If you're going to be existential and all that, then you need to make a decision: which camp are you going to follow? Are you going to follow Nietzsche or Kierkegaard? Sartre and Camus or Dostoevsky and Marcel? All schools of existential thought fall into one of two camps: theistic or atheistic. Why? Because the question of God is immensely relevant to whether there is a meaning and purpose to life.

I don't feel compelled to join anybody's camp, mainly because theism and atheism are equal faults - they both assume we can know the esistance of a god. Myself being primarily agnostic but with strong leanings toward deism, I don't believe we can really "know" about god.

However a note about Nietzshe, "God is dead, for we have killed him." Obviously we can't kill God, but assuming there is one, at the rate humans are going we might as well have.

Anyways, suppose, as I have, that god created us and abandoned us for other things - we have no purpose. In fact even theism offers no purpose, because the "free will" your God offers is so limited: the only options are slavery and torment. And let's get real, nobody would worship him if the other option wasn't hell.

C.S. Lewis wrote, "There are two kinds of people, those who say to God 'thy will be done,' and those to whom God says 'fine then, have it your way.'" If you wanna worship the one who made this mess, go for it, all I know is my life got alot better once I took my own route.

And let's get real, nobody would worship him if the other option wasn't hell.

I found one. Your statement is therefore false.

You seem unable to conceive anything good about God, but should you actually be interested in hearing why I worship God, let me know.

If you wanna worship the one who made this mess, go for it, all I know is my life got alot better once I took my own route.

I would love to hear your testimony to that because it seems to me that you still consider life a "hellhole." (This deeply saddens me that anyone should miss the incredible joy there is to be found in life.)

Aesthetic sense: this is the ability to discern the good, the true, and the beautiful (in their non-moral senses). Like the conscience, this may be controversial, but it is also adversely affected by preferences and cultural norms such that excellence in the aesthetic realm is usually perceived as subjective.

Sensus Divinitatus: the most controversial of the cognitive faculties. This consists in awareness of God. This faculty, obviously, has been severely damaged by the fall such that those whom the Spirit has not regenerated have little to no awareness of this faculty. At best, the unregenerate have a sense of the “numinous.” At worst, their sensus will be practically non-functional. For the believer, awareness of God will arise on various occasions where others will see or feel nothing.

I'm curious about where these definitions come from. Why is it that Aesthetic sense makes allowances for preference and cultural norms but Sensus Divinatus is clearly a Christian definition? What about those worldviews that don't adhere to the fallen world mythology? Of course, these are probably rather futile questions.

I don't feel compelled to join anybody's camp, mainly because theism and atheism are equal faults - they both assume we can know the esistance of a god. Myself being primarily agnostic but with strong leanings toward deism, I don't believe we can really "know" about god.

Having a friend whose entire family is devoutly atheist (and very arrogant about it) I agree with this reasoning. Though this friend decided to become atheist for some reasons that are pretty sketchy, IMO. She says she believes we should do the right thing because it is right and good for humanity, and not out of wanting some eternal reward for ourselves. I can see her point in regards to action and its motivation, but not how that equates to there being no possibility of a god. I've asked her to explain it, and she never really has. Yet she still assumes she knows better than anyone "foolish and antiquated" enough to have some kind of faith, no matter what it is.

At this stage I really think I should answer stardf29's post.

And yeah, it does seem to depend on the definition of incest. In fact, probably the case of "incest" I am most curious of is the case of two friends, otherwise not related by either blood or law, who have grown up together and see each other as brother and sister. Many outsiders wouldn't even consider a possible union between them incest... but for whatever reason, the two friends themselves do see any romance between them as such, regardless of whether or not they have a good reason for doing so. (Ironic in that, all things considered, because they know each other so well and already have built the patience to put up with each other for so long, their actual marriage compatibility would be pretty much optimal, as long as they agree on major issues as well.)

No, your friends are not committing incest if they decide to marry. Probably they just like the way their lives are, and their reasons for living such a lifestyle are none of anyone's business, really. The definition of incest includes at least some degree of consanguinity. There has to be a blood relationship or at least a strong direct kinship recognised by law which implies a likely blood relationship. And the closer the blood relationship the worse the offence is, especially if children are involved. Then the law can and should get involved.

Hmm... it seems to me as though your arguments, valid as they are, are less a direct reason as to why incest is wrong as it is a look at how incest in particular is vulnerable to the effects of our Sinful Nature.

In fact, that's probably the other reason why God forbade the act; not only has genetics become a problem, but so has the increasing degree to which sinful behaviors have been involved.

Yes you could be right. There is an advantage to marrying off daughters and sons to cousins and other indirect relations. Not only does property get kept within the family, the family ethos is protected, if not the daughters, and family or clan ties are strengthened. If there is any mutual affection in the family, arguably it might substitute for the initial lack of romantic feeling. But it also saves time and energy for parents who then don't have to seek out what they flatter themselves might be suitable marriage partners for their children which enhance their own status in the community.

And yes, 'the increasing degree of sinful behaviours have been involved' is a factor. At its very base, the whole idea of incest is unhealthily inward-looking, paranoid, and smacks of control freaks who are distrustful of unwelcome outsiders who might have the temerity to disagree with them. I believe God made us as social beings who need to network and live in communities for our own good, and who need to love and to be loved. That is, if one can overcome shyness and the possibility of rejection.

Different definitions, unclear reasons... no wonder I get confused by this. Is there any solution? Maybe... but perhaps this would fit better in that "Twue Wuv" topic that's buried a couple pages down on the forum...

No, I don't agree. We aren't talking about 'twue wuv', merely expediency, morals and the extent they involve the law and the church. Marriage is a big topic, after all, with very wide social implications, including family welfare, and what religion, family philosophical beliefs and the law are prepared to accommodate.

When I was confirmed I was given a prayer book which has a pretty, light blue leather binding, a picture of Christ on the shores of Lake Galilee, and which contains a lot more than the orders of service for Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer and Communion. Its title page proclaims it is a copy of the Book of Common Prayer, according to the use of the Church of England, complete with thees, thys etc and Latin titles for psalms like Nunc Dimittis, Magnificat, Jubilate Deo, Benedictus and Venite. (Does anyone sing these psalms these days?)

As well as the order of marriage, there is a table of kindred and affinity. I'd scan it in as an attachment if I hadn't written over it some time in the past, trying to work out who is excluded from my tender affections. You aren't supposed to marry the following people:

A man must not marry his mother, his daughter, his grandmothers, his granddaughter, his sister, half-sister, step mother, daughter-in-law, wife's grandmothers, stepson's wife, step granddaughters, aunts, or nieces. And similarly, a woman must not marry her father, son, brother, half-brother, grandfather, grandson, father-in-law, son-in-law, brother-in-law, stepson, stepgrandsons, uncles or nephews.

Now surely the likes of Cranmer and Fisher wouldn't have put all this in the Book of Common Prayer if there wasn't some Biblical basis to it. However, I'd really like to know where the relevant verses might be. Someone might like to find them. In tribal societies they do allow marriage between first cousins. But in Western law such marriages are frowned upon. All the same I agree that when you get to first cousins twice removed, third cousins, and second cousins once removed, it is getting too difficult to keep track of what sort of relationship and kinship you are talking about.

This table of kindred and affinity doesn't mention adopted children, but adopted children are in a particularly nasty predicament, anyway, when it comes to marriage, if they don't know what their antecedents might be. The question is, who are they related to biologically?

Oh TBG...I think that perhaps, maybe, I've misjudged you . Yet I can't escape thinking that you've wound yourself up in a knot of Philosophical Terminology to the point that it obscures the Actual Things you are attempting to define.

That is to say, I think you have lost sight of Moon (the Thing in Itself, in this case Knowledge) by paying too much attention to the Finger (the Words used to Define it, in this case the Philosophical Terminology of a particular Value Set of your choosing).

I get the sense that this is unintentional up to a point. For it is clearly founded in your immersion in the World-view of your peer-group, just as I am immersed in the World-View of my own. So, to some degree, I am also responsible for my perceptions of your views. Yet I do not think that is the case in entirety.

I also detect that you DO, at some level, intend to wield Philosophy as a means to Monopolize Truth for yourself whilst denying it to those that disagree with you. Whatever you may think of me, such has never been my intent. For me, Philosophy is ONLY a means of Understanding basic truths (plural) not to monopolize it for myself or my peer-group. And at a certain point, I see Philosophy as useless in and of itself and cast it off when it is more a hindrance than a help.

Yes, on many issues I think I'm right, and you think you're right . And I can admit that I don't always live up to my own standards (I'm only Human ). But I think I have consistently supported your right to the Truth as you see it, as long as YOU consistently apply your own standards of Proof, Logic, and Reason across the board. In many instances, I think you do not exercise such consistency, and I think you sometimes do this intentionally to obscure and conflate (not out of malice, but out of the perfectly understandable desire to "Win the point" ). I don't doubt that perhaps you might say the same of me...C'est La Vie.

Having got that off my chest, in the Spirit with which you proffered your positions and definitions, here is MY view of the basic realities that we all must deal with, and of some of the terms you employ:

1) There is Knowledge about the physical Universe that can be shared and verified through repeatable experiments and physical Artifacts. For the sake of simplicity we can call it Empiricism. And it generally has a high degree of Certainty. It is the basis for which we can claim an Existential level of Reality that we all share, regardless of whether or not one believes in a Deity.

2) There is the Knowledge of our Senses. We can consider that Experience, but the degree of Certainty depends on the degree of Empiricism we bring to bear on it.

3) Then we have Revealed Knowledge. It can be about the Physical Universe or the Incorporeal. Imagination, Revelation, Flashes of Insight, Hunches and Hypotheses are all aspects of this phenomenon, and this is what Gnostics call Gnosis. It is Knowledge indeed, but, regarding aspects of the Physical Universe it is only as Certain as to the degree of Empirical Evidence we can bear upon that Knowledge.

Regarding non-physical, psychological and spiritual events and phenomena, we can FEEL Certain about such Knowledge insofar as the strength of our Senses tell us we have had an Experience. Some might call that Faith .

But it is a mistake to suggest that one can PROVE this sort of Knowledge with ANY degree of Certainty and make Declarations of Absolute Truth regarding it. Some people may have very similar Experiences, and others may have wildly variant Experiences, and there is no Objective Empirical Standard by which we can judge it

And YES, my Sensus Divinitatus works just fine thank you very much . Which is why I have a Strong Feeling that there is Conscious Intent and Purpose behind the Universe. And like yourself, I feel compelled to discuss my Experiences and my Philosophical Ruminations with others, particularly in seeking out commonalities and differences in such Spiritual Experiences. But I would never deign to suggest that I have any Monopoly on Truth regarding such matters, for the Reasons I've proffered.

Reasoning, Inductive, Deductive, and otherwise, must all rest on the various forms of Knowledge to have any Meaning or Purpose. Thus, Reason is only as Certain as the forms of Knowledge one is basing it on.

Authority in matters regarding the Physical Universe is not Given, it is Earned through Validation and Verification. And frankly I find the philosophical term "Authority" dubious, as more often than not, it is used to Obfuscate truth, not reveal it. I do not recognize "Authority" as particularly meaningful or helpful. Generally speaking, "Authority" is only resorted to when one has no Evidence, Empirical or otherwise. "Authority" in matters of Soul and Spirit is even less intrinsically meaningful, as anyone can appeal to it, or lay claim to it .

Basic Assumptions, and Presuppositions, can always be accounted for in analysis if one has a degree of Self-Awareness and bothers to take the time . Sentience generally implies at least some degree of Self-Awareness.

Conscience can have a strong foundation in Reason and Knowledge without appealing to "Authority", or Deity(s). Thus, to the degree that we share the same Physical Reality, one can relatively objectively judge certain Deeds to be harmful or beneficial, and therefore "Good" or "Evil."

Memory rests largely on the healthy functioning of our brains. But it seems to operate through a feedback between the non-physical Aspects of Consciousness and the physical. Mental and Spiritual Exercise can contribute to keeping our Memories healthy, as can Physical Exercise and eating relatively healthily. Memory is only as reliable as the Brain and Spirit are healthy, and is often highly fallible, even among relatively high functioning people.

Credulity, being related to Authority as you rightly point out, is therefore not to be relied upon to any great extent. To the extent that it IS relied upon, it must be Earned through Evidence and Reason.

Aesthetic Sense is SO varied, not only between cultures, but individuals, that it is not a strong foundation for discerning Truth. Indeed, Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder AND the Beheld. Beauty is determined by a sort of "Resonance" between the two.

So now you have some of my views on the basis with which we conceptualize Reality. Make of it what you will . Clearly we have some HUGE differences in how we conceive of things. Yet, if we could get past the words, on a few issues I feel we're not so far apart. In any case, I always have fun debating you .

Live Long and Prosper

GB

And let's get real, nobody would worship him if the other option wasn't hell.

This just cannot be true. If all people cared about was "not going to hell" then nobody would serve Him after their salvation. After Christ entered into their hearts upon their confession of faith, and after they had their "Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free-Card," they wouldn't continue to serve Him.

Another thing is that you're equating "worship" with salvation. The two are completely different processes. Worship is not required for salvation, but is a by-product of it. Many people "worship" God who are not truly saved (or at least. . . it looks to we humans like worship. God knows the difference). You can go to church, read your Bible daily, pray, etc. . . and still be a non-believer. So many people have a "head knowledge" but don't have a "heart knowledge"

After I got saved, I rarely thought about hell. I still don't think about it that much (save for my concern with others having Hell as their final destination). It's not my destination, so why should I worry about it? Do people who live in Nebraska worry about the gulf-oil-spill washing up on their cornfields? No, because they have nothing to do with the physcial catastrophe of the oil spill. I have no physical ties to hell after my conversion, and therefore it CAN'T be used to try to coerce me into serving Him. You might just as well give a kid a candy bar as a bribe, and THEN ask Him to do the task asked. . . the child already got the reward. . .the rewarder holds no more power to influence him.

However a note about Nietzshe, "God is dead, for we have killed him." Obviously we can't kill God, but assuming there is one, at the rate humans are going we might as well have.

Have you actually read the quote in context?

Myself being primarily agnostic but with strong leanings toward deism, I don't believe we can really "know" about god.

But you must choose, either to act under the assumption that there is a God, or that there is not---practically speaking, agnosticism and atheism end up in the same place.

Anyways, suppose, as I have, that god created us and abandoned us for other things

But He didn't.

I'm curious about where these definitions come from. Why is it that Aesthetic sense makes allowances for preference and cultural norms but Sensus Divinatus is clearly a Christian definition?

The fact that we have an aesthetic sense indicates (to me) that there is such a thing as objective beauty, but because of our fallen cultural lenses, we may not always perceive it. I believe that the cantatas of Bach are objectively beautiful, whether or no you agree with me.

As for the definitions, they are primarily descriptive, but are drawn (loosely) from Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man by Thomas Reid, Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin, and Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga.

That is to say, I think you have lost sight of Moon (the Thing in Itself, in this case Knowledge) by paying too much attention to the Finger (the Words used to Define it, in this case the Philosophical Terminology of a particular Value Set of your choosing).

Excuse me, but I define knowledge much more broadly than you do. You seem to only want to include science as knowledge and exclude religion from the realm of rational knowledge---I want to say that religion is quite rational. Whose finger is obscuring the view?

Let's look again at my four examples.

2+2=4: my teacher might use the four apples, but without presuppositions, reasoning, and my trust in the teacher, I wouldn't believe it.

I live in the United States: here I have no physical evidence because "United States" is a human construct. Instead, I have lots of documentation evidence---which is authority. In acting as if the United States is a real entity, I am accepting the account that I have been taught and indoctrinated with for as long as I can remember---the only evidence is society's say-so.

George Washington was the first president: here we have even more documentation fabricated by humans, whether it be old letters, history textbooks, or people's say-so. I have no physical evidence, only human-produced evidence, which I have to trust. Far more well-documented events and persons have been doubted (the holocaust, for example).

Jesus rose from the dead: here again, I have authority (filtered through the SD), in this case of four well-attested ancient sources from the period.

Authority in matters regarding the Physical Universe is not Given, it is Earned through Validation and Verification.

What exactly do you mean by "validation" and "verification"? I must admit that I've always liked Popper's theory of scientific falsification better.

There is Knowledge about the physical Universe that can be shared and verified through repeatable experiments and physical Artifacts.

Here's the trouble: whether or not you have sufficient warrant for a rational knowledge claim depends on how you personally came to believe it. So how did you come to know that the law of gravity is true? If you personally did not test it, then so far as you are concerned, it is not empirical.

Some might call that Faith

Faith (Webster's 1828) n.: The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind.

All knowledge includes faith. Faith in the authority of one's senses, faith in one's instructors, yes, faith in God. In order to have knowledge, in order to have evidence, one must have faith.

Our court system rests upon faith because it rests upon the supposition that the testimony presented is correct.

And YES, my Sensus Divinitatus works just fine thank you very much

It works better than that of some, but it'll take a work of the Holy Spirit for it to be repaired.

I also detect that you DO, at some level, intend to wield Philosophy as a means to Monopolize Truth for yourself whilst denying it to those that disagree with you.

That's a human endeavor, you do it too---by trying to convince me at all, you are trying to say that you are right and I am wrong in my belief. It isn't my fault that I have been set free by the Truth ("true Truth" as Schaeffer called it), it ain't my doing. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have signed on for this Christianity business to begin with.

TBG

I'm curious about where these definitions come from. Why is it that Aesthetic sense makes allowances for preference and cultural norms but Sensus Divinatus is clearly a Christian definition?

The fact that we have an aesthetic sense indicates (to me) that there is such a thing as objective beauty, but because of our fallen cultural lenses, we may not always perceive it. I believe that the cantatas of Bach are objectively beautiful, whether or no you agree with me.

So if we didn't have these inherently bad cultural lenses, we would all have the same opinions on what is beautiful? That sounds frightfully boring!

Your belief in the beauty of the cantatas and the objectivity of that beauty is in itself a subjective statement based on your own fallen cultural lenses. You are putting forth that there is one Absolute Standard of Beauty (like Absolute Truth) for every human being that you have somehow tapped into, and you will stand by it no matter what anyone says. And yet, all of this, no matter how strongly you believe it to be Absolutely True, is your opinion based on the worldview you choose to live in.

This goes straight back to my original question of "What right does one group have to judge another as wrong based on their internal values?". You say that you believe this piece of music to be Absolutely Beautiful (True) no matter what another's views are and you will not be swayed. Why then is it all right to expect others with a different Absolute Beauty (Truth) to be swayed? Just because the first group "knows" (ie: believes) that they are Right? (Not applying it to you specifically, just in general in the context of my original question.)

That's a human endeavor, you do it too---by trying to convince me at all, you are trying to say that you are right and I am wrong in my belief. It isn't my fault that I have been set free by the Truth ("true Truth" as Schaeffer called it), it ain't my doing. If it were up to me, I wouldn't have signed on for this Christianity business to begin with.

Again: "the Truth", "true Truth". Obviously your definition of True (capital T) is based on the Bible (which is fine. I'm not saying it shouldn't be), but can you provide any sort of affirmation for this Truth being truly Absolute beyond your belief in the infallibility of this one text? Is there any way you could convince me that this particular cantata is objectively beautiful without resorting to "you won't understand until you understand"-based arguments?

Ultimately that wouldn't work, either intrinsically or for you, Maenad. Similarly, a Christian who views the Bible as absolute authority would be coming from a completely different perspective if he asked, "Can you prove, from the Bible, that your own opinions (different from Scripture) are true?" In saying that, a Christian would be keeping his own "ground rules" and expecting you to argue based on those rules. But in this, you're asking a Christian to prove the Bible is true based on your ground rules, not its own.

Either way, the argument becomes circular because at some point one must appeal to an intrinsic self-evident authority by faith: whether to the validity of one's own mind to reason and draw conclusions, or to another source.

Again: "the Truth", "true Truth". Obviously your definition of True (capital T) is based on the Bible (which is fine. I'm not saying it shouldn't be), but can you provide any sort of affirmation for this Truth being truly Absolute beyond your belief in the infallibility of this one text? Is there any way you could convince me that this particular cantata is objectively beautiful without resorting to "you won't understand until you understand"-based arguments?

How would you explain color to a friend who was colorblind?

Your belief in the beauty of the cantatas and the objectivity of that beauty is in itself a subjective statement based on your own fallen cultural lenses.

I am assuming a virtue-based transcendental theory of ethics/aesthetics rather than a deontological, utilitarian, or relativist one. Virtue ethics assumes that there are such things as good and bad taste: good taste is appreciation for those things which are aesthetically good, while bad taste would be the contrary. Taste and preference, though, are two different things.

Example: even though I may appreciate the subtle flavors of a filet mignon, I may not prefer it for any number of reasons---it isn't a case of non-appreciation, but of preference.

Does anyone sing these psalms these days?

Yes, if you go to the right kind of church. I have friends who are part of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America, which actually sings psalms exclusively (I have one of their psalters--really cool stuff!).

TBG

Either way, the argument becomes circular because at some point one must appeal to an intrinsic self-evident authority by faith: whether to the validity of one's own mind to reason and draw conclusions, or to another source.

Yes. That's my point.

This just cannot be true. If all people cared about was "not going to hell" then nobody would serve Him after their salvation. After Christ entered into their hearts upon their confession of faith, and after they had their "Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free-Card," they wouldn't continue to serve Him.

Not true because those truly following the words of Christ would have to live by a couple tenets of Christianty, "If you love me, keep my commandments," as well as in Revelation where it states that there will be many who performed good deeds in His name, but were cast into the "lake of fire." Also, supposing your veiws of God are true, he would never have had contact with humans after the first sin, because no sacrifices would need to be made, if hell was not a problem.

But you must choose, either to act under the assumption that there is a God, or that there is not---practically speaking, agnosticism and atheism end up in the same place.

No, I don't have to do either. The closest I assume to that is that the God is not involved in our lives.

But He didn't.

You can't prove that anymore than I can prove that he did.

You seem unable to conceive anything good about God, but should you actually be interested in hearing why I worship God, let me know.

I don't think he is good or bad, he is what he is, and indifferent by my reasoning.

And if you want to tell, I'm listening.

Here's a quote from famous Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel:

Rooted in our tradition, some of us felt that to be abandoned by humanity then was not the ultimate. We felt that to be abandoned by God was worse than to be punished by Him. Better an unjust God than an indifferent one. For us to be ignored by God was a harsher punishment than to be a victim of His anger. Man can live far from God -- not outside God. God is wherever we are. Even in suffering? Even in suffering.

Revelation 4:11 - Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

That pretty much sums up everything I dislike about your God.

The closest I assume to that is that the God is not involved in our lives.

Again, practical atheism. Deism is a cop-out for those who like God for a nice metaphysical explanation, but don't want Him messing with their nice little worlds.

Truth be told, Andrew, that's your problem: you want to be God in your own pathetic little universe. You don't want to hear that maybe there are things you ought not to do, that maybe you owe something to someone higher than yourself.

As for suffering, yet again, Chesterton has you:

[Syme] had turned his eyes so as to see suddenly the great face of Sunday, which wore a strange smile.

"Have you," he cried in a dreadful voice, "have you ever suffered?"

As he gazed, the great face grew to an awful size, grew larger than the
colossal mask of Memnon, which had made him scream as a child. It grew
larger and larger, filling the whole sky; then everything went black.
Only in the blackness before it entirely destroyed his brain he seemed
to hear a distant voice saying a commonplace text that he had heard
somewhere, "Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of?"

The riddles of God are more satisfying than the solutions of man, it is said. How long has it been since you read Ecclesiastes or Job? You act as if God somehow owes you something. What is it?

But before you ask for explanations, remember who it was who cried in anguish as he died, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

TBG

This just cannot be true. If all people cared about was "not going to hell" then nobody would serve Him after their salvation. After Christ entered into their hearts upon their confession of faith, and after they had their "Get-Out-Of-Hell-Free-Card," they wouldn't continue to serve Him.

Not true because those truly following the words of Christ would have to live by a couple tenets of Christianty, "If you love me, keep my commandments," as well as in Revelation where it states that there will be many who performed good deeds in His name, but were cast into the "lake of fire." Also, supposing your veiws of God are true, he would never have had contact with humans after the first sin, because no sacrifices would need to be made, if hell was not a problem.

Let's take a look at the context of these passages. Jesus was asked what it would take to get into heaven. He answered simply, 'if you love me, keep my commandments'. This was before the covenant of Grace that did not get established until after the Resurrection. At that time, everyone was on the covenant of the Law, and Jesus was saying the only way to get into heaven is to keep 100% of the Law 100% of the time. Everytime Jesus said that, the asker was dejected because they all knew it was impossible. Even Jesus knew it was impossible. So why did he say that? He did so to show that the only way into heaven was through him.

Revelation does say there are people that do good deeds in the name of Christ who will be cast into the Lake of Fire. Matthew 25 says that too. Jesus' answer to that was that he 'never knew them'. Both of these points tie into a huge misunderstanding of Christianity. You cannot earn your way into heaven. And the ones that do always will fall short. We've talked about eugenics. They are doing all sorts of things in the name of bettering society when their real intent is control of society and life. They do good deeds in the name of a good practice and idea, but inward thier hearts are full of evil. Isaiah 64:6 describes how God sees any of our good deeds as they are: as filthy rags. The kind that leapors wore, soaked in blood, puss, dirt, and ash. Why? Because our good deeds in reality are attempts to cover up the disease deep down called sin.

Now if hell was never a problem, God could have either separated himself from us as you claim, or he could have just overlooked it, assuming it wasn't there. But the God of the Bible is described as a Just God and sin must be dealt with. God couldn't just abandon us, because he can't allow sin to go unpunished. Plus, if hell wasn't a problem, then there was no purpose of Jesus coming to earth. Jesus himself begged his Father three times to deal with the sin problem any other way. Hell is a serious problem, which was DK's point, and God does have every right to hurl everything in this universe into it, especially each one of us. It is only through a complete trust in Jesus can we be saved, because if there was any other way, then Jesus died for nothing.

But you must choose, either to act under the assumption that there is a God, or that there is not---practically speaking, agnosticism and atheism end up in the same place.

No, I don't have to do either. The closest I assume to that is that the God is not involved in our lives.

But He didn't.

You can't prove that anymore than I can prove that he did.

Your statement here is saying to me that you are assuming there is a God. Involved or not, that is not TBG's point. His point is that you have to start with a basis that in someway shape or form, there is a God somewhere, somehow. Now did God abandon us? Let me ask you from a scientific standpoint? What is it that keep the stars stationary, enabling us to get an exact picture of what anyone saw at any time in history? What is it that keeps all our Laws of Physics from breaking up and going astray? How is it that every species on this planet is able to reproduce, keeping the exact same genes as the parents? We can easily observe that unless something is maintained, it will dissolved into a state of greater disorder and chaos (2nd Law of Thermodynamics). We can see that state of our physical planet is dissolving (ozone hole leading to 'global warming', an increasingly unstabilizing crust (earthquakes and volcanoes), loses in the magnetic field, etc, etc). What keeps it from getting worse? It's certainly not mankind. We couldn't destroy this if we really wanted to. Did you know that Mt. St. Helens blew more smog elements in one eruption than the entire US has ever done in all it's history? If God abandoned us, this planet would have fallen apart long ago. And until you answer the question of the supernatural and miracles, you cannot make a solid claim that God has abandoned us.

You seem unable to conceive anything good about God, but should you actually be interested in hearing why I worship God, let me know.

I don't think he is good or bad, he is what he is, and indifferent by my reasoning.

And if you want to tell, I'm listening.

Here's a quote from famous Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel:

Rooted in our tradition, some of us felt that to be abandoned by humanity then was not the ultimate. We felt that to be abandoned by God was worse than to be punished by Him. Better an unjust God than an indifferent one. For us to be ignored by God was a harsher punishment than to be a victim of His anger. Man can live far from God -- not outside God. God is wherever we are. Even in suffering? Even in suffering.

Revelation 4:11 - Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

That pretty much sums up everything I dislike about your God.

This brings up the everpresent question of why would a good God allow evil. Take into consideration the context of the quote you provided. She survived the Holocaust and unless she was a true Christian living by the Holy Spirit, it is very easy to endure that time and have nothing but contempt for God. I present the case of Corrie Ten Boom, who also survived the Holocost, losing her father and sister in particular to it. She was sharing her experiences in the US and came face to face with one of the guards at her camp. The guard begged for her forgiveness for what he did, and though it took a while, she eventually did. Can you tell me what would inspire such an act? That was not what Corrie wanted to do, nor was it, in her mind, in her best interest. That very act shows that there is something beyond logic or reasoning going on in her life. Could you forgive someone that was at least partly responsible for killing, imprisoning, and torturing your family, nearly all your friends, and your people? From what you have told us, I can safely say if it really came down to it, you would not be able to do so. Even I would have a very hard time doing that, and I am of the forgiving type. It's not easy and no one can do it on thier own strength.

Truth be told, Andrew, that's your problem: you want to be God in your own pathetic little universe. You don't want to hear that maybe there are things you ought not to do, that maybe you owe something to someone higher than yourself.

Only you're mistaken in thinking that I want to be a god, or want my own universe. I want to see things as they truly are. And I don't let anyone tell me what I should do because there is no moral right or wrong.

While we're at it, I have a question about your signature: I suppose that applies to hippogriffs, vampires, and the Easter Bunny as well?

Fencer, let's talk about God requiring a sacrifice for our sin. Why is that required? Why did God say, "this is evil, and you're going to hell for it"? The only answers I can think of are: there is a force more powerful than god, a legitimate "good" and "evil," impersonal as they may be, they do not actually exist, or our very existance is just an experiment, sort of like that movie that came out last year, I believe it was called "The Box." If you have any other options, let me know.

And until you answer the question of the supernatural and miracles, you cannot make a solid claim that God has abandoned us.

Give me an example of a confirmed "miracle" that cannot be explained by natural laws.

From what you have told us, I can safely say if it really came down to it, you would not be able to do so.

I have never been in such an extreme situation as the holocaust of course, but there has been nothing done against me yet that I hold a grudge for.