Quote :

"I would say instead that people claiming to be acting by the will of God should be kept close watch on. You make a good point here, but the question in this case is not really whether or not religion is inherently good... it is whether or not something can be inherently good and still be used for evil purposes. If an evil person uses a good thing for an evil purpose, does that remove the good of the item used? "

I think you're getting away from the issues of this thread. I personally don't think anything can be inherently good or evil, since these are things we as humans use our intelligence to define. From D'souza's perspective though, Christianity is inherently good, and bestows this goodness on its followers. I'm arguing that on this point, D'souza is wrong.

11/2/2007 3:56:10 PM

Quote :

"^^ I'm more alarmed by the actions of atheists with power... See: Mao, Hitler, Stalin. They've killed over 100,000,000 people in the name of atheism."

This is a consistently weak analogy. Comparing the death tolls of extremely efficient 20th century killing machines with those of even the 13th century isn't exactly legitimate.


I don't think either man particularly dominated this debate, it almost seemed like both men had debated so many times that they were both tired of each others arguments.

Either way, I was surprised that Hitchens didn't attack D'souza's assertion that the existence of everything we needed to exist is evidence of a divine plan. It is equally possible / probable that we exist only because these conditions were met and therefore their presence is not because of our existence but our presence is because of theirs.



Either way, gg to hooksaw for posting a topic that has lead to a pretty legitimate discussion in TSB

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 6:39 PM. Reason : gg]

11/2/2007 6:38:31 PM

^ There were a lot of things Hitchens could have attacked but either did not, or did so in a roundabout way that the crowd seemed to lose him. I'm not familiar with Hitchens too much, but it seems to me he's either not use to debating, or hasn't done so in a while. I think even someone moderately familiar with just philosophy should have been able to easily dominate most of D'souza's arguments while making him look like a fool, instead of letting him gain the momentum he did with the crowd (which admittedly was probably mostly for D'souza from the beginning).

Quote :

"Either way, gg to hooksaw for posting a topic that has lead to a pretty legitimate discussion in TSB "

That's because he hasn't been posting in it all that much so far. Very little "fuck yous" and "foamies" and whatever other choice pronouns he likes to throw around.

[Edited on November 2, 2007 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

11/2/2007 10:19:54 PM

Quote :

"From D'souza's perspective though, Christianity is inherently good, and bestows this goodness on its followers. I'm arguing that on this point, D'souza is wrong."

I agree with D'souza on this particular point, but I don't think he really made enough distinctions. The main distinction here being that just because someone calls themselves a Christian, they may or may not actually follow Christianity.

Quote :

"I was surprised that Hitchens didn't attack D'souza's assertion that the existence of everything we needed to exist is evidence of a divine plan. It is equally possible / probable that we exist only because these conditions were met and therefore their presence is not because of our existence but our presence is because of theirs."

That's probably why he chose not to pursue that point. It's simply an ambiguous subject by its nature, and really depends upon the opinion of the one viewing the argument. It could just as easily be said that there is no cause/effect relationship in either direction, and that the two things simply correlate.

11/2/2007 11:01:56 PM

Quote :

"I agree with D'souza on this particular point, but I don't think he really made enough distinctions. The main distinction here being that just because someone calls themselves a Christian, they may or may not actually follow Christianity. "

Well, under what conditions is a "Christian society" representing Christianity, and under what conditions do they not represent Christianity?

You can't pick and choose without being hypocritical. People who represent Christians sometimes do good things, and sometimes do bad things, and not really an overwhelming amount of either. It's safer to just say no society or country does actually represent Christianity. The problem D'souza would have with this though is that it would show that religion then is not divinely bestowed, but is a human construction. You can't really agree with him on that point unless you also acknowledge that religion and morality are decoupled forces.

However, if you want to believe that the goal of religion is to be good, and thus its inherently good, that's a different statement, and not what D'souza is saying. Most groups, even Hitler, would claim that their goals are honorable and noble.

11/3/2007 12:03:49 AM

Quote :

"It's safer to just say no society or country does actually represent Christianity."

I do agree with this statement.

Quote :

"The problem D'souza would have with this though is that it would show that religion then is not divinely bestowed, but is a human construction. You can't really agree with him on that point unless you also acknowledge that religion and morality are decoupled forces."

Well, not necessarily. I would just say that humanity is far too fallible to construct a society that truly conforms to Christianity. Basically, my argument on this issue is that you cannot have a true reflection of Christianity itself by looking at people (unless you happen to be looking at Jesus). So I guess in that way I do disagree with D'souza.

In a sense, it is shown to be divinely bestowed because humanity cannot possibly emulate it perfectly. If it is a human construction, then a human society should be able to implement it accurately. Of course, this entire line of reason is subjective and depends upon an individual's definition of a true "Christian society".

Quote :

"Well, under what conditions is a "Christian society" representing Christianity, and under what conditions do they not represent Christianity?"

I would have to say that no Christian society on earth could accurately represent Christianity as a whole. Again, this would put my argument on a different line of reasoning from D'souza.

11/3/2007 12:17:06 AM

Quote :

"In a sense, it is shown to be divinely bestowed because humanity cannot possibly emulate it perfectly. If it is a human construction, then a human society should be able to implement it accurately. Of course, this entire line of reason is subjective and depends upon an individual's definition of a true "Christian society". "

Excluding certain contradictory aspects of Christianity, the only thing that a normal person can't really obey completely is lust and temptation. These things are internal, and I can't imagine anyone can wipe out these emotions, from their emotional palette.

But D'souza also used the argument that if it was humans that created it, then it should be something that's easy to do and follow (he said something like why not eliminate the commandment about adultery... maybe a bit telling...). But, if religions take hold because political leaders use it to gain power, then they would by necessity have to make laws that are just beyond people's reach, to keep them under the influence of the religious leaders. If people felt they had mastered the tenants of a religion, what need would they have to go to church or preach to seek salvation and repentance?

11/3/2007 12:27:43 AM

Quote :

"One of the reasons that modern western civilizations haven't devolved in to this mess is specifically because our govs. put provisions to prevent religion from gaining more power in government."

I would say the reason why modern western civilization hasn't devolved is not because our government prohibits certain behaviors of religion, but, almost precisely the opposite. We flourish because our governments have taken hold of the idea that all men were created by a Creator, and therefore equal, an idea not present until Christ, or at least not popularized until Christ. That is the reason for our evolution and the reason why we have not devolved.

Quote :

"Let's not forget Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Thirty Years War, Islamic Jihad"

The Spanish Inquisition, the largest, most overhyped event of this millennium... In 300 years, the Spanish Inquisition killed two thousand people. Two thousand people...

Quote :

"This is a consistently weak analogy. Comparing the death tolls of extremely efficient 20th century killing machines with those of even the 13th century isn't exactly legitimate."

This almost entirely proves my point! We, as a Christian and religious society have evolved past the Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, and Inquisitions. However, when you put devout atheists who not only have an ambivalence towards the concept of God and religion, but a deep rooted animosity for God and religion, that's when you get 100,000,000 people six feet under.

Perhaps because of the non belief in a judgement allows atheists to so freely dominate other individuals whereas most major religions teach a certain amount of equality among individuals which, if not adhered to, carries the weight consequence. The mere lack of consequence will make most men do anything (see, New Orleans after Katrina).

11/3/2007 1:05:02 AM

Quote :

"Excluding certain contradictory aspects of Christianity, the only thing that a normal person can't really obey completely is lust and temptation. These things are internal, and I can't imagine anyone can wipe out these emotions, from their emotional palette."

A lot of things considered sin by Christianity are basic emotions, most of which could be considered internal. Anger, envy, pride, lust... ect. I doubt that God expects people to live up to any of them completely. My point was just that humans cannot represent a religion to an acceptable degree... and as I said earlier, this whole line of thought is subject to personal interpretation and thus it does not fit well into a debate. Oh, and just a side note, temptation itself is not usually considered a sin, giving into it is.

Quote :

"But D'souza also used the argument that if it was humans that created it, then it should be something that's easy to do and follow (he said something like why not eliminate the commandment about adultery... maybe a bit telling...)."

I agree with his main point in this sentence. Don't remember the adultery comment well enough to say anything about it. Given that he has also referred to a "Christian society", though, I have to say that he contradicts himself through the debate to some degree.

Quote :

"But, if religions take hold because political leaders use it to gain power, then they would by necessity have to make laws that are just beyond people's reach, to keep them under the influence of the religious leaders. If people felt they had mastered the tenants of a religion, what need would they have to go to church or preach to seek salvation and repentance?"

This is indeed an interesting concept and is plausible... as is the idea that a divine institution would be unachievable by man. Plausibility, however, does not make something a fact, and this applies to both sides of the discussion. Again, I believe the latter of the two, but it's really just a matter of faith as to your choice. And that is typically where debates of religion and theology end... "matter of faith".

[Edited on November 3, 2007 at 1:27 AM. Reason : grammarz]

11/3/2007 1:26:41 AM

Quote :

"This almost entirely proves my point! We, as a Christian and religious society have evolved past the Crusades, Salem Witch Trials, and Inquisitions. However, when you put devout atheists who not only have an ambivalence towards the concept of God and religion, but a deep rooted animosity for God and religion, that's when you get 100,000,000 people six feet under. Perhaps because of the non belief in a judgement allows atheists to so freely dominate other individuals whereas most major religions teach a certain amount of equality among individuals which, if not adhered to, carries the weight consequence. The mere lack of consequence will make most men do anything (see, New Orleans after Katrina)."

YOU BELIEVE IN AN INVISIBLE MAN FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PROOF.

HOW CAN I TRUST YOUR LOGIC TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT PEOPLE'S LIVES WHEN YOU MAKE SUCH FALLACIES ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD.

11/3/2007 2:25:44 AM

^There's something funny in the fact that the user God is posting that... oh, and so much for religious tolerance with that post, m i rite?

[Edited on November 3, 2007 at 3:52 AM. Reason : .]

11/3/2007 3:51:54 AM

Quote :

"That's because he hasn't been posting in it all that much so far. Very little "fuck yous" and "foamies" and whatever other choice pronouns he likes to throw around."

Hey now, lets play nice. I'm all about positive reenforcement here.

Quote :

"I would just say that humanity is far too fallible to construct a society that truly conforms to Christianity. Basically, my argument on this issue is that you cannot have a true reflection of Christianity itself by looking at people (unless you happen to be looking at Jesus)."

What good is a religion if it can't be followed by anyone but its founder? Christianity represents a massive break with the other two Abrahamic religions, in that, it is based on an internal sense of right and wrong based on the teaching of Jesus (or their interpretation by his disciples) and not on codified laws of behavior like in Leviticus. Now, this sounds noble, but it is a lot like Communism; sounds great, but how do we make it work? The end result is men from W.W. Finlator to Fred Phelps each interpreting the Bible in their own manner, each believing their right, and each completely contradicting each other.

Now one could argue that this is because man is fallen, but Jesus was sent to erase original sin and reunify man with God. So the question becomes, if God created everything and set it just right, so that the world was precisely ticking in the manner necessary for our existence, 1) why did He permit the fall and 2) why was He so sloppy with the recovery operation?

While Jesus' teachings appear quite moral in a philosophical sense, as C.S. Lewis said (and I paraphrase), "Any man who goes around claiming to be the Son of God, and acting as if he is the Son of God, and getting himself crucified because he is the Son of God, is either the Son of God or a madman."

C.S. Lewis chose to believe he was the Son of God.

[Edited on November 3, 2007 at 7:29 AM. Reason : .]

11/3/2007 7:22:37 AM

Quote :

"What good is a religion if it can't be followed by anyone but its founder?"

One that shows the inherent fallacy of man, and thusly one that shows man's need for God. In regards to your comment on getting it to work... we can't, really. That's the main reason I don't consider myself to fall into any denomination of Christianity. It's something that must be approached on an individual basis, and trying to define exact aspects of the religion as a society is doomed to failure.

Oh, and you mentioned that different interpretations can contradict each other... this is true. But it really doesn't make that big a difference to Christianity. So long as someone is grasping the one main point (faith in Jesus is the only way to salvation), their personal interpretations can vary, to a certain extent.

Quote :

"1) why did He permit the fall "

It would be much more cruel to prohibit free will than to allow the fall.

Quote :

"Jesus was sent to erase original sin and reunify man with God."

Not exactly. Jesus was sent to pay the penalty for the sins of every individual, in other words, people will still sin, but the penalty for those sins may be placed on Jesus. It doesn't mean that Jesus was sent to stop people from sinning, that's impossible on earth so long as free will exists. This also answers your question #2.

Quote :

"C.S. Lewis chose to believe he was the Son of God."

Good quote, and agreed.


Oh, and should we be sticking to the debate points discussed in the videos, or is this just going to become a general religious debate topic?

[Edited on November 3, 2007 at 4:21 PM. Reason : .]

11/3/2007 4:16:23 PM

Quote :

"I would say the reason why modern western civilization hasn't devolved is not because our government prohibits certain behaviors of religion, but, almost precisely the opposite. We flourish because our governments have taken hold of the idea that all men were created by a Creator, and therefore equal, an idea not present until Christ, or at least not popularized until Christ. That is the reason for our evolution and the reason why we have not devolved. "

This is not really true at all. For the first 160 years of our country's existence, we didn't recognize the equality of all humans. It hasn't been until recently that this concept has taken hold in the gov., and it still hasn't taken hold in society. There are still large chunks of people that don't believe this to be true.

The only reason we see Christ as the one to spread this idea is that it's contemporary for our time. People for thousands of years after Christ used principle of Christianity to support oppression and slavery of other races.

11/3/2007 9:20:40 PM

Quote :

"It would be much more cruel to prohibit free will than to allow the fall."

Would it? If you didn't know what free will was, would you miss it? Isn't the point of following Christ to surrender your personal will to the will of God?

Quote :

"One that shows the inherent fallacy of man, and thusly one that shows man's need for God."

What kind of sadistic religion kicks man down and tells him to grovel? More to the point, the fallacy of man is the fallacy of God.

Theists like to point out that life cannot arise out of non-life without the divine hand of God, but how does evil arise. If God is the source of all, then He must likewise be the source of evil, and if He is the source of evil, how can he be all good?

11/3/2007 10:58:31 PM

Quote :

"Would it?"

I think so, yes. This is something that is constantly debated about, though, and no one comes to a conclusion. It's hard to define just what is the most "good" course of action.

Quote :

"If you didn't know what free will was, would you miss it?"

Not sure... probably not. However, God knows what free will is, meaning that for us not to have it, He would have to intentionally deny it.

Quote :

"Isn't the point of following Christ to surrender your personal will to the will of God?"

Yes. And that's your choice. Also, many contemporary Christians view it as freedom from sin (you do not need sinful things to make yourself happy, and that sort of thing) rather than slavery to God... Both sides of this use fuzzy language without too much literal meaning, anyway.

Quote :

"What kind of sadistic religion kicks man down and tells him to grovel? "

One that also preaches that man deserves the punishment of spiritual death (read: hell) for sins. In other words, man should be considered lucky to be allowed to grovel before God.

I understand how insane this sounds to someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, but it makes more sense when you've also been studying the religion for a while.

Quote :

"More to the point, the fallacy of man is the fallacy of God."

Again, this begins with the assumption that allowing choice/free will is a fallacy.

Quote :

"Theists like to point out that life cannot arise out of non-life without the divine hand of God, but how does evil arise. If God is the source of all, then He must likewise be the source of evil, and if He is the source of evil, how can he be all good?"

God made things with the capacity for evil, not evil itself. You make a point using fuzzy logic... that God made man/angels which can do evil, then god must have made evil. I might as well say (sorry for the football analogy) that since NC State beat Wofford, and Wofford beat App, and App beat Michigan, then NC State has therefore beaten everyone that Michigan has beaten. Things don't really work that way outside of math class (a=b, b=c, thus a=c).

[Edited on November 4, 2007 at 1:00 AM. Reason : .]

11/4/2007 12:47:35 AM

Quote :

"That's because he hasn't been posting in it all that much so far. Very little 'fuck yous' and 'foamies' and whatever other choice pronouns he likes to throw around."

moron

It's shitty posts like this one that usually prompt a well-deserved "fuck you." You'll get a lot better replies from me if you will avoid your incessant urge to stick it to your main repository for fear and hatred of conservatives: hooksaw.

If joe_shithead joe_schmoe and I can be civil to each other, then so can we. Try it--you'll see.

11/4/2007 12:58:01 AM

haha, classic.

11/4/2007 1:03:18 AM

^Don't respond to him unless he does something intelligent... I like seeing this topic alive.

11/4/2007 1:14:08 AM

Quote :

"One that also preaches that man deserves the punishment of spiritual death (read: hell) for sins. In other words, man should be considered lucky to be allowed to grovel before God. I understand how insane this sounds to someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, but it makes more sense when you've also been studying the religion for a while."

The thing is, I come from a Christian family and was a devoted Christian for much of my life. I understand the concept of freedom from sin, but again sin exists because God lets it exist. Again, why would he allow it to exist? Does he allow it to exist to see if people will follow Him or sin? Why would God, the all mighty need the justification of trillions of little humans worshiping him?

We are to worship him because he is Great, but his reciprocation is delaying until 2000 years ago to provide us with the solution to sin? Were God truly omniscient, then he wouldn't he simply send Jesus to Adam and Eve. "Hey guys, don't eat this apple but if you do, and if you repent, tell my Son here and we'll be kosher." I'm framing this somewhat sophmorically, but I think my point still stands.

Quote :

"Not exactly. Jesus was sent to pay the penalty for the sins of every individual, in other words, people will still sin, but the penalty for those sins may be placed on Jesus."

In this sense, he is the only absolution for original sin. The whole concept of being "born again" is to be born in Christ without sin and that would include original sin.

Quote :

"God made things with the capacity for evil, not evil itself."

From whence did evil spring then? The capacity for evil is irrelevant if evil does not exist. Wood has the capacity to burn, but it will not spontaneously combust without the proper application of heat.

Your analogy fails because no one at NC State explicitly makes the claim that they have beaten everyone that Michigan has beaten. The Abrahimic tradition specifically states that God created everything out of nothing. So either evil was created at the hand of God, or there was another creator.

This is my problem with the logic of the big three Monotheistic faiths. Their theology, no matter how finely crafter or articulated, fails the test of Occam's razor.

11/4/2007 1:50:04 AM

Quote :

"The thing is, I come from a Christian family and was a devoted Christian for much of my life. I understand the concept of freedom from sin, but again sin exists because God lets it exist. Again, why would he allow it to exist? Does he allow it to exist to see if people will follow Him or sin? Why would God, the all mighty need the justification of trillions of little humans worshiping him?"

Those first few, the answer is again free will. As for the last one, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that God "needs" this justification. No one is claiming that God depends upon people worshiping him.

Quote :

"We are to worship him because he is Great, but his reciprocation is delaying until 2000 years ago to provide us with the solution to sin? Were God truly omniscient, then he wouldn't he simply send Jesus to Adam and Eve. "Hey guys, don't eat this apple but if you do, and if you repent, tell my Son here and we'll be kosher." I'm framing this somewhat sophmorically, but I think my point still stands."

Not being God, I wouldn't know his reasoning. This might seem like a lame answer, but it's really the only one that can be given. Not to say that the argument for Chrisitanity fails under scrutiny, it's just that you'll inevitably run into questions that are unanswerable by nature... which is one of the reasons debating religion usually doesn't get anywhere. I prefer to think that there is a plan... because without one, life would be utterly meaningless. Which, I suppose, is the atheist's argument for man's original formation of religion... to bring a purpose to life.

Quote :

"In this sense, he is the only absolution for original sin. The whole concept of being "born again" is to be born in Christ without sin and that would include original sin."

Not sure what you mean with the "he is the only absolution" statement... but being "born in Christ without sin" does not literally mean that you have never sinned and will never again sin. It means that your sins will be wiped away from your spiritual "record" of sorts, provided that you ask forgiveness.

Also, I've never actually heard the phrase "born in Christ without sin"... "born again" and "born again in Christ", sure, but I've never heard someone tack "without sin" onto the end of it (at least I don't remember hearing that).

Quote :

"From whence did evil spring then? The capacity for evil is irrelevant if evil does not exist. Wood has the capacity to burn, but it will not spontaneously combust without the proper application of heat. Your analogy fails because no one at NC State explicitly makes the claim that they have beaten everyone that Michigan has beaten. The Abrahimic tradition specifically states that God created everything out of nothing. So either evil was created at the hand of God, or there was another creator. This is my problem with the logic of the big three Monotheistic faiths. Their theology, no matter how finely crafter or articulated, fails the test of Occam's razor."

Or, there's always the possibility that good and evil have always existed, in a sense. Not that God created the concept of "good", and thus must have created the concept of "evil", but simply that God is a being that exists as naturally "good". That's basically the point I've been trying to make, that good and evil are infinite concepts, just as God is an infinite being. This is my problem with the non-theistic arguement... everything has to have a beginning and end, nothing can possibly just "exist".

I would like to know, where does the concept of morality spring from with a godless viewpoint? I've heard it argued that law and morality are precepts that man has created on the basis of practicality (you can't have people running around killing each other, it's bad for business), and that applies to an extent... but what about the idea that we should help the disabled or the people who pose no foreseeable benefit to society? That seems naturally impractical. I would imagine a society sprung purely from evolutionary forces would maintain the "survival of the fittest" attitude.

11/4/2007 2:09:41 AM

Quote :

"No one is claiming that God depends upon people worshiping him."

I didn't say his existence depended on it, but by Christian theology, our all encompassing duty is to worship him.

Quote :

"Not sure what you mean with the "he is the only absolution" statement... but being "born in Christ without sin" does not literally mean that you have never sinned and will never again sin."

Read my statements again, I never stated nor implied this. What I am referring to is Original Sin as a basic tenant of Christian faith. That is to say, we are all born into sin by virtue of the fact that we're human. From the very moment you were brought onto the earth you were not only a sinner by virtue of the fact that you would eventually commit sin, but you were a sinner right then due to the fact that you were Adam's seed. (Incidentally this gave rise to the concept of infant baptism. With the high rate of infant mortality, the soul of a newborn was in peril but by baptizing them in the name of Christ, that original sin was wiped away and they could enter heaven.) I am not implying that a born again Christian has never sinned nor ever sinned again. What I am saying is that prior to Christ, you could (theoretically) never commit a sin in your life and still be condemned by the simple fact that you were human.

Quote :

"I've never actually heard the phrase "born in Christ without sin"... "born again" and "born again in Christ""

I'm going to be trite and presumptuous and assume you're not a Baptist?

Quote :

"Or, there's always the possibility that good and evil have always existed, in a sense. Not that God created the concept of "good", and thus must have created the concept of "evil", but simply that God is a being that exists as naturally "good". That's basically the point I've been trying to make, that good and evil are infinite concepts, just as God is an infinite being."

The concept of infinites independent of God is quite heretical and shakes the very foundation of the big three monotheistic faiths.

Quote :

"I would like to know, where does the concept of morality spring from with a godless viewpoint?"

This, I have no answer to and is why I would consider myself an agnostic as opposed to an athiest. I have more questions than answers and the response "wouldn't you rather have faith on the side of God (with the assumption that the predominant God in the United States is The God)" simply doesn't cut it any more. I do not intend to mock or insult your faith, just express doubts I have which have not been answered. However if, as you posit, good and evil are infinites that exist independently of God, what need is there of God? Why can we not use human logic to determine what is good and evil? (I'm not proposing that this is a good idea in practice, just a theoretical question for you to chew.)

[Edited on November 4, 2007 at 2:27 AM. Reason : )]

11/4/2007 2:27:20 AM

Quote :

"I didn't say his existence depended on it, but by Christian theology, our all encompassing duty is to worship him."

This still does not imply any need from God's standpoint. More or less, people should worship him because they need him.

Quote :

"Read my statements again, I never stated nor implied this. What I am referring to is Original Sin as a basic tenant of Christian faith. That is to say, we are all born into sin by virtue of the fact that we're human. From the very moment you were brought onto the earth you were not only a sinner by virtue of the fact that you would eventually commit sin, but you were a sinner right then due to the fact that you were Adam's seed. I am not implying that a born again Christian has never sinned nor ever sinned again."

Ah, thanks for the elaboration. It can be argued that instead of being sinners as soon as we are born human, our humanity guarantees that we will sin at some point in our lifetime... the idea that because of Original Sin, all future humans will know of sin from birth. Of course, an infant could not rationalize a complex concept such as this... rather, they would know of sin in a more figurative sense, in that sinning becomes a basic human action.

Quote :

"What I am saying is that prior to Christ, you could (theoretically) never commit a sin in your life and still be condemned by the simple fact that you were human."

Since this is a hypothetical statement, I can't really answer what would happen to someone who never sinned prior to Christ's coming. It's possible that doing so would actually make them Christ... then again, from the Christian standpoint, someone who is only human cannot possibly not sin. It's not that there is some automatic statement such as if you are a human, then you are a sinner, but rather the idea that if you are human, you will end up sinning (there's a subtle difference).

...Of course, this brings up the question of predetermination, and whether or not free will actually does exist, provided that God is omniscient and thus knows exactly what someone is going to do until the end of time. I'd rather not get into that sort of thing right now, though, as it's not really relevant to the debate (because it assumes both God's existence and God's omniscience... and it's all ambiguous and unanswerable). I'll give my take on it if asked, though.

Quote :

"I'm going to be trite and presumptuous and assume you're not a Baptist?"

Heh. Like I said before, I prefer not to subscribe to a specific denomination... and I was never raised Baptist, either. My beliefs most closely align with Reformed Presbyterian, though.

Quote :

"The concept of infinites independent of God is quite heretical and shakes the very foundation of the big three monotheistic faiths."

I see where you're coming from with this, but there's the possibility that it doesn't. After all, as God created the world in the Bible, he examined his work and "saw that it was good"... Maybe I'm reading too far into this, but he specifically "saw" that it was good, as opposed to declaring those items good. The first leads into the idea of good and evil as infinites, while the latter leads into the idea of God creating the concepts of good and evil.

Quote :

"However if, as you posit, good and evil are infinites that exist independently of God, what need is there of God? Why can we not use human logic to determine what is good and evil?"

I'd say immediately that we cannot do this because of the natural fallibility of humanity, such that we cannot trust our own selves to logic through these concepts independently. Of course, there is definitely more to be said about this and I will indeed chew on this one. These are excellent questions.

11/4/2007 3:00:49 AM

Quote :

"The Spanish Inquisition, the largest, most overhyped event of this millennium... In 300 years, the Spanish Inquisition killed two thousand people. Two thousand people..."

The Spanish did significantly better in the New World.

11/6/2007 1:46:58 PM

Stop talking about me.

11/6/2007 1:48:02 PM