political agenda (as does daniel). Else, why bother? His coy demurrals notwithstanding, he's just another political activist, hiding his agenda. Grain of salt.

My point, typically misunderstood, was that there is a difference between "the" Church Universal and "a" church, which is local and individual.

Hi Cin:

KEITH: And what about spiritual things--do THEY always leave evidence?"

CIN: Well first, they have to exist to even be able to leave evidence. Also, there is a question of existence if something is unobserved. "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Clicky if interested.

KEITH: I'd say that things DO exist independent of their being observed. But see the point of my question. You claim that unless there is evidence for the existence of something the something probably doesn't exist. When I asked you to show this rule is true you claimed that whatever exists leaves evidence of its existence "even quarks". But clearly you would say you only have evidence that material things follow this principle which means you have no evidence to justify using that principle in spiritual matters.

KEITH: "I don't get your point. [about death as the undiscovered country]"

CIN: We know nothing about what happens after we die. It's complete speculation.

KEITH: Here you assume that (let's say) The Q'uran is not a reliable source of truth wrt to the afterlife. This of course PRESUPPOSES the Q'uran is not from God since God would presumaby be a reliable source.

your friend
Keith

There is definitely a strong argument that it is not possible to be a Christian without being part of a church community. There are aspects of communal worship that can't be practiced alone. Group prayer is different than individual prayer. Also, if the point of Christianity is to prepare the world for God's kingdom, then we should probably get used to living in the community of believers.