Your post to me:


Myschae - "specious?"

Let me ask you something then. There are a set of "laws" that YOU choose to obey because you see them as "in your best interest," "to avoid a penalty that could be imposed on you," or because you simple "feel like" it's the best thing to do so you choose to act on those feelings.

But what happens when you "don't feel like" it?

It would seem that you retain the "authority" to choose for yourself what you will and what you will not "obey." You do not surrender that "authority" to anyone else so that they have the "authority" to tell you what to do whether you like what they are saying or not.

So it's not a simple issue of you choosing to "take direction from or follow" some outside set of rules. The "authority" remains in your hands and you get to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong" and what you will or will not choose to "obey."

In short, you retain the right of "Sovereign" choice in your life and do not "cede" that throne of sovereignty to anyone else.

Assuming that everyone else would have the same right to determine by "Sovereign fiat" for themselves, if everyone started implementing that right, where do you think that would lead?

Granted, a lot of this has to do with the question of "what IS the purpose of "man," since we DO exist?"

If there is no "higher authority" than the individual and there is "nothing" after we die, what is the likely result of everyone living for the "moment" and for the "here and now" only, based solely in what each individual "wants?"

FH,



I was acknowledging that my "argument" might lack any merit because I might have misunderstood what you wrote in the first place -- sort of a pre-emptive I might have this all wrong, but here is what I think you said.... To be completely honest, sometimes I think you use common words in a jargon-like way (ie. their meaning has connotations outside how I would use the word). I'm not always sure I understand what you're trying to say. Specific words are: surrender, sovereignty..

You know what they say about assumptions. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I'm not trying to pick on you... I'm just trying to ensure that if you're talking about my views, you express them in a way I'd agree with. (Which is a very different thing than if you're expressing your opinion of my views. You know?)


Well, yes, I obey the laws of the U.S. (Except for a few speed limits and traffic laws. But, that was more in my wild, crazy youth. These days I even drive the speed limit over 95% of the time.)


I do it (what the law says) anyway.


Well, in a way, I suppose. Although I do "surrender" to the authority of the US government - for many of the reasons you cited above - it might depend on which law.

1.) to stay out of jail (I don't think I'd like it there)
2.) because I happen to agree with the law and would do it that way anyway (best interest)


This doesn't make much sense to me. Doesn't everyone get to choose?

Let me give you a for instance:

Say, for the sake of argument, that surrendering means that you no longer can choose your actions. And, again for the sake of argument, one decided to follow the tenents of Christianity. Then, that seems to mean that one could not make any choices to sin. It would be impossible to do so unless the choice still exists.

Now, I'm getting on shaky ground here a little bit, so I might be wrong about this:

My understanding is that salvation isn't something you can loose. But, salvation doesn't mean you don't have the choice to sin. You still have that choice - granted, you shouldn't do it. But, it doesn't mean the choice is no longer possible, right?


If by this you mean I'm responsible for my choices and I don't blame the consequences (good or bad) on anyone else -- then YEAH!


Well, I think this is all ready happening now - so you'd get ... what we've got. Such as it is.


I don't think there is any purpose for man. I don't think we're required or needed or "special." What are the purpose of dolphins? To amuse us? What are the purposes of cats or butterflies or any other living thing. Actually, you could make an argument that man really isn't much of a boon to the ecosystems given some of our policies and how we wipe out other species.

Why do we need to have a purpose, anyway? To make us "feel" better about ourselves? To grant us permission to do some of the things that we do that show a lack of care for other species - "dominion over all" and all that?

At one time, we fit a niche in the ecosystem. I think we've outgrown our niche -- and I don't think we (the human race) is going to last "forever" or possibly even "very long" if you measure time geologically rather than generationally.

There were things here before us and it's very likely there will be things here after us. Our purpose is to live and to do what we do: which is build societies of all different shapes and sizes. Whatever individuals choose as their role in that "doing" is what I consider to be a more important question.


What's so wrong with "nothing" after we die? I really mean that seriously. I understand that the idea bothers a lot of people, but I can't wrap my mind around why.

Why does life suddenly loose all meaning if no afterlife exists? If you want to know what I ~really~ think -- I think we get recycled along with everything else. Our carbons and hydrogens and components get churned back into the mix and out comes more life. It's sort of like the concept of reincarnation only there's no preservation of identity (soul) or punishment, etc. You might come back as a worm, and grass, and coral, and an oak tree .... and... whatever.

That's not such a bad thing, is it?


Remember, I said humans build societies. You could say we're "pack animals." If you look in nature, pack animals tend to have social structures that suborn individuality -- they cooperate. If people weren't social and didn't have the tendency to cooperate -- then we wouldn't have human societies today and there would probably be much, much fewer of us around. We wouldn't build huge buildings or develop technology or any of those things.

So, I guess I'm saying I see a different reason for cooperating rather than fear of punishment in an afterlife. And, I have a reason for living other than rewards after I'm dead.

I think you could remove "God" or "gods" from the equation entirely and people would still find reasons to cooperate -- simply because when we do so it's so much easier to get food, clean water, electricity and ... the Internet! (which I think we can all agree is worth a little cooperation, right? *playful nudge*)


Mys

Myschae - Okay, I'll discuss this a little bit with you, and with anyone else who might like to join in.


That's correct. That is precisely why I have said on many occasions that "defining terms" is essential to effective communication so that both the speaker and the hearer "hear" the same thing when a given word or phrase is used.




Yes, I know. The reverse situation also holds true, right?




So 5% of the time the "laws" are "relative" and not absolute. You choose when and where you will "obey" them and when you won't. That's not "submitting," that's "going along to get along" as long as you perceive it to be in your best interest. If "society" decides to change the "laws," you will choose to accept or reject those changes because you, not society, are "sovereign" and don't do anything that you don't "want" to do. Is that about right?




Do you? What about the 5%?




Myschae, the "point" of "sovereign right" is that the Sovereign is the ONLY one who has the inherent right to impose whatever they want on you and you have no right to disagree. There is no "it depends."

All of the authority is vested in the Sovereign, and what a "subject" likes or dislikes is irrelevant. The "subject" CAN choose to act against the will of the Sovereign, but the penalty for a violation is determined by, and enforced by, the Sovereign regardless of the exercise of "free will" by the Subject.

That's one of the major "problems" that Americans have because of their history and distain of the concept of "sovereign King" that led, in large part, to the formation of the USA.




It seems you are confusing "free will" with "sovereign authority." The fact that someone can choose to disobey does not negate the sovereign authority. "Surrendering" is a "free will" choice that the "authority," in this case you cite, the Lord God, HAS the "final say" no matter what we do. We can choose to submit to His will in the matter or we can choose to rebel. But rebellion does not equate to BEING Sovereign. That is precisely the lie that Satan told Eve, "God didn't really mean what He said. You will BE LIKE God, knowing good and evil." "Being like" is NOT the same thing as "being."




That's essentially correct. God created Mankind with free will. Mankind CAN choose FOR or AGAINST God. God, who is Sovereign, fixes the "penalty" for a choice.

Perhaps it's easiest to see this distinction even if someone doesn't believe in God in the 10 Commandments where God states the rule, we can choose to obey or disobey, and there is an inherent "penalty" or "reward" for choosing poorly or wisely.

God did not create a race of robots incapable of choosing poorly. What God created Man for was for fellowship with Him, not rebellion from Him. Once the choice was "made," the penalty HAD to be imposed. Likewise, the only way that the penalty could be commuted was for God to provide that which Mankind no longer could provide of its "own free will."




So by extension, choosing to "do bad" is "okay" as long as you are willing to take the consequences? That leads, once again, to "relativism," don't you think? This negates "absolutes" that are "in play" regardless of personal opinion. "Absolutes" operate outside of "personal opinion." That is the point.

An oft-used illustration if I may.

If society decided by vote that they would suspend the law of gravity for one hour today, anyone foolish enough to believe that society had the "sovereign authority" to change an "absolute" would find out that the "penalty" is fixed and certain when they stepped off the roof of a building. The "vote" of the majority, the "free exercise of their free will" would have NO bearing on an absolute penalty that operates regardless of "opinion, wants, or desires."

On the other hand, some "laws" are NOT fixed and the penalties ARE determined by society. The speed limits you referred to and their attendant penalties for infractions ARE determined by society and CAN change by "free will" choices. They are NOT, by their very nature, "absolute." They are "relative" to a given time and situation.



In some respects you are right. We see exactly this sort of thing happening now. Where it leads, ultimately, is to total anarchy, where each individual is their own "sovereign" and nothing is "wrong" that they personally choose to do.

This has a LOT to do with the fears of the Founding Fathers in setting up this Republic. Without the "external" authority (God) as a "break" on the natural selfish inclinations of people, they foresaw anarchy, despotism, and "bad things" happening to this nation as a whole. Their fears are being born out today.



You really need to think about this.

Man does NOT operate solely by instinct. Man is distinctly different from all other creatures. Man has the ability to CHOOSE.

That you "don't think there is any purpose for man" is understood. The "purpose of man" question is a question that has been asked for ages. For atheists, the answer is "no purpose." We are an "accident of nature" that serves no purpose other than "existing."

For those who believe that we are the product of a Creator, a "creator" creates something with a definite purpose in mind and what is created serves that purpose, whether it's a building, a cabinet, a painting, or human LIFE.

This results in an "either/or" situation. BOTH "views" cannot simultaneously be TRUE. One or the other is true, regardless of personal opinion, and the other is false.




The "purpose" operates independently from "opinion" or "perceived need." God is Sovereign over all creation. So this argument "fits" with your earlier use of the term "specious." God is "independent of Man" and does not "need" Man. Man was created BY God and FOR God. It really is that simple.

However, if someone chooses to deny that God exists, that is an opinion that is not based in fact anymore than someone who believes God exists bases their opinion on "provable" scientific observation. In Christianity, however, God has "gone further" and revealed Himself to us, most emphatically in His Son Jesus Christ. That IS a "scientific reality" that we can examine and reach a conclusion, a "free will choice," about. There are many "creation stories" in many cultures, and there is also the atheistic story that no "god" exists. If it were not for the reality of Jesus Christ, then "all opinions" would be equally valid and we would have no way knowing "for sure" if we were created or just "accidents of nature." That Jesus existed is an indisputable fact of history, as was his being counted in the Roman census. Therefore, the "claims" of Jesus can be examined and every individual must then make a choice regarding Him, and by extension, regarding the existence of God.




Obviously, this is an opinion. There is no "inherent truth" in it either. It is based on a presupposition that God does not exist and that humans are merely an accident of nature. Science has not proven that life arose from non-life. It merely speculates that "given enough time," all things are possible by random chance. However, if one applies what IS known through science and mathematics, it is clearly seen that this presupposition is NOT based in fact, but is in reality based in "faith."




It would be an interesting diversion to talk about WHAT "things" were here before us, because some "things" WERE here before Man. The "difference" is in "where did they come from?"

"Whatever individuals choose as their role" is precisely the point with respect to "who is sovereign." WHO determines what is "important" and what any individual "should" be "doing?" It revolves around the issue of who is, in fact, sovereign and capable of determining absolute "right and wrong" regardless of anyone else's opinion.




IF God does not exist, and IF there is no "eternal soul" that "survives" our physical death, then there is nothing wrong with "nothing" after we die. However, that cannot be proven either. It is an opinion, a "faith," a "sincere belief," at best. But it does not confer truth in, and of, itself.

The "why" to your question is because until we DO individually experience death, we cannot KNOW what the reality is, unless the Creator has chosen to intervene and reveal reality to us about things that we cannot know "experimentally" or "scientifically." Thus, the "answer" to the "why" is that Man, BECAUSE He is unique among all creatures, HAS the ability to ask the question, "is this all there is?" Apart from the revelation by the Creator, there would be no definitive answer to that question, certainly not "this side of the grave."

The resurrection of Jesus Christ provides clear and definitive proof that there IS "life after death" and that "nature" obeys the will of God, not the will of Man. ONLY by rejecting by willful choice, Jesus Christ, is the "answer" to the question left hanging with no answer.




Yes, in my opinion, it is "such a bad thing."

You have to understand that up to a point, you are saying nothing different from what Scripture, the Word of God, teaches us. "From dust you came and to dust you shall return." We WERE created from the elements that God created, just as everything else was. There was one marked difference, however. We were given the "breath of life" from God. That the "breath of life" is NOT oxygen, or any other source to sustain the physical processes of life, is CLEAR from Scripture, because Man, unlike all other organisms, was created "in the image of God." God is eternal and is a spirit and is living. True to all scientific theory and fact, LIFE is required to "beget" life. Life does NOT arise spontaneously from non-life, despite the presuppositions of proponents of evolution. That component of man that is eternal is the soul, the spirit, of Man. The "shell" in which the soul resides WILL die, and it, too, will one day be recreated by God and the soul reunited with the physical body as its "place of residence." God the Son, Jesus Christ, exists today within a physical, resurrected, body as proof that there is life after death and that God will reunite "spirit" with "body," only the new body will be "incorruptible," will not die again.




Your last paragraph is accurate, but for a different reason. This goes back to what I mentioned earlier about Man being created in the image of God. God has existed in an eternal fellowship with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We were created for fellowship with God and imbued with a "nature" of cooperation with each other. In the beginning that nature was prefect, as God is perfect in His relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

"Fallen mankind" is selfish and self-centered at its basic core. Mankind DOES see the "value" in combining with "like-minded" individuals and rejects anyone who is "different." The Tower of Babel, for example, was the last time that Mankind had a common language on which to base "cooperation" with each other.

Today, we are rapidly approaching time when there again may be a "common language" among all people. But, as in the time of the Tower of Babel, it is Man, not God who is exalted and Man who "determines" what is "right and wrong" for their "group" of people. Many of the "things" you cited, like the Internet, have the potential to be used for good or evil, and ARE being used for both purposes. Why? Because the individuals using the Internet determine that they, and they alone, are the sole arbiter of what is "right and wrong" for themselves, and to heck with everyone else.

People can "cooperate" in blowing up buildings and blowing up people, just as easily as they can cooperate and BUILD buildings and "good societies," and they can SINCERELY believe that they are "doing right" and being obedient to THEIR "god" or their chosen "faith"(Atheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc.) But that doesn't make what they are doing "good" and it doesn't make it "right" simply because it's what they WANT to do. It is their sincerely held opinion, but the TRUTH operates independently.

That is why the ONE thing that sets apart Christianity from all other belief systems IS the real person of Jesus Christ.


So where does this "leave us?" I don't know the answer to that question as each individual must answer that question for himself or herself. I DO know that experience has shown conclusively that left to their own "choices," a portion of society, sometimes a very large portion, WILL choose to attempt to impose THEIR will on someone else.

That is precisely proven by the need for Police and Military. Because people ARE "free" to choose for themselves what they will do and what they won't do, making the choice that THEY are sovereign and everyone else is subservient to their "fiat," many will choose what "I" or "You" would consider to be evil or "bad choices." It always comes back to "who sits on the sovereign throne of MY life?" It is TO whomever is sitting on that throne that we choose to submit OUR will to because we acknowledge their RIGHT to command our "wants and needs" as we are a subject of that Sovereign, and therefore, we submit our actions by willful choice, no matter what we might think is "right" in the given matter. That IS the only "proper" course of action.

FH,


If you like, if not, I understand that these tend to go circular and don't want you to feel obligated.

I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind.


Good, we agree here.


Absolutely.

I am pretty careful about representing "Christian thought or theology" because I recognize I am not an expert in it.


Well, that 5% of the time accounts for a lot of things. Sometimes it's because I'm just not paying attention like I should (ie. I missed the speed limit sign, etc). Some of the time It's because I'm in a hurry.

But, I don't believe that the law of the land isn't Sovereign - if I get pulled over, I get a ticket and pay the fine. So speed limits (and other traffic laws) definitely have sovereignty over me when I'm out on the roads in as much as the state has the right to enforce them if/when it notices I haven't obeyed them.

I think this is closer to what you were saying about free will. I can willfully choose to break a speed limit or rob a bank -- but the state has the right to impose a penalty on me if I do, regardless of how I feel about it.


I hope I don't get caught!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


I don't understand the "only" part. There are many branches of government that seem to have sovereignty over me - federal, state, local. I suppose you could stick federal at the top because it overrides everyone else ... but, in reality, they don't overlap that much.

I'm not sure whether or not "inherent right" is exactly how I think about this - our country was built on the idea of government based "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Right?

Now, clearly, that doesn't mean that all the people agree all the time about what our government is doing. I certainly don't believe in everything the government does nor do I think all the laws are "right" in an ethical/moral or if you want to boil it down to the basest terms ("does it make any bloody sense") way. I still don't hold myself above those laws -- I consider myself part of the system that exists to evaluate and change those laws if we can.


I think this pretty much fits my speed limit analogy just fine. Whatever powers that be (local governments?) set speed limits. I'm not even particularly opposed to the idea of a speed limit -- I just occasionally go faster than I should. But, regardless, of whether I think speed limits should exist, should be higher, should be lower or whatever -- if I choose to break that limit, then the government has the right to set and impose a punishment on me.

Now, I suppose where this breaks down some is that citizens can have a voice in determining what speed limits should be by following the process of laws. But, generally, that process isn't available to you when you're pulled over on the side of the road.


*scratching my head*

I think I agree with this. Maybe the whole idea of sovereignty doesn't make sense to me (in the way you use it) because I'm accultured to living in a democracy rather than a monarchy. But, even with monarchies... did the Kings and Queens really set every single rule down? My goodness, they must have delegated something.

Another difference is the belief that governments rule by the consent of the governed. To get closer to what you're talking about you might have to go to some examples of ancient Asian societies or Egyptian societies where the Kings and Queens were actually considered to be deities. I've never lived in such a society - I'm not sure what my world view would be if I did.


I confuse free will, sovereign authority, and submission a LOT in these discussions. Let's just put that right out there on the table.


Ok. That makes sense. So, just like in my analogy, I can break the speed limit but that doesn't mean the state doesn't have the authority to punish my rebellion.


Fair enough.


Ok.


Do I believe "Choosing to "do bad" is OK." No, I wouldn't say I believe that... I guess it all depends on what you think "bad" really is - I really do think that situations have bearing on "good/bad." I'm one of those dreaded *cue music* moral relativists that people are always complaining about.

Yes, it leads to relativism. I happen to believe some things are relative and some things are not. I agree with you that gravity and "laws of nature and physics" are not relative laws. Well, that's not entirely true. Gravity actually IS relative, you know. The equation of gravity describes the relationship of attraction between two masses. Therefore, gravity is relative to how close you are to any given mass. If you're on the surface of the Earth then the gravitation pull is your weight. It's roughly 1/6th that if you're on the surface of the moon.

However, as most of us don't engage in off planet excursions, we can just assume that gravity is absolute and can't be voted away by people. And, even if you are off planet, the amount of attraction between two masses is formulaic rather than opinion, anyway.

So, if what you're saying is that there's a difference between facts (things that can be measured and proven to be categorically true) and opinions( things that people believe ), then I agree.


Right. We're on the same page here.

Although, I do want to say this (strictly opinion on my part and not offered as facts in evidence), I happen to think that everyone is a moral relativist. Some people just choose a "package" deal to align their morals too. In that paradigm, your morals would be "relative" to Christianity. Someone else might have morals "relative" to SecHum or Islam. By my reckoning, I'm actually less moralistically relative than most because I don't really align very well to any particular "school" or "package" of thought - as you pointed out, I sort of decide for myself what I think is right or wrong in a moral sense - or even as it relates to opinions about sovereign laws (I think some of them are absolutely wrong, some stupid, and some right).

The key difference is that some things are legislated (speed limits, laws against killing people or robbing banks) and somethings are not legislated. I've never disagreed with you that I choose my own morality relative to whatever I happen to think about things for whatever reasons I have for thinking them -- I just disagreed that I don't acknowledge that there is authority that I have to follow. I absolutely DO acknowledge that there is authority over me that not only has the authority to punish me if I break certain laws/rules but has the ability to do so.


I'm not sure I understand what you mean by your last statement "nothing is wrong that they personally choose to do." If, by that, you are saying people won't believe they are doing something wrong when they make their choices -- then, that might be true (though my opinion isn't that it would be quite that absolute).

If you are saying that everyone will suddenly become SO open minded that they'll stop having opinions of the right/wrongness of what other people do then I think you're mistaken. Are you kidding me? I mean, honestly, people have a hard time agreeing on things - I seriously doubt you'd find a way to make the human race stop having opinions on what everyone else is doing.

All you need to do is take a look at one of the many threads that circulate around this board on the "proper" way to post/give advice/follow the plans. Yikes.


Eh?


What makes you think I haven't thought about it? I've put quite a lot of thought into it, actually.


Yeah, I hear you. I just don't happen to believe that we're outside nature. We're different but we're also very similar. I have just never seen us as "above" anything else or the "pinnacle" of anything. In that, I probably disagree with a lot of people.


I'm not sure it's fair to spread my thoughts on to all other atheists. For all I know, some of them out there might believe there is a purpose.


What? Either we have a purpose or we don't?


Well, sure. If you believe in God. If you don't believe in God, then it becomes much less relevant.


We've gone around this all ready. That Jesus existed is hardly indisputable -- if you're using the term in the dictionary sense of:


Because it IS being disputed so by definition it can't be indisputable.

Look, you say examine the evidence. I did (no, not all of it there's so much out there) - on both sides. I happen to think that Jesus Christ falls into the Legend category.

It is understood that you do believe He existed and was the Son of God.


Yes, that is why it is preceded with the words "I think...."

I have no evidence to offer that we won't be around "forever" or even for a "very long time" in a geological sense. I just don't think that we will. I'm not sure I'd elevate that opinion of mine to a faith though. I wouldn't put it out in a serious debate as an assertion or anything. It's just an opinion for the purpose of discussion.


Yeah, but the Evolution vs. Creationism debate just goes round and round on here. I was actually hoping to avoid that because it's so much work for so little gain. You've GOT to be tired of it by now - goodness knows you get embroiled in many more of those than I do.


Ok... I can certainly see how that plays a role. I absolutely agree with you that religion (or lack thereof) probably plays a major role in how many people find their "niche" in life. Or, how they build their morality or how they make decisions that fall into that grey area of "choices" that aren't legislated away by physical authorities (ie. corporeal authorities that will lock you up for some of your choices).

And you are certainly right that I have retained the right (and it's attendant responsibilities) for figuring out my own sense of right/wrong with respect to many issues (including ones that are legislated). My biggest point of contention with your statements was my perceived implication that you were saying I somehow believe I am outside any accountability for my actions by anyone - ie. might somehow go out and rob a bank this afternoon if nothing good is on TV.

To sum it up, I acknowledge secular sovereignty but not divine sovereignty.

When I choose my life's path, I don't take deities into account. Many people do.


Sure! And, we'll all find out sooner or later so why worry about it?


Huh?

You said earlier that either there is or there isn't. One or the other is wrong. Either way, each person finds out .. in time. What you believe in the here and now has no bearing on the reality of what IS. So, believing in an afterlife doesn't create one that doesn't exist. Not believing won't destroy one that does exists. As I said. Sooner or later you find out.


Ok.


Well, it seems we come right back to the beginning.

Look, FH, if you take the premise that God exists (and is the God of the Bible vs. some other one) as true, then I agree with you. The only prudent, rational thing to do would be to sign up.

I just don't believe. It's not like I haven't tried... I did. I just don't have faith that He's up there -- and the more I've investigated about it, learned about it, read about it, and studied about it... the less and less convinced I've become. "Proof" clearly isn't any pathway for me.

If you take a look at it from my POV (which I realize might be difficult) then maybe you can understand how putting your faith in something that is false seems like the absolute WORST mistake you can make. I don't hate Christianity or Christians (or Moslems or HIndus et. al) I just don't happen to believe that any of them are right.

Without belief then there can be no submission - or at least I've been told it wouldn't matter. Even if you lived a purely Biblical life, if you aren't a believer then you still get damned (right?).

Regardless of any of that - all I really wanted to say is that the lack of belief in religion does not translate into a lack of understanding of authority. And, I think I've said that. I bring that up because it seemed that your words implied that it would -- maybe you never meant that.

Like you've said many times: the Truth is... the Truth. My belief or non-belief won't change it. Reality is what it is. You and I see things through different lenses because of our different world views but I hold no enmity towards you (and don't sense enmity from you towards me).

I'm intensely curious about what faith "feels" like - what the experience is like. People seem to describe it as something wonderful and comforting. Certainly you have a passion for it/because of it.

As for me, my beliefs do work for me. There's a certain sense of peace in how I think the world works -- and I like feeling part of it rather than above it or set aside from it or "special" or any of those things that seem to be required to make the transition into faith.

Best wishes,

Mys

This is understood. The context of the discussion was with respect to Aphaeresis and her chosen "authority," Secular Humanism.

There are MANY different forms of authority, but only one true God (which is the basis of Christianity). There are many "gods" that various beliefs hold, but the reality of any authority that is the "province" of God must be founded in the reality of the One True God.

That "issue" of "which God" has been around for time immemorial and includes "no God." ALL are based in faith either in the reality of God or the denial of God. What distinguishes the "difference" is that only Christianity has a "real, live, person who actually CLAIMED to BE God.

That you have evaluated the issue and consider Jesus to be a Legend is one of the 4 "possibilities." But it would seem that the "legend" idea concerns His "diety," was the Savior that was promised by God to be the only acceptable propitiation for sin, and not the fact that He actually existed, was counted in the Roman Census, etc.

Liar, Lunatic, Legend, Lord are the 4 choices. But not wanting to go into that at this time, let's try to keep things focused on the fact that we DO have various "authorities" that we submit to. The "authority" of a chosen faith IS that faith and the beliefs and tenets of that faith.

On the "minor issues," like the speeding example, authority is vested in the government. The government can "pass" secular laws and enforce them, but they cannot dictate spiritual laws, because they inherently lack the authority (the occasional ones where some ruler claims to also be diety notwithstanding). Anyone can "claim" to be God and can even sincerely believe that they are God, but they are not. We see this sort of thing easily with mentally deranged people who sincerely think they are God.

Even Jesus, when asked about taxation, said "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's." God (according to Christian belief) allows governments to exist, along with their secular rights of authority.

What I have been discussing with Aphaeresis is that she HAS chosen a "faith" and as such, she and her husband need to "subject" their will to the teachings of that faith. To "pick a faith" and then NOT abide by it's teachings would seem to render any faith rather meaningless.

The "authority of God," the existence of heaven and he11, life after death in one of those places, etc. are based in the existence of God.

You are correct that after death we WILL know with certainty where we are IF the Christian "view" is correct. If the reality is that we are just evolved beings, then death ends forever our meager existence.

This is where these discussions turn "theological," because they are based in faith, either faith that God exists and there is life after death or faith that God does not exist and our "allotted time" on earth is all that there is. With respect to the Christian faith in particular, the WHOLE Christian religion rests on who Jesus is and that He did die and was resurrected from the dead (a feat we still can't do no matter how advanced our science has gotten).

The issue with the term "authority" is that the one term can have many different meanings.

My contention, as a believer, is that "Man" is basically corrupt and without God's help, there is only one "destination" for mankind because the "penalty" for rebellion was set by THE authority over all.

Since God also wrote His moral code on the hearts of all men, it is possible that some will try to lead "morally good" lives and some will simply be "pure evil" and intent on doing whatever they want to do, i.e., murder, rape, etcetera. But the "problem" is the reality of sin, which IS a theological concept. We can't really have "sin" unless there is a Holy God who is the standard of the opposite of sin. Without God, we have "bad choices," and that's all we have.

As much as I would personally love to have everyone come to a belief in Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior, that is NOT going to happen. For those who do not choose Christ, I would certainly, from a purely practical standpoint, prefer to live around people who follow laws that are founded in the "Judeo/Christian" ethic and not around those who think they have the "right" to do whatever they feel like doing.




Yes, either we (human beings) have a purpose or not.

Having a purpose implies that someone made something for a reason, for specific purpose. It implies an conscious act of will in designing and creating that, of necessity, resides only in a living sentient being. Human beings were created by God for the purpose of fellowship with God, if one assumes or accepts that the Christian religion is correct and that the Bible is the Word of God wherein He has revealed the purpose of His Creation.

If, on the other hand, we are all just an accident of nature, of random chance with no purpose or design, then the only "purpose" we might have is what we choose for ourselves, if anything. We often operate on the "might makes right" principle and that is governed by our individual wants and desires, rationalizations and justifications.

So the issue really is "purpose" or "no purpose," depending upon the reality or not of a Creator. If there is a Creator, then HIS purpose is the real reality. If there isn't a Creator, we can choose any, or no, "purpose" for the time we have here on earth.





lol. For the same reason that someone might choose to stand on the railroad tracks, believing that trains don't exist. "Sooner or later" the reality will intrude regardless of how sincere the belief is that trains don't exist. But when "train meets man," it's "too late" for a "do over."

Which is why I would like to see all come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, but I also understand that some will prefer, for whatever personal reasons, to "stand on the tracks that just happened to be formed by random chance without any purpose."

God bless, if you'll forgive me the reference to God. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

FH,


I'm not quite sure that it works the same way with athiest world views as it does with theist world views but, ok. I'm glad we got that straight.


This only works, though, if you believe in that God.


No, I actually happen to think that Jesus was a character in the moral play of the times - there probably was a Jesus counted in a census but I'm not sure that there was one person who's story follows the sequence described Biblically. (Rather, I think it is a composite of people/stories)

And, again, this is just my opinion based on the things I've read and examined. I've certainly not given enough study to it to be expert enough to present a convincing argument, either way. It's just my opinion. He was a legend in the much the same way Hercules was a legend.


All right.


I absolutely agree. But, from the perspective that the 'spirit' doesn't exist -- life ends at death, then there's not much point in spiritual laws.


Yes, I know. I don't mean to get involved between the two of you in that discussion because I'm not much of an expert on SecHum. I barely skimmed the manifesto she posted on that other thread. I didn't find anything in there I immediately disagreed with but I didn't give it too much careful consideration. It seemed to be more or less saying "Don't harm people." That doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.


Yes, I suppose that's true. By my belief system, there won't be anything left to "know" anything. But, then again, there won't be anything left around to care.


Agreed.


My contention as a non-believer is that people are people and no better or worse than any other animal life. There's nothing inherently wrong with us -- we're not "fallen." The concept of sin makes no sense -- as it seems to be defined as violating a divine rule.

Now, that doesn't mean that the concept of "right" or "wrong" loose their meanings. For the sake of simplicity, let's split off the right/wrong in the sense of 2+2=4 is right and 2+2=5 is wrong and stick to questions of morality/ethics, etc.

As I said, I'm a moral relativist. I think right/wrong (in the moral/ethical/philosophical) sense has a lot to do with what's going on at the time - or the situation. For example: Is killing wrong? Well, it depends. It's not wrong if the other person is trying to kill you or someone in your family.

Now, I will confess that I have found some things that I can't seem to ever justify a situation in which they work out to be "right."


Right. And, those choices are often judged differently depending on where you happen to be.


Well, now, be a little more optimistic, will ya. Lots of people just like being nice. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />


Yes, I agree with this.

Though, as we've discussed before and you acknowledged, human beings form societies and cooperate. Lots of people find purpose in raising children, etc.


Ah yes. I suppose it's a gamble not to believe -- but then it's a gamble to "pick" one on the off chance you bet on the wrong deity.

But, gamble or no gamble -- belief is required. REAL belief -- not fake acquiescence because you want to hedge your bet. I could profess to believe in God in the hopes that I can avoid eternal damnation like an insurance policy -- but something tells me if the system exists, it doesn't work that way. Isn't there some verse in the Bible that basically says that there will be many who are turned away and told "I never knew you."

Faking it isn't an option. You either truly believe or you don't. (And, personally, I find the idea of faking to be an incredibly disrespectful thing to do to people who truly DO believe.)

Those of us who don't believe have to figure it out for ourselves, I guess. People put varying amounts of thought into the problem -- but many of us aren't just slaves to our whims. Some of us put quite a lot of thought into this stuff - like me, for example.


Absolutely. I take it in the spirit it's offered.

FH, my questions have been answered. I'm available to answer any more you might have for me but otherwise I think we've covered the ground that I was concerned with.

Best wishes,

Mys

Interesting discussion, though I'm sure it could go on till the cows come home with no one changing the other's opinion. I think one of the fundamental differences in Christians and "non-believers" (I'm lumping everyone who doesn't believe in a personal God and an afterlife into this category e.g. Agnostic, Atheist, Taoist, etc.) is in the concept of the inherent goodness of man. I am an agnostic who leans toward Taoist philosophy, and I do believe that people are basically good (or right).

One of the things that always bothers me is when people assume that I can't choose to be a good person without the threat of punishment or the promise of reward. I grew up in a strict Baptist family and I hear it all the time. But I have seen way too much to the contrary to believe it. Christians, Jews, Taoists. None have a corner market on morality. I have seen believers and non-believers commit sickening actions, and I have seen each commit altruistic actions. I personally look at ethical behavior as a much more noble pursuit if you believe that no one will make you do it and no one will punish you if you don't. Why do it? I don't really know why, but I know people do it. I am an example. (By the way, I freely admit that I will break a law if I view it as capricious and it doesn't hurt anyone else. I would have had a drink during prohibition, and I might have thrown some tea in the river a few hundred years ago.)

I personally have no idea whether we have a purpose or not. I suspect if we do have a purpose the purpose is so different from any established religious teaching that everyone will be wrong. I'm willing to concede that Christians may be exactly right. I don't think so, but what do I know?

Another argument that I get from believers a lot is this one. "If I'm wrong and there is no afterlife then so what. But if you're wrong and there is an afterlife then you'll be sorry". My response is always that there is a consequence of falsely believing in an afterlife at least for me. It's living your life with false hope. I want truth. If it is unpleasant truth, so be it. I'm not claiming to know the truth, but I (and a lot of others) can't embrace something that I believe is not the truth.

So, here we are. I'm sure this discussion won't change any minds. I don't need anyone to agree with me about my beliefs (or lack thereof). I'd be happy if I could just get the believers that I know to stop looking at me as if I am a wayward soul that just hasn't come around to their superior belief system. I'm not confused. I'm open to learning about any philosophical, political, or religious belief system. I just tend to think that none of them completely add up, and maybe the right belief system is out there and maybe it's not. I'll keep looking until I find it or it finds me.

changd4ever - I'm not entirely sure what to say or what you might want to hear because you state on the one hand "I'm sure this discussion won't change any minds" and on the other hand "I'm open to learning about any philosophical, political, or religious belief system. I just tend to think that none of them completely add up, and maybe the right belief system is out there and maybe it's not. I'll keep looking until I find it or it finds me. "

Having once considered myself to be Agnostic, I see the same sort of confusion that was ever present. It's sort of like a "procrastination" sort of thing where a person can't bring themselves to "make up their mind."

The "crux" of the issue for everyone is that there are only two basic "possibilities." One, that NO God, no "Supreme Being," no Creator exists. Two, that some "God" does exist.

With the first "option," there is no need to examine any possibility that "option 2" might actually be true, because a definitive decision has been made.

With the second "option," it then becomes a question of "which" of the various religions may actually be the "right one." That subquestion is necessary because the various ideas of who "God" is are markedly different between the varying religions. As a starting point those religious ideas can be broken into two major subsets; Polytheism (many Gods) and Monotheism (one God).

The "problem" with Agosticism, imho and based on my own experience with it, is that it tries to sort of "straddle the fence" and says, "I don't know if God exists, so I can't say God doesn't exist and adopt Atheism and I don't know which "God" might the right one, so I won't adopt any of them." That is indecision and procrastination that tends to wait for some "miraculous inspiration or proof" that one or the other is right.

So I "get," I think, your "I'll keep looking until I find it or it finds me."





For the record, this isn't what the Bible teaches. It MAY be the way some people interpret it or express it, but it is NOT based on what God's Word does say.

Your being a "good person," by human standards is very possible. Being "good" by God's standards is something that NO human can be, including Christians. The reason is that there is only one who IS good, and that is God. There is NO sin in God, but there is sin in all men and women.

What you are referring to as "good" is a moral application that someone can choose or reject, because God gave all mankind "Free Will" AND He wrote His moral code on the hearts of all men and women.

Many things, including upbringing and environment, will shape what an individual thinks is "right and wrong" for themselves. But everyone will also find that even if they are doing "most things" the "right way," there are times when they "slip" and choose poorly in how they respond or what they do. In short, no one is "perfect." So far as we know there was only one perfect person from birth to death, and that was Jesus. Everyone else has fallen short of the "Goodness Standard" of God, including David, who is said to be a "Man of God." Even "Men of God" are not perfect and fail the "Goodness" test.

It is not a "social" question, this question of "goodness." It is a theological question. That is precisely why Atheists can grasp this concept very well because it REQUIRES the existence of God. So all that is left is the "social definition" of "good more often than bad." Grading "on the curve," it is easy to say one person is "good" and another is "below the curve and therefore 'bad'."

But God doesn't "grade on the curve." God's test is perfection. "Be ye holy because God is holy." That is the sort of test that God applies because He, Himself, is the Standard and the passing of that test is a "Pass/Fail" grade, not a curve or "averages weighting."

Now, going back the part of the quotation that is underlined, I think the reason you feel this way is because you have NOT made a choice. By comparison, Myschae has chosen Atheism and I have chosen Christianity. Both of us are quite comfortable with our chosen belief and do not feel personally threatened if the other would say something like "you are stupid to believe that junk." That phrase could be said by either of us to the other without having to change one word.

But in your case, you have not made a decision and are straddling the fence, so you KNOW that they "could be" right and you slam down the protective walls around your feelings and "gaslight" in a way what you feel. Now, from the Christian believer's perspective, THEY have made a choice and they accept what God has revealed in His Word. The awfullness of He11 is not something that would be "wished" on anyone (okay, there are a few, like Hitler).

But what they are really saying to you is that the answer to the question is not Agnosticism. They are saying make a choice, one way or the other, but choose and "seal your fate." Why? Because not one of is promised tomorrow. We never know when we will die, and once we die there is no longer any chance to choose. At that point there is only judgment by a righteous, holy, and good God who MUST mete out Justice on the "Pass/Fail" test of what it takes to be "accounted as good enough" to merit His forgiveness of sin and salvation from the "Failed the test" just penalty.





This is absolutely true. But have you ever seen anyone live a completely "good" life from birth to death? Ever watch babies and young children? What you see is the "Taker" in action, not the "Giver." Adults only learn to disguise it better and some actually learn to TRY to be morally good at all times. Since I come to things from a Christian perspective, the answer as to the "why" is simple. It is because we are all born with a fallen sin nature. For those who don't believe in God and sin, the answer tends to be along the lines of an evolutionary history of "survival of the fittest," which most often translates into whatever gives "me the advantage and gets me what I want."

The "bottom line" to it, either with or without God in our belief system is Man is NOT "basically good." Man is basically selfish and self-centered. "Altruism" is learned, not natural, and most who are behaving in an altruistic nature DO receive something for their actions, even if it's just a feeling of "see, I'm good, and I don't even need a 'thanks' or a reward."

Speaking of "rewards," something you said needs a comment with respect to the Christian faith and belief. You said, "the threat of punishment or the promise of reward. I grew up in a strict Baptist family and I hear it all the time."

What you perceive as a "threat" is not a threat. It is an already decided outcome for ALL people that is the just punishment for sin that was established by the Creator of all things. We are all on the path to the same destination. If God did not intevene and provide and "escape plan" Himself, which He didn't have to do, we would all arrive at the same destination. But God has given us one very narrow "escape route" wherein He has chosen to apply the "goodness," the successful passing of the test, to all who accept His "one way out."

To continue on our original course to our original destination all we have to is....nothing.

To take the "escape route" we have to....choose.

One way is Passive and the other way is Active.

And the ONLY "route" that is acceptable to God is the one that HE established. He could care less how many "sidetracks" mankind might want to invent for themselves as ways they think that THEY can make their own "escape route." All they do is branch out from the original path but continue on to the same original destination. Visually, you can think of like the branching of a railroad track as it approaches the "train yard" or the "train station." LOTS of tracks, slightly offset and differing, but all winding up in the same place. The only track that goes somewhere else is the ONE track that leads to a completely different place. ONLY the engineer who believes in the existence of that track on the "route map of life" can find it and actually choose to take it.

Once on that track many additional "side tracks" will present themselves as "alternatives" along the way. But it would take up too much time to add to this analogy right now. Suffice it to say, that there is no "threat." The Judgment has already been made. The only hope for anyone is a Pardon and Commutation of the Sentence. That is a HOPE, not a threat. The destination is a certainty by simply remaining on the "track of life" that we began, but there is a hope of ONE alternative that leads to eternal life with the one who IS "Good."

The rest get to continue on with all the others who were "good enough" in their own grading system. This "good enough" is always "relative." It is never "absolute."

So in summary, anyone CAN choose to live a basically moral and "good" life, by human determined standards. But no one can "choose" to live a perfectly good life from birth to death. Is there "another" Standard of Goodness that can be used to evaluate and judge every person on earth? Without God, the answer is "no." With God, the answer is "yes."

As God put it, "if you are guilty of breaking any one of these commandments, it is the same as if you had broken all of them." There is no "curve" with God. Pass/Fail.





No one (other than perhaps a Wayward Spouse) wants you or anyone else to "embrace" something you don't believe is true.

All that would get you is a different track to the same original destination. But God has not left us without truth. He provided that truth for examination. We then must make a choice. Most people don't find the "problem" to be "believing," they find it to be "surrendering." And that's part of the fact that we are not "good" and do have a sin nature that "fights" goodness all the time and rages against anything that says, "I might have to change some of my lifestyle choices if I actually accept the truth and make it my own."

For Agnostics, it's seems easier to avoid having to make a choice, but you'll most likely find it as unfulfilling as I did because you never have an answer, just continuing doubts. Here is one biblical truth to consider, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

Being "set free" may seem scary from the "outside," but once inside true freedom is found.


God bless.

I'm not confused. I just haven't seen anything to make me believe any organized religion out there. I believe in the practical aspects of some, but not the underlying tenants. It seems like it's all right to say "I don't know" to everything but religion. I could tell you that a bomb is going to explode tomorrow and you need to choose whether or not to believe me. You probably couldn't disprove me, but you would not have sufficient evidence or belief to change your actions (get out of town). You may think that I could be right, but you don't know for sure. So using my analogy if I had to make a choice I would say there is no personal God. I don't have to say that though. I am not confused. I am just comfortable enough to admit you could be right, but I don't think you are.


There are never only two possibilities. There are countless possibilities. Maybe there was a God at one time and not anymore. Maybe there are competing Gods. Maybe there is a God, but he cares nothing about us. Maybe there is a God, but he doesn't even realize that he created us. Maybe the reality that we perceive is not physical at all, but just a manifestation of a collective consciousness. I honestly have no idea, but I do enjoy talking about the possibilities.


I understand your point, and your view is probably in the majority. I disagree. I can't see myself ever adopting Atheism because Atheism requires a belief or faith that there is no God. The only way that I would firmly believe that is if I found compelling evidence, which I never will. No matter what scientific evidence comes about you can always say that God had a part in it (i.e. God created the world through evolution), and you would be right. He could have. But both positions require faith in your belief. Faith in your position also makes it personal. If I believe something different than you, that makes one of us wrong. My position allows me to view things objectively. My position does not require faith. Not that I think there is anything wrong with faith. I just don't have it.


I know it's not what the Bible teaches (I have studied the Bible extensively, and I enjoy a lot of it. Ecclesiastes is on of my favorite books of any genre.), but it is still the argument that I get most from believers. It's this belief that if there is no faith in God than things degenerate to anarchy. I think this is absolutely false.


But I don't believe in God. That's why these discussions always break down. Everything that you say starts with your assumption that God exists and the Bible is true. Everything that I say starts with the assumption that God may not exist and the Bible is probably littered with mistruths.


I have made a choice. I have chosen to believe that some things may be unknowable. I am quite comfortable with my chosen belief as well, and I don't feel threatened by anything anyone says about it. Annoyed sometimes, but not threatened.


This is one of the things that always bothers me about how most people view Agnosticism. I am not struggling with my feelings. I am not confused. I am admitting that I don't have all the answers.


I understand what they are saying. I take as much grief from Atheists as I do from Christians. Fortunately, I don't have to pick a side. I can stand on the sidelines. I can join a third side. I can decide that none of the sides are right so I will stand on my own.



This is the crux of the matter. I believe that man is inherently good or right. I use good and right interchangeable because I believe what has traditional been viewed as good and bad are two sides of a coin. You can't have a coin without both sides. The coin itself is right with a good and bad side. I believe that things are as they should be. When we don't accept the reality of our situation we view things as bad or wrong. Our perception is wrong. Reality must be right or else it wouldn't be. (This part is my personal philosophy based on some Taoist principles, and I won't blame you if you think it sounds nuts. It's difficult to explain, but I'm not really into converting anyone anyway.)

I respectfully disagree.

Possibly. I have thought of that before.

That's all well and good if you believe in God and the Bible.

One of my favorite quotes (I don't know who said it.)
"People take different roads seeking fulfillment and happiness. Just because they're not on your road doesn't mean they've gotten lost. "

Would anyone want to live a perfect life? How would you learn? How would you grow? How would you even define perfection if you actually lived it? You can only define something by looking at its other side.

My problem is believing.

I have made a choice. I feel very fulfilled. Problems I've got, but I am happy with the things that I do have.


Back to the basic tenant from which all of our disagreement arise. I don't believe in God. More specifically the God of the Bible. To tell you the truth I really don't understand why so many do. Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark, God's son born to a virgin, rising from the dead, miraculous healings. I remember reading the Trial and Death of Socrates by Plato. I was impressed with Socrates ability to reason and boil down concepts to basic tenants. Then at some point he says something about Zeus on Mt. Olympus and I was dumbfounded. How could someone so insightful and intelligent believe in the Greek gods on Mt. Olympus? I feel the same way about the Bible. I like a lot of parts of it, but I have a hard time understanding how people can actually believe it to be true.

By the way. Thanks for the respectful discussion. I know these can get rather heated sometimes.

A slight footnote from this atheist.

Part of the problem is defining "God" or "gods." It's hard to say something exists or doesn't exist if you don't define what it is. I don't believe the God of the Bible exists -- nor the one of the Koran -- and so on.

That doesn't believe that I believe I know what ~IS~ out there. I believe there is other sentient life in a universe of this size - some of which could potentially function as "gods" to us.

When I say "Atheist" I mean that I don't believe any of the gods that have been described to me exist. I'm not saying that there isn't a whole BUNCH of stuff we don't understand or know about. Depending on what you'd consider a god... perhaps there is one out there.

Most of the time I just say atheist, because it more conveniently describes what I believe about the generally accepted definition of God around these parts(the Judeo-Christian God). It tends to avoid confusion. I could argue that I am agnostic with regards to the idea that there are a whole lot of things out there we simply don't know about.

Mys

myschae,

Thanks for the clarification. I've never thought of Atheism that way. By your definition I would probably be considered an Atheist too.

changd4ever,


I'm glad it helped.

This is why I'm always trying to remind people NOT to take my views as any sort of definitive stance on Atheism. Between me, you, and my cat -- I think I'm sorta strange.

I'm not sure I fit into any category. It sounds like you might not either. I find that a rather comfortable (if confusing to other people) place to be.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood Athiest