mitchellmckain

In the reinterpretation of Christianity from a magical religion to a rational consideration of what is required for human spiritual transformation, there are some serious questions about about how we can make sense of the idea of Christ's atonement for the sins of men on the cross. At first I thought the answer was in Abelard's theory of moral influence, but the only reason was because it pointed to an impact on the human psyche rather than some magical effect of human sacrifice. But the more I looked at it the more I realized how inadequate it was. I certainly did not buy into the idea that the value of Christ's death on the cross was that of an example of obedience to God. To find my own answer to this question I had to return the the central principle of my own theology which is human free will and responsibility.Adam passed the blame for his disobedience onto God and Eve, while Eve passed the blame of her action onto Lucifer. For God to keep alive the potentiality of Adam and Eve as His children it was necessary their free will and choice be observed. Thus their choice to pass the blame and responibility to another had to be accepted in some manner. But if God accepted immediately the assignment of responsibility to Himself, this would mean 1) that according to His role as their creator mankind would simply as God had made them, without responsibility and 2) that according to God's limitless power and perfect love, mankind would suffer no consequences of their choices and so their responsibility for their choices would be nonexistent. Since that would be the end of human potentiality, God instead temporarily gave over the blame and responsibility to Lucifer. The good news was that this would be subject to Lucifer's limitations and the bad news was that with responsibility would came all the authority and power over human life as well. And thus man was delivered into the dominion of Lucifer/Satan as the "god of this world". In this way human free will remains intact (in principle) because mankind suffered the natural consequences of his choices (which is also known as the requirements of justice) under the dominion of the master he has chosen.Human beings retained personal responsibility for their lives (at least until they followed Adam's example in abdicating that responsibility by their own choices). But Adam's responsibility was lost and this was not just a responsibility for his own personal life but also a responsibility for all of mankind as his descendents. It is a fact of life that our actions have consequences not only for own life but also for everyone else (particularly for our descendants). Adam chose not to face the consequences of his own actions and deal with the harm that he had done, not only to himself but through him to all mankind. For God to set this aside in any way would commensurately erase our free will and responsibility along with our associated potential as His children.But now one of the elements of our salvation becomes the need to reclaim the responsibility, power and authority over human life from Lucifer. To this degree the ransom theory of atonement can be said to be correct, but it is not a matter of payment for property, but a matter of where the responsibility for human life resides. Lucifer has power and authority over human life only by the right of the one who bears the blame for man's choices. We can make our own choices but we cannot change the choices which our ancestors have made. So the question becomes how can this be reclaimed. The most natural way to do this would be for a human being to take the blame that Adam refused, but since all human beings were under the dominion of Lucifer this was fundamentally impossible. We needed a new Adam, but creating a new Adam would reclaim responsibility for this new Adam's descendents. So God found an even better solution in becoming the new Adam Himself. Not only was He the parent of Adam's mind, but since Adam tried to blame him for his actions, God was in a perfect postion to take the blame upon Himself.The trick here was for God to find a way for Him to accept Adam's assignment of responsibility in such a way that it would not destroy human free will. He accomplished this by becoming a man and accepting the responsibility as a man, suffering the consequences of Adams choice as a man would suffer these consequences. So Jesus, innocent in His own personal choices in life, bore all consequences of living in the evil world that Adam's choice created, but not filled with denials and excuses, running away from responsiblity as people usually do. By doing it in this way, God accepted Adam's assignment of blame as an assignment of responsibility back to man. Therefore through Christ all the original responsibility, power and authority that Adam originally had over human life could (eventually) be restored to human beings who are adopted into the lineage of Christ as the new Adam.But thus we can see that in this view, Christ's atonement is not a magical formula by which we can escape the consequences of our actions. It is not a matter of paying some restitution to a victimized God. We are the only victims here because we have victimized ourselves. We do not have to believe that God has some grudge against us that must be appeased by some act of violence (blood sacrifice) in order for Him to forgive us. As one who is not a damaged victim of our sin, God forgiveness does not require the repair of His feelings of trust or the cooling of anger as if God could not control Himself. God's forgiveness is offered with the freedom of one who loves us with out reservation or condition. The difficulty lies not in any limitations within God but lies instead in the limitation imposed by what God wants mankind to become.

That is a tall order. Too tall. My thinking is a response to the Bible as a whole, and it is the Bible that I will steadfastly point to rather than trying create the illusion of a proof by taking any passages out context and make it seem like they confer authority on my own words. What I have said is my interpretation and as I have said above I claim no authority for it. Either you find it helpful in reading the Bible yourself or you do not. That said, all that I can do is point out a few passage that I think are particularly interesting, for you to read and see how they speak to you. Genesis chapter 11 1 Samuel chapter 8 Mathew chapter 5, "The Beatitudes" Romans chapters 1&2 1 Corinthians chapter 15 These is not very specific to the five solas I admit, but your question regarding them is also unclear to me. Are you a Catholic seeking to understand why I see anything in them at all or are you a Protestant seeking to understand my criticism of them. It all comes down to the fact that I became Christian because I found a meaningful life transforming experience within the Bible, and dealing with these theological issues are inevitably connected with remaining true to that meaning I found while seeking and finding new meaning in it as well. In the mean time, I am a scientist and very rational person seeking to make sense of it all rather than simply accepting everything at face value as disconnected absolutes. If you are seeking to understand me better, I have other influences on my thinking besides the Bible. And these can be found in the existentialism of Kierkegaard, the pragmatism of Charles Sanders Pierce, and the writings of Scott Peck and Aristotle as well. Beyond these there is also the lessons of history and personal experience which tells me what seems to actually work and what does not, and perhaps it is this last that has more bearing on the 5 solas than anything else. In conclusion, perhaps if you could be more specific then so could I.

So because of the criticism that I have voiced above, I suggest these five revised "solas" as a basis for modern Protestantism apart from organized religion.1. Salvation by God alone. Salvation comes not by any merit, work, knowlege, belief, effort or motivation of the sinner. Sin destroys free will and so the sinner is utterly incapable of redeeming himself, thus the intervention of God is required. It is a free gift BUT God requires us to use our liberated (by His intervention) free will to accept this gift of grace and salvation, and so God's grace is in NO WAY irresistable.2. Assurance is through faith alone and the only requirement of man for salvation is the faith of choice and acceptance. Faith is multifaceted response to the basic reality of uncertainty in life that includes choice, belief and action. The important thing here is to realize that faith is not a work by which we merit salvation and salvation does not come to us by a measurement of the quality of our faith. As a requirement for salvation, faith is simply a yes or no answer, to accept the gift of salvation or to reject it. Faith is also a means to knowledge. Knowledge consists of the assertions which we act upon, holding to them in the process of living our lives. We have many means to knowledge such as the evidence of our senses, logic, and experience, but there is always a gap which must be bridged by faith. Knowledge of salvation is by means of faith alone, based on a trust in God of whose goodness and love we can have complete assurance of. But since salvation does not come by any merit or work of our own, we have no basis for taking our salvation for granted, or to think we have God in any kind of binding contract, and so we remain in fear of God even as we love Him.3. Authority of Scripture (and God) alone: Scripture is the only authority given to man (in regards to what God has to say to man), and no interpretation of scripture by any human being has any more authority than any other. All that we need for the interpretation of scripture is provided by God in the words of God Himself in scripture and in the personal relationship that we have with Him.4. Mediator is Christ alone: Christ is the head, leader, organizer, authority of his own church, with a personal relationship with every member of that church and so no matter what services may be offered and accepted between two members of that church, no authority is given in such relationships to any person by God, but only by the members themselves according to mutual agreement.5. Superiority of God alone: Because all have sinned and fallen short, no human being has any cause for pride or to claim any net superiority over others. Sin is the poison which makes all our talents, virtues and heroic deeds nothing but filthy rags before the Lord. But this does not mean that we cannot see value in these talents, virtues and heroic deeds of others and praise them. But in regards to our own talents, virtues and heroic deeds, we would do well to praise God who gave these to us, for even our good deeds are mostly a matter of opportunities which God has given us.

The five solas are often considered the basis of Protestantism, and it is in these principles that Christians took issue with the Catholic church of the Middle Ages and repudiated their authority. 1 Sola gratia ("by grace alone") 2 Sola fide ("by faith alone") 3 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone") 4 Solus Christus ("In Christ alone") 5 Soli Deo gloria ("Glory to God alone") 1 Sola gratia ("by grace alone") Salvation comes only by unmerited favor. Some claim a connection to the Calvinist doctrine of irresistable grace while the Catholics modify this by talking about cooperating with grace to merit greater grace. Others claim a connection to monergism: that God acts alone to save the sinner and the responsibility for his salvation does not rest on the sinner to any degree. But Lutheranism rejects making this a basis for excluding gratia universalis (that God seriously wills the salvation of all people). 2 Sola fide ("by faith alone") Justification is received by faith alone and not through good works. To put more clearly, it is faith that yields justification and good works, as opposed to faith and good works yielding justification. Sometimes this is called the issue of material cause. Sola fida repudiates that their is any other righteousness than faith to justify the sinner 3 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone") "The Bible is the only inspired and authoritative Word of God, is the only source for Christian doctrine, and is accessible to all, that is, it is perspicuous and self-interpreting. The Bible requiring no interpretation outside of itself is an idea directly opposed to the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Coptic, Anglican, and Roman Catholic faiths (who together comprise the majority of Christians) that the Bible can be authentically interpreted only by Apostolic Tradition and the ecumenical church councils." (Wikipedia) 4 Solus Christus ("In Christ alone") Christ is the only mediator between God and man. This principle rejects "sacerdotalism," which is the belief that there are no sacraments in the church without the services of priests ordained by apostolic succession under the authority of the pope. 5 Soli Deo gloria ("Glory to God alone") All glory is due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished only through His will and action, not only through the atonement of Jesus on the cross but also the gift of faith in that atonement, created in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit, no human being is worthy of glory (reverence) as the RCC gives to the popes and to the saints. However, ..... despite the fact that I am Protestant, I have criticisms of these as they have been written here. 1. I repudiate the connections to irresistable grace and a monergism that goes beyond saying stating our complete inability and lack of merit requiring an intervention by God based on His unconditional love for us alone. In other words, this does not mean that we are puppets. God does not want puppets but responsibility. The point is that salvation comes by the work of God in us, but not that God does not require anything of us in the process. I uphold gratia universalis and see the cause for not being saved, not as being any inaction on the part of God but as being entirely due to the refusal on our part to accept God's interference in our lives. 2. In my view, Sola fide contradicts Sola gratia if Sola fide is about looking for something in man that brings about his salvation as this idea of material cause does or this idea that faith constitutes a righteousness that justifies the sinner. But even though the apostle Paul seems to say something very much like this, I find this explanation to be misleading and prone to contradiction, and so I see good cause for seeking a better way to express it. 3. I reject the idea that scripture interprets itself but accept the idea that we do not need an appointed authority to do our interpreting for us. We have the Holy Spirit in us and a personal relationship with Christ and if we see a diversity of interpretations then it is according to God's will that we excercise our free will and use our own minds to figure some things out for ourselves. 4. I have no criticism of this point at all, but only see ways that I can expand upon the idea. 5. The middle ages when men lusted after glory is long past and so I find in myself very little comprehension of this concept, and I certainly do not believe in a God who is looking for glory, let alone demanding that human beings work for the greater glory of God. Therefore I rewrite this using the word "superiority".

And do you think that these groups are not a representative of organized religion?

I cannot remember how it came to my attention but I checked out Perry Marshall's site CoffeehouseTheology.com and signed up for his email course and I think the first of them line up pretty well with the anti-religious elements of modern Christianity, but in the end it is obvious that Perry Marshall abandons his original intent to reveal the lies of organized religion, and reveals himself instead to be a spokesman for Christianity. So I would like to take up the task he started and follow through on it. To begin with I have only a few minor criticism of the first three of his great lies, to justify a few changes. But since in #5-7 we don't have lies of organized religion at all, I have come up with some replacements. Lie#1: 'If you live a moral life, you deny yourself pleasure, follow the prescribed ritual and then give us enough money you'll have a decent shot at being accepted by God.' This is not the best choice of words, because there is subtle hint in this of Perry being a spokesman for Christianity against the sentiments of secular society that what matters is that you be a good person. If you really want to hit the nail on the head and make it about organized religion, then the lie has to due with obedience to rules rather than morality and making a payment to appease God rather than denying yourself pleasure. So a better statement of the first lie is as follows. Lie #1 revised: 'You can appease God by obeying His commandments and making the proper sacrifices in payment for your transgressions, in order to gain His acceptance and escape the consequences of your misdeeds.' This is a lie because you cannot appease God and you cannot escape the consequences of your misdeeds, and if you think that this is what Christianity is about then you have missed the boat and are truly just a member of a religion. Lie #2: 'God is huge and unapproachable, and He wants you to labor, struggle and live in guilt.' The second part of this is unrelated to the first part and in fact redundant with the other lies that Perry has listed. One wonders why Perry does not stick to the theme started in the first phrase and carry it out to its logical conclusion as I do with the following. Lie #2 revised: 'God is huge, distant and unapproachable demanding worship and expecting that men devote themselves utterly to the greater glory of God.' Is God the kind of person who has to demand worship or is He the kind of person who inspires it. Is God a meglomaniac or a parent? Is God motivated by self-interest or love? All of the former may well serve an organized religion that needs to maintain control, but it is belief in the latter that makes it worthwhile. Lie #3: 'You are not smart enough or good enough to think for yourself. We will do your thinking for you.' The problem with this is that this is not the lie but the what religions would say if they were being a little more honest. No instead what they say is a little more like this: Lie #3 revised: 'The truth (the answer to all the important questions) is something that we can give you.' This is a lie because real truth is something we that we must discover for ourselves if it is to really mean anything at all. What religions have to offer is not truth but dogma - things to recite in order to keep up the pretense that you have truth, so that you will not bother or dare to look for it yourself. Lie #4: 'Women are spiritually inferior and must bow to the authority of men.' This is the only one I feel no need to modify at all, and perhaps this is where Perry should have stopped since he ceases talking about the lies of organized religion and has move on to what he apparently thinks are some foundational principles of the Christianity that he believes in. Lie #5: 'There is no single truth. Everyone needs to explore and find a truth that works for them.' Not all truth is absolute or "singular". What is right for the bird is not right for the weasel. Nor is all truth completely relative or arbitrary. There are some absolute truths. I do not think for example that torturing a child to death could ever be an acceptable form of entertainment. But there are abitrary elements to things. Sometimes it is simply more important to have a rule than it is important what the rule actually is. Take table manners for example. Nearly every culture can agree that table manners are important, but what those table manners are precisely, varies greatly. Furthermore to say that "Everyone needs to explore and find a truth that works for them", is a lie is devastatingly wrong. Because it is absolutely true that everyone MUST find a truth that works for them. There is nothing else that we can do, and the last thing we need is someone who imagines himself having the authority to dictate a "truth" to everyone else about how they must live their lives. I think that this point #5 of Perry's, contradicts his previous talk about a lie that we are not smart enough to figure things out for ourselves. As a result I think this one can be thrown on the scrap heap and we should consider the following instead. Lie #5: 'God is not a God of confusion.' Organized religion uses this lie to say pretty much what Perry is saying in version of #5, that they cannot all be true. Read Genesis Chapter 11. Sometimes God is a God of confusion. Furthermore I think this means that there is one thing that is worse than war and that is a unity of mankind that is based on uniformity. With the possibility of war also comes the possibility of freedom. And it is quite often in the nonconfomist, who does what everyone else thinks is crazy (like Noah), that lies the salvation and hope of all mankind. The only unity of mankind that has any positive value is one that is based on tolerance and learning to love and appreciate diversity. Besides the story in Genesis 11 there is also the clear evidence that this is a lie in the history of Christianity where we see a great deal of confusion. And it is rather evident also that a lot of this confusion comes from the character of the Bible itself. I would not say that the Bible is contradictory, but I most certainly would say that it is apparent that God does not spell out a great number of things and I think this means that there are many issues on which God expects us to think things through for ourselves. Note further that I am not saying that there are many paths to God or salvation. I remain devoted to the modern Christian answer to this that there are NO PATHS TO GOD. Nevertheless, it is quite true that we all have our own unique paths to follow, for God teaches us all in ways that are as unique as the individuals He teaches. The point is simply that it is not any path which can save us, but only the work of God in our lives which can save us, and thus we are warned away from any religion of men that makes some false promise that we can somehow appease God and "get Him off our backs". Lie #6: 'The Bible is out of date, inaccurate and over-rated. People in the 21st century are way too smart for that.' Now Perry's change of spots and coloring is complete. No longer is he seeking to reveal the lies of organized religion but intead to defend Christianity against what he perceives as attacks upon his organized religion. At this point he should drop the pretense and come clean instead of pursuing what has become a farse. Although I agree that many churches have indeed found ways to take the contents of the Bible less seriously and that there is a great need for speaking out on behalf of taking the Bible more seriously, this is all too often just a pretext for saying that you must understand the Bible MY WAY. So if we are going to talk about the lies of organized religion, I am afraid that the following fits the bill far better than Perry's (meanwhile I have removed the reference to Christianity to make a bit more general). Lie #6: 'Holy Scripture interprets itself.' Although I am a Protestant and very sympathetic with the cause of Protestantism and fundamentalism which protests both the marginalization of scripture and the substitution of the traditions of men for the unaltered word of God, I cannot support the above lie. All this does is hide from ourselves the undeniable effect of tradition upon the way we understand and interpret holy scripture. Therefore the only version of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura which I supports is as follows: The Bible is the only authority given into the hands of men for the determination of the truth in regards to God, His desire of mankind, and our relationship to Him. But no human being's interpretation of the Bible has any more authority than any other. Furthermore, there are a number of other things that Perry says in his lesson regarding lie #6 that are at least very misleading if not plainly false, such as when he says that modern man is not more enlightened about morality, philosophy and politics than those of ancient times. Now, it is NOT true that all or even most modern men (and women) are more enlightened about morality, philosophy and politics than all people of the past. It is for example rather clear that there are giants of morality, philosophy and politics in all ages whose enlightenment about these things exceed that of the vast majority in any age. HOWEVER, there are clearly some points of superiority in the view of human society in general, in regards to things like slavery, racism, sexism, tolerance, free enterprise, education and violence (just to name a few). What I think Perry should say instead is that, it is false that we have nothing to learn from people who existed long ago. In fact the only possible claim to superiority in morality, philosophy and politics for modern man must rest solidly on the presumption that we learn from the people of the past. Lie #7: 'If God was really so powerful and good He wouldn't allow so much evil and suffering to go on.' This is of course the biggest criticism of theism and not a lie of organized religion at all. The only thing that I can think of that can be considered a lie of organized religion and as related to what Perry has written is the following: Lie #7 revised: 'Everything happens according to the plan of God for some greater good.' Sure God has a plan for some greater good and according to this plan we must have free will and be reponsible for our lives and each other without Him interfering to rescue us from evil and tragedy. But surely we cannot think that every deranged wacko is an instrument of God or that the horrors they commit is God's gift to the victims - THAT is often exactly what the wackos think and I cannot imagine sharing that point of view. So why in the world would organized religion want everyone to believe that, "everything happens according to the plan of God"? Well the obvious effect seems to me that if you believe such a thing, then you would not be motivated to make any great effort to change things. In other words, the purpose of this lie is to keep people from rocking the boat and seeking any great change in the world. Its purpose is, like many of the other lies of organized religion, to lull people to sleep and keep them docile. So to summarize we have a revised list of the 7 great lies of organized religion Lie #1: You can appease God by obeying His commandments and making the proper sacrifices in payment for your transgressions, in order to gain His acceptance and escape the consequences of your misdeeds. Lie #2: 'God is huge, distant and unapproachable demanding worship and expecting that men devote themselves utterly to the greater glory of God.' Lie #3: 'The truth (the answer to all the important questions) is something that we can give you.' Lie #4 'Women are spiritually inferior and must bow to the authority of men.' Lie #5 'God is not a God of confusion.' Lie #6: 'Holy Scripture interprets itself.' Lie #7: 'Everything happens according to the plan of God.' All of these are part of a pattern of seduction to bring human beings under the control of an organization making religion an effective tool of power.

I have not tried a large number of these. Everyones time and money does have limits. Well Diablo 2 is certainly a classic and like Starcraft it is one that I have multiple copies of for multiplayer games using three computers. But I get far more enjoyment out of Neverwinter Nights 1&2 creating my own modules.

I share much of your sentiment. I am addicted to BBC English murder mystery programs but quite often I find myself lost in utter incomprehension as to why anyone would want to destroy the unviverse that is a human being for the reasons that are often given in such murder mysteries. In various forums, I have noticed some discussion of the morality of pacifism. I can respect the position of pacifism and I even once considered myself a pacifist. However, it does seems to be true that all that is needed for evil to thrive is for good people to do nothing. Right and wrong are just words unless one is willing to make sacrifices defending them. On the other hand, violence is so easily a neverending cycle of retaliation. So do not believe in the kind of justice that is based on some kind of vengence, but I have decided that I will kill and/or die to stop people who seem bent on pursuing their desires in complete disregard for the well being of others. The question of the morality of killing is a complex one, and complex questions require some degree of legal flexibility and certainly some of tolerance for different points of view. I therefore I think pacifism is a personal moral commitment much like vegitarianism and opposition to abortion. However, the necessity for conservative rules in regards to killing is very clear, and anyone who takes what is universally recognized as a human life must be ready and willing to sacrifice their own for the sake of the public good to uphold law and order. I believe in capital punishment not for any archaic, "life for a life" nonsense, but only to protect the well being of the public. Therefore regardless of the actual crime whether it is murder, rape, pedophilia, mugging, or even pollution, if there is a pattern of behavior disregarding the well being of others that demonstrates a menace to the public, especially preying upon the stranger, then I am in favor of the death penalty. Incarceration should be geared toward rehabilitation rather than mere prevention or deterent. People do escape and so anyone not worth enduring that risk should should be put to death. "Controlling your emotions" is dangerous terminology that is not supported by psychology. The problem is that this is often interpreted as bottling or supressing your emotions which is extremely dangerous. Finding the proper way to express your emotions is a much better way of putting it. A lot of what people identify as a failure to control your emotion can really be better understood as bad habits in the way we express our emotions, and the way of dealing with this is the same (very difficult) way that all bad habits must be dealt with. But an important part of this process is redirection - developing better habits to replace the old so that we can express our emotions in more productive ways. HOWEVER, if instead of emotions, we substitute desires then I think what you are saying works much better. Excessive desire can indeed be found at the root of most evil. Some religions, especially Buddhism, are based on the goal of eliminating desire, and most have some element of this (consider some of the monastic orders in Christianity). So I think that the psychological danger involved in supressing emotions does not apply to suppressing desire. This is only half the equation however. As hinted in what you have said the other half is empathy - regard for the well being of others. The psychopath may do evil even without strong desires simply because even a bored whim exceeds his nonexistent regard for other human beings. In addition I believe that some forms of desire such as the passion for something like science or art is the essence of genius and so I do not think that the suppression of desire is the universal solution to the problem of evil. So even in the case of desire it is the balance with empathy that is the real issue. There are other mysteries in regards to desire. As a parent I have found the unbridled desires of my children to be rather curious. On the one hand they seem so strong that they practically go nuts when their desires are fustrated, on the hand when actually faced with the prospect of work to achieve those desires, they prove to be rather shallow. Perhaps it is simply a matter of learning patience which is a kind of suppression of ones desires. Children perhaps do not know how to respond to the desires they feel at first. As an infant their desires are basic and imperative, and so as they develop more abstract desires, perhaps they do not yet understand the difference between these and those that are imperative (necessary for survival).

I am currently involved in an argument in another forum concerning a proof for the existence of God based on the existence of absolute morality. I believe in moral pluralism rather than complete relativism, so I do believe there are some absolutes, that is, that there are some ethical questions with only one correct answer. However I do not believe that the existence of God can be either proved or disproved and therefore I am in the role of disputing the validity of this proof for the existence of God based on absolute values. Although I admit an absolute basis to ethical considerations, I do think that the first premise, that "absolute/objective morality exists" requires some explanation. I took the simple example of "thou shalt not kill" and showed that there were quite a few situational exceptions what causes one to wonder just what is absolute about this particular rule of right and wrong that is usually considered one of least ambiguous. My own example by which I dispute moral relativism is the question of whether torturing a child to death could ever be considered an acceptable form of entertainment. From this it seems to me that there are some universals but that the actual rules of behavior - the details may have a high degree of cultural relativity. It is however with the second premise that I find my biggest disagreement. In fact, in my view the second premise seems to contradict the first. To clarify this I think we can make a distinction between the terms "absolute morality" and "objective morality". I think the whole idea of "objective morality" is that the rules of good behavior are something that already exist to be discovered rather than something that must be invented by someone. The idea of "absolute morality" on the other hand is the idea that ethical questions have only one correct answer rather than being relative to the society and situation. From this we see that in order to be consistent the argument must not use the term "objective morality" since the second premise seems to be claiming that morality has no objective existence. However I think these two aspects of morality are closely related. The only reason why morality would have to be invented rather than discovered would be because the answer ethical questions are fundamentally arbitrary - that is that is before society or this person of authority makes a decision, the ethical questions involved really have more than one correct answer. Therefore I would say that this whole argument is based on some kind of divine relativism rather than absolute/objective morality. I basically agree with Aniki that there is an objective element to morality that can be derived from simple principles like reciprocity. Jesus, criticizing the legalism of the Pharisees, indicated that all the laws of God could be boiled down to a simple principle involving love, and that it was the principles behind the laws that were really important rather than the laws themselves. Furthermore, I think that good and evil can and should be defined in a manner that is independent of the idea of God. My own definition is: that which is evil pursues desires/needs without regard for the well being of others. For me this is a pre-requisite to an understanding of God, because in my mind God is more fundamentally defined by goodness and love rather than power and knowledge, and so to define good and evil based on God is somewhat circular. I certainly find the kind of divine relativism that says good is whatever God says it is to be morally impoverished. However, although I see no fundamental conncection between morality and the existence of God, there is one sentiment in regards to morality and ethics that I share with my fellow Christians that sets me apart from the atheist. We find it difficult to understand how ideas of right and wrong can have any real meat to them if our actions ultimately have no consequences. I am talking about the escape into the sweet oblivion of nonexistence. If we are going to die anyway and all of us will someday, then what does it really matter what we do? I find the answer to the question of normative ethics in the kind of person that our actions make us, but if we cease to exist then even that basis for ethics vanishes. For me this is the most important reason for believing that we have an eternal aspect to our existence. And so I believe that the eternal spirit is a product the choices we make, reflecting the reality that we can never escape the consequences of our actions because that spirit is who we truly are. Without such ultimate consequences it is hard to see how the role we play in life is any different than choosing our role in a play, and then what is wrong with making the choice to live the exciting life of a serial killer if that is what pleases us. I cannot believe that it just boils down to personal taste and aesthetics, as this lack of ultimate consequences seems to imply.

"Atheist : deny the existence of god."Yes, at least half if not more of the atheists are like this, but it a peculiar position to be in. For the relevant question is, "what is this god whose existence you are denying." Because atheism is more about what they don't believe that about what they do believe this reactionary nature is its greatest weakness. The majority of them are reacting against some particular religions, making atheism as diverse and denominational as religion itself. This reactionary nature is not a good weakness for a group to have because it represents some of the worst behaviors in human history. Think about anti-Semitism for example. However we can see in the example of Aniki that not all atheists are completely reactionary in nature, there are some who simply do not believe in any kind of God. Those which have no reactionary character, I would call "pure atheist", and I do not think that such atheists have any need to justify themselves at all. In answer to the question of why they do not believe in God, why do they need to say any more than, "why should I?""Agnostic : is not sure about the existence of god."Actually very few agnostics are in this category. Agnostics also include those who don't think that anyone can or do know if God exists and those who don't think the existence of God really matters anyway."Fundamentalist : takes literal interpretation of the bible i.e. the earth WAS created in 7 days."Actually the term for that is "Young Earth Creationist". Fundamentalism is a more general religion independent term which points to a reactionary element in many different religions that call for a return to the foundational beliefs of their religion that have been lost or degraded by liberal interpretation. So while the fundamentalist is not incapable of seeing those portions of their sacred scripture which are clearly intended to be symbolic or metaphorical they do stand against a trend which they see as having rendered their scriptures meaningless. Thus the idea is to return to the understanding of the scriptures which have given their religion its identity and vigor in the past. However, I do believe that the modern fundamentalist Christian movement largely derives from a reaction to the the effect of evolutionary thinking upon Christianity, and consequently there is a rather strong anti-science/pseudo-science element to fundamentalist Christianity.But my greatest criticism and question is why do you single out these three groups for an accounting? It is hard to see what made you choose these three groups unless it is an ignorance that makes you think that everyone falls into these three categories.

First of all I do not know what you could mean by suggesting that inanimate objects are not absolutely what they are. As I understand it these are not two independent attributes but related and it is not a question of being what we are but of whether the self that we are aware of is truly what we are. I do not believe that there is that fundamental a difference between human being and animals quite like this. I believe that awareness and self-awarness is a characteristic of the property of life itself and therefore present in all living things. HOWEVER, I also believe that awareness like life itself is a highly quantitative attribute. Therefore the primary difference between human beings and the animals (and the plants for that matter) is not a qualitative one of having awareness or not having awareness, but of having more awareness. Life is a process that consists of the self-organization of dynamic structures and as such, one of its primary tasks is the maintenance of those dynamic structures which make up its being. But clearly that task of self maintenance requires both self awareness and awareness of the environment. Human awareness like human life in general is the most complex on the planet with many hierarchial levels, and what we usually call human conciousness is really just the tip of a vast pyramid of consciousness. We talk of the subconsious or unconscious mind which in truth are part of the awareness that operates in our life but which are simply at a lower level in in that pyramid of consciousness. Some religions (like Native American) believe that consciousness is an attribute that belongs to all things including those which we call inanimate. I do not consider this to be completely without merit, for it is my understanding that the the basic mechanism which makes life possible is found in the laws of physics themselves and thus everything in the universe may be considered participants in some process of life and therefore alive and aware subject to some quantitative measure that may be exceedingly small. Relating to what we call "lower forms of life" as conscious beings may largely be a matter of scale - particularly temporal scale. For example, from the point of view of a micro-organism we may seem like a part of its inanimate environment, like a mountain or a planet. Yes indeed which is why I find this type of conception of the divine to a bit devoid of merit. This nature of finite living things to exist in a state of constantly becoming more than we are is in fact the manner in which we are the image of an infinite God. God's infinite actuality is reflected in our infinite potentiality. Please remember there is a differnce between the God of theological definitions and the God that Christians claim to have a personal relationship with. We surpass this necessity of finding simple answers in the here in now (and in our theology) because we have faith in someone who has an understanding that surpasses our own. And nothing surpasses our understanding more than the nature of this infinite God himself. For example, the Christian God is believed to be personal (having all the attibutes of a person) but not bound within the limits of person-hood. So you could say we believe in a transpersonal God and one consequence is that we can assert that three seperate persons are each entirely God, even though there is only one God. We believe in an infinite God who lacks all limitations, and so freedom from the limits of personhood is only one of the many limitations which God trancends. Another is the type of categorization that you are trying to fit God into. The image of an unchanging eternal God is a conception to which God is not confined. Clearly Christians also believe in a God that participates in personal relationships, and such a relationship cannot be meaningful unless God participates in manner that is responsive and thus changing as we change. The God of the Bible is clearly has such a responsive nature and this truth is expressed rather well in the story of Jonah. Jonah is told by God to speak a prophecy of impending doom to the city of Nineveh, and after great reluctance, Jonah finally does as he is told only to have God change his mind about desroying the city, much to the consternation of Jonah. In conclusion God is NOT limited to what He is but can be anything or anyone He chooses in relation to whatever task He sets Himself to. God likewise transcends life and is capable of all its expressions and characteristics without being subject to its limitations.

Aniki, I have been heavily influenced by Existentialism, expecially by Kiekegaard and Albert Camus, but I shall never forget Kafka's "Metamorphosis" or Sartre's "The Wall". I have always found philosophy in the context of a story to be much more meaningful than the context of prose, the life situations giving the words far more substance than they would otherwise have for me. You will find a thread on the second page of this religion and philosophy section entitled "Christian Existentialism", which I started in order to introduce a discussion of these ideas, and there you will be able to read my take on the general topic. Let me help then. The point is that there is a fundamental difference between subject and object of awareness. Even in self-awareness, what we are aware of is just an object and therefore fails to capture the reality of the true self which is the subject of awareness - "the one that is aware of". As a result, this raises a fundamental doubt about the relationship between this object self and the true subject self and whether one reflects the other with any accuracy at all. Such doubt concerning self-knowledge is a common conception among many Christians, and therefore this truth expressed in existentialism finds a rather welcome place in the thinking of such Christians. However I think I have a partial answer to Sartre's challenge. You see I think that part of the problem with this conception is that it is limiting itself to the act of self-reflection and I think we come up with a different understanding when we consider deliberative choices of action. You see the true self is not only the subject of awareness but also of action. It is the most fundamental experience of human existence that we are the author of our actions, and that we have a self that is the cause of these actions and is responsible for them. I think that it is possible that it is in the making of deliberative choices in regards to action that the subject and object of consiousness momentarily bridge the gap between them and have the potential to become one. The reason is because a strict adherance to the seperation between them leads to a conclusion that contradicts our fundamental experience. Our choice of actions is not utterly divorced from who are but tells us about the self that is their cause and source. Our actions reveal a truth about ourselves that prevent others from being fooled by whatever delusional self concept we may have. But then we have this chain of cause and effect from self to action back to self. But then if our actions are caused by something which preceeds the action itself then the causality is logically extended to preceeding causes like following a chain of dominoes until they surpass the limits of our existence to something outside of ourselves. But this results in a philosophical conclusion that our experience of being the cause of our own actions is delusional, and such a philosophy is denounced by existentialism as useless to the task of facing our existential realities. I conclude therefore that in deliberative choices we recreate ourselves and what we choose is not only what we will do but also what we shall be. Thus the consequence of our choices are not only the actions that we do but also the self that we become, and it is the self that we have become that percieves itself as the cause of the chosen action. I call this "self-causality" and consider this the solution to the paradox of human free will. Accordingly it is in choices that we find both the cause and effect of our actions arising from the same event, and thus we cannot follow some chain of dominoes to a cause of our actions outside of ourselves. Whatever influences there may be on our actions it is we who choose to be influenced by them. More importantly, the self is not a static and uninvolved observer but part of a dynamic process of self creation. But now back to our original question: if we choose the self that we become, does our future self not start out at least potentially as an object of our awareness? As finite beings we have limited awareness of the consequences of our choices, and as a result our awareness of the self that we are choosing may be limited. But on the other hand, these consequences are something that we can seek to comprehend in the process of making decisions, and the awareness of the self that we become may thereby be enhanced. And thus the awareness of the self is something that can be pursued (in this process of becoming) rather than resigned to impossibility.

SilverFox, this is a bit of an over-reaction. Aniki is not any more close minded than you are. He has made his mind up about a few thing just as you have. It is only natural that as an atheist he would have some anti-religious sentiments, and we only find the barest hint of this in the last statement of the OP. Taking this statement a bit more calmly, do we not have reason to agree with his hope that "there'll be no more deaths and pain on account of religion"? Do we not look forward to a day when people will no longer twist the ideas of religion into an excuse for hatred? I guess I have met far too many atheists with much more extreme anti-religious rhetoric so that makes Aniki seem pretty friendly to me. Unfortunately it is one of those tendencies that hostility and attack brings out the same behavior in others and so in response to your hostility, instead of reaffirming the possible innocence of his first statement, Aniki has turned up the heat a bit. It is, of course, a fallacy to personify Christianity and speak of things which it has done. The same fallacy turned around upon atheism to blame it for everything atheists have done (like under the name of Communism), is at least as great a criticism as his. But these are the tactics of bigotry and prejudice. Let us remember that we are first and foremost not Christian and atheist, but only human beings, with a very dark heritage of blood and ignorance very close behind us. Blaiming others is indeed humanities' worst habit, and it goes all the way back to the garden of Eden. Because of a little fear, Adam and Eve turned their back on their love for God and love for each other, willing to blame anyone and everyone but themselves for their own mistakes. Oh if only they could have said, "God I am sorry, you told us not to eat of that fruit but we did it anyway." Things would have been so much different if they had. By blaming others we try to pretend that there is no darkness within us, but that only hides our evil in greater darkness, giving it the freedom to grow. Finally we reach a point were we have within our minds transformed our scapegoat into a devil and the darkness within us reaches out to conquer our soul by making us give into hatred so that we can destroy this devil which is really only our fellow human beings. In just this way, Adam and Eve transformed an angel of light into a great Devil and "author of evil". But when you pass the blame to others abdicating your own responsiblity, this comes with a price, for freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. And so with the blame went also the dominion over the earth, making this Devil we created into the "god of this world". This and thescienceforum are my permanent discussion forums but I have been on the search for a religious discussion forum for a while. The christainforums turned out to be dominated by Catholics rather hostile to Protestant ideals and theologyonline turned out to be dominated by right-wing fanatics so extreme that they seemed like facists to me. So far apologetics.com has been pretty impressive in the level of education and rationality of its diverse members (Christian, atheist, LDS, JW, and more).

I believe in magic as an alegorical representative of the invisible powers of the heart and spirit. I believe in the power of stories to reveal the unseen in symbolism and metaphor. And so it is without reservation that I can say that I believe in Santa Claus. But this does not mean that I expect to find anything on an expedition to the north pole. However, there is a kind of magical thinking, which I do not believe in at all. This magical thinking often takes the form of making deals with God (or the devil), supposing that if we do (or promise to do) certain things that we think God wants us to do, then somehow we will get what we desperately want. More generally there are all sorts of magical systems of belief that we can control our destiny by doing things that have no rational connection to the events in our life.I have begun to wonder about these Christians I have encountered that seem to believe in Christianity as some sort of magic. They interpret Genesis as a magical story in comic book style of a God creating the world by the power of command and then using powers like necromancy to animate a golem of dust called Adam and reanimate a body part and call it Eve. Do they insist that the six days in the story of creation are literal 24 hour days as part of their affirmation in the belief of the power of Christian magic? Is their refusal to accept the rationality of science a consequence of this commitment to believe in the magic of Christianity? Well what really concerns me is that I am begining to wonder if all this is connected to their understanding of Christianity as a magical formula for salvation. Do they think they are saved by their words of affirmation in a belief in Jesus as if it were a magical spell? Do they understand faith as some magical power given to them by God which gives the magical spell of savation its power? Are things like a contrite heart and repentance just ingredients in this magical formula? The reason I ask is because they seem to be proud of being Christian as if this was one of their accomplishments in life. Is Christianity just a way that they can feel like winner in life and by which they can look down with disdain at all the losers?This is not my understanding of Christianity at all. I cannot comprehend how there can be any room for self-righteousness in a Christian. We are not saved by any work or merit of our own but only by the work of God because of His undeserved love for us, which is offered to all and which all are free to accept or reject. I have heard this rational by Christians that they are proud of the Christ that is working within them. Can we really buy into this kind of double talk? If Christ is really within them then is self-righteousness the personality of Christ?"Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who morn for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil aganst you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so men persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:3-11With this in mind, I pretend to no riches of spirit; I morn for all who suffer from the evils of this world; I lord it over no one and dictate to no one what they must believe; I pretend to no righteousness of self but beg for God to fill me with His righteousness; I seek mercy for all sinners knowing that I am one of them; I endeavor to be pure and honest of heart; and above all I seek to be a peacemaker, for I would dearly love to be called a child of God. And so it is without fear that I walk down the middle of a rhetorical battlefield pointing out the stupidities of both sides knowing that I will be reviled by both sides, for that is the path of the peacemaker.It is not the Christian way to condemn people but only the behavior which cannot be accepted because every Christian KNOWS that he is a sinner and ought to be condemned as well. Therefore we do not presume upon the Grace of God to act like we are sitting pretty in His forgiveness and therefore free to condemn others for their sins. To act like you have the power to condemn is to act like you have the power to save yourself. "Do not say say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven?' (that is, to bring Christ down) or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is bring Christ up from the dead)." Rom 10:6-7 Only God has the power to do such things and therefore it is only God who can judge the soul of human beings. We must make judgements of right and wrong to guide our own choices and actions but people we can only judge according to the law of land and then only to commend their spirit to the care of God.We are warned, "as you judged so shall you be judged." And so if anything is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit and unforgivable, it is this: to refuse to others the mercy and forgiveness that God has given you. Is this not the meaning of the parable in Matthew 18:23 "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents; and as he could not pay his lord ordered him to be sold with his wife and children and all that he had and payment to be made. So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt. But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii and seizing him by the throat he said 'Pay what you owe.' So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' He refuse and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt. When the servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then the lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."And so it is that when I see Christianity turned on its head to be made into some sort of standard of righteousness by which to judge the world and lord it over everyone, that I begin to wonder if this is a magical and delusional Christianity which has nothing to do with God at all.

You know in Utah most of the junior high and high schools have an LDS seminary next to them, where the LDS students go before school for a religion class. So when I first became interested in high school I started talking to the guy in charge over there and since I had a good impression I went to the class before school a few times. But the teacher was the "other kind" of Mormon, so I gave up on it. But don't worry I formed my opions of things based on completely different things and not on personality. But I have always been aware of these 2 sides to the Mormon church. Growing up here my best friends were usually Mormon and my best friend still is.

You know when I read this my immediate reaction was to look at where you were from, thinking this person must not be a Utah Mormon. I was not surprised that I was right. It has been the report of many people that I have met that the LDS outside of Utah are different, you make me hope that they are a great deal more Christian as well. I hope you don't come to find out that this is a bit deceptive. For you may encounter someone in the leadership of the LDS that will tell you that it is you LDS outside of Utah, who are "not very LDS". (I had an experience like this in a different religion)

Hmmmmm.....?????? Does anyone understand what this guy is trying to say?

I guess I should have started with where I was coming from but if you check you will find that a large portion of the threads here in the religions section were started by me and so I figured that it was pretty obvious where I was coming from. Perhaps you should start all over and read it from the top. I honestly liked your OP but your last post leaves a lot to be desired. It is weird how you seemed to make a complete U-turn in your attitude. Your OP was so objective and now you are showing a different side. Now I have no prejudice against any single philosophy, but I am against intolerance as a whole. Even the atheistic kind seems to be a crutch people fall onto whenever they confront a way of thinking they do not understand. Also the majority of atheists I know are just honest rational people, but they do tend to see things through a filter. For example, if one narrowly avoids a car accident they would say "Oh what good luck!" But if the same person were to run into a ditch moments later they would blame God and religion for it. I am a Christian of course BUT I am also a physicist and a philosopher of metaphysics. Scott Peck is or was a clinical psychiatrist who wrote a series of very popular books starting with "The Road Less Traveled", where he shares some of the things he discovered about people and their psychological/spiritual development. His stages of spiritual development was a theory he developed to explain why when people made breakthrough in treatment it often involved either a break from religion or a break through to religion. Scott Peck became a Christian himself, but I am not sure if he finds the spiel of any particular denomination any more appealing than I do (probably less so than I do). Anyway I am sorry that the mention of the Bible and its contents are so painful and offensive to you, but you can either be a closing off person or an opening person (lit. ref. to the "Santaroga Barrier" by Frank Herbert). In other words, I am sure you can safely surround yourself with like minded people, or you can participate in the challenge of understanding people different from yourself. The internet, especially a forum like this, is a great opportunity for the latter. One of the great challenges for many atheists in particular is to understand that Christianity is expressed in individuals with a great deal of diversity.

From discussions with many atheists, however, I believe we should add a fifth definition that more accurately characterizes most atheists.#5 Someone one with very definite ideas about what the word "God" refers to and a belief that this "God" does not exist. This is clearly reflected in the many arguments I have had with atheists about what God is, as nonsensical as it seems that atheists should have such definite ideas about what God is when they do not believe God exists. I have in fact found that atheists are as denominational as theists depending on what exactly they beleive "God" refers to despite the fact that they believe that He does exist.Many atheists are quite reactionary, repudiating something they now understand is wrong. Many theists (myself included) are in fact no different and they are also reacting against something they now understand is wrong. We must not be confused by the limitations of words, and especially the limited slogans by which we communicate with each other. Despite apparent contradictions it is not neccessarily true that almost everyone must be wrong for any to be right. It is all to likely that we are mostly wrong about most things but slowly figuring things out and therefore right in our limited discoveries.That said, I actually believe that atheists, in accordance with Scott Peck's stages of spiritual development are at a higher "spiritual level" than some members of organized religions. I think that they are correct in their decision, that what they believe God is, does not exist. And I think that by that realization they have made one step closer to the truth. For some people this realization is essential for their spiritual and mental development, for I think that their ideas of God are actually holding them back, depressing their spirit, life and creativity, and untill they scrap these ideas they will never make any progress towards a happier life, a greater consciousness, and a higher truth.I believe that a belief in God and the presence of God in the lives of men is not universally of benefit to all human beings. In fact, I believe that this is why Adam and Eve lost their personal relationship with God, not because God was punishing them for their disobedience but because their refusal to be responsible for their own actions made God's presence in their lives do more harm than good. Therefore I say leave the atheists to the hands of God in which they reside for only God knows what each of us needs, and only God can attend to them.I believe that the Bible is the word of God, but I think that this means that it is exactly what He wishes it to say, and if people interpret it differently it is because He wishes it so. God destroyed the tower of Babel and confused the languages of men, despite the wars that would result from this, because the hope of mankind lies not in uniformity and control but in diversity and freedom. It is the diversity of our ideas and understandings of the world that makes us strong and beautiful, so let us rejoice in that diversity which reflects the incredible diversity of the rest of life on this planet and the incredible and beautiful diversity of objects in the heavens above us.

beatgammit is correct. Not only is this a very inefficient way of harnessing energy but you pay (too much) for it all in lifting all this gas from the earth. A water wheel, or tapping a geothermal source is harnessing a natural source of energy so its inefficiency isn't an issue. Think about this, we can pressurize gas here on the surface of the earth and yet we do not use this as a source of energy. HOWEVER, there is one way in which we do harness this source of energy in space craft. It is used as a source of thrust in course adjustment and for motive thrust by a man in a spacesuit doing EVA.

As I said in the other thread, let the Mormons, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox squabble over who has this imagined "apostolic authority", reminiscent of the apostles arguing over who will sit at Jesus' right hand, while the rest of us prefer to keep our eyes on Jesus and what He teaches us in the word of God. How did Jesus respond to this behavior of his apostles? He said "whoever would be great among you must be your servant." And Jesus showed us who was greatest, not by saying, "bow down unto me", but by washing His disciples feet. It is not about getting authority from God to set yourself over others as James and John imagined (or as the Catholics and Mormons continue to imagine). In order to fabricate this impression the Mormons had to invent their own gospel with a Jesus saying and acting like it was all about authority. Who did Jesus say was the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? Was it he who God gave authority over others? Jesus said it is he who humbles himself like a child. It is not about authority. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God." So I would rather be a dog begging under my Lord's table than a fool strutting up to the table to claim a seat which isn't mine. And so I will not listen to strutting fools like the LDS and Catholics. I recognize no authority given unto man but the Bible as the written word of God which no one has any authority to interpret for any other. God's word is not the Bible, only if properly interpreted! "The Bible is the word of God" can only mean that if we interpret it in different ways then that is according to God's will. This idea that the word of God is flawed and must be supplemented by the words of men, is nothing more or less than a rejection of the Bible as the word of God.

How bizarre. The most inclusive definition of "Christian" by the general public including non-Christians, are those who "believe in Christ". This includes the LDS, the Jehova Witnesses, the Moonies and many others. The only more exclusive definition of this that is of meaning to the LDS is to be a member of the LDS church, for they believe that they are the "true church" and their members are the "true christians". There is no group of denominations that share a definition of "Christian" between these two that includes the LDS, so the intimations of beatgammit that there is such a thing is his own imagination. The only more exclusive non-denominational definition of "Christian" is one of a very large group of Christian churches (nominally including the Catholic church) which I call the worldwide Christian consensus. According to this consensus, what is Christian is defined by the eccumenical councils of the fourth century in the Nicean creed and canon of the Bible. This is what most people mean by "mainstream Chritianity". The Nicean creed, also represented by the doctrines of the Trinity and homeostatic union are a compromise on the issues of the nature of God and Christ which were not entirely clear in the Bible and therefore a source of division. Therefore it was essential for these eccumenical councils to come to a definative agreement on these issues in order to preserve Christian unity. As a result these doctrines were intended to embrace the widest range of Christian experience and scripture. Thus, although these doctrines connot be found in the Bible itself, they are the most Biblical and most Christian in the sense that any simpler solution results in the rejection of an important portion of scripture and the rejection of a historical range of Christian experience. Therefore, since I believe that the purpose of these doctrines were to embrace the greatest range of scripture and Christian experience, I do not believe they should be used to exclude or condemn. As beatgammit perhaps hints, being Christian is not really about capitulation to a set of beliefs as much as it is about a personal relationship with the one mediator between God and man, in the person of Jesus the Christ. Therefore, I do not think that condemnation of the Jehova Witnesses and the LDS is matter of doctrinal deviation as much as it is their own condemnation of the rest of Christianity as "apostate" (by the LDS) and "inspired by the devil" (by the Jehova Witnesses). After all, "as you judge, so shall you be judged", is a golden rule in Christianity. However, this is all primarily a matter of Christian fellowship. The work of salvation is God's and He alone is in a postion to judge regarding it. Christians are not only ill advised to usurp the postion of God in this but it is their duty to steadfastly point to Jesus and the word of God rather than themselves or their own opinions. But it is only natural to exclude the wolves who would bring division and strife, for our fellowship is not the proper venue for the LDS (or others) to attempt indoctrination or recruitment for their organization. Their behavior speaks volumes about the fact that for them it is all about being LDS or not LDS rather than Christian or not Christian. But of course this behavior may not be shared by all members of the LDS church and in seriously reading the Bible there is every reason to expect that there are members of the LDS church who may have indeed received Christ into their lives and have a personal relationship with Him. We are not saved by membership in any church and therefore I do not see how we could be condemned by such a membership. Now in my first paragraph you may notice the parenthetical (nominally including the Catholic church) and may think that this is a lot like beatgammit's claim that the Catholics are not mainstream. But it is no such thing. It only acknowleges that the Catholic church itself are not fully a part of this consensus, for although they uphold the decisions of the eccumenical councils as essential, they do not recognize any consensus but their own. Nevertheless, it is the consensus that the Catholics do not deviate from what it defines as Christian significantly enough to be called non-Christian. The LDS on the other hand deviate significantly from the doctrines of the Trinity and homeostatic union. Because of this it is judged, that the Catholic can be welcome in Christian fellowship, if they would even stoop to seeking such fellowship, while the LDS cannot. What is really bizzare about beatgammit's post is that the only thing that really divides the Catholic church from this consensus is its similarity to the LDS church in their claim to have the authority from God to interpret scripture for the rest of mankind. For the rest of Christianity this hardly seems to be a Christian attitude at all, for it replaces Christ as the mediator between God and man with their human authorities and replaces the word of God with their human opinions. It seems to us that they would have us reject the rule of God in our lives in order to replace God with a human authority as did the Israelites when the demanded a king from Samuel (Samuel 8:5-10). Let the LDS and Catholics argue about who sits on the right hand of Jesus with their doctrines of authority, the rest of us prefer to keep our eyes on Jesus and word of God.

On the other hand, few here really understand the situation. An actual impact would be no laughing matter. It is rather surprising just how little it would take to turn the earth into a glowing cinder let alone snuff out all life on the planet (I have done the impact simulations myself). It is just that the likelihood of us being able do anything about is rather small. It was Armageddon that was silly not Deep Impact. However, the threat of destoying ourselves is not only far greater but also much more within our capabilities of doing something to stop it. All this assumes, that we even take any of these threats seriously enough to do anything about any of them.

You could say that there is a fourth option:4. He sees many futures depending on what he and others chooses to do and by his choice and their choice both, which future comes to pass is determined.But this is indistinguishable from Open Theism, for God does not just see what we actually do, He sees all the things we could do, and it is we who decide which is which. So I do not see how you could say that God knows what we will do in this case.

Easy. It is the same reason people do anything evil: excessive desire. The plain fact is that people cannot control their desires and their desires quite often exceed their concern and empathy for the well being of others. Every parent sees this behavior exhibited in their children and it is their job as parents to change this by teaching them the skills of patience and rational control over their desires as well as cultivating their ability to empathize with others and to have concern for their well being. Well date rape like most cases of rape can be distinguished from the type of predatory rape where victim does not even know her attacker, for in the latter cases I would not be opposed to the death penalty. In the former case we have a complex interaction of the behaviors and choices of two people and the only way to sort it all out is to make some clear rules, where consent seems to be the essential issue. Whether it is the administration of drugs or sex, if these are done without the consent of one person then this must be considered a vilotation of that person's rights and must be penalized under the law with time in prison. The term of imprisonment should be depend on the number of offenses increasing rapidly in length with repeated offenses. I see no reason why a person imprisoned for the fourth time for rape should ever see the light of day again.