I AM

Originally posted by KellyJay
I don't mean to say that 'all' anyone does anything, and did not
mean to push that point. Not all Christian push their beliefs, yet they
have them. We cannot say someone is wrong without having a clue
what right may be. Not being active in proclaiming a point does not
mean they do not have position on a point. So believing God is
a empty term meanin ...[text shortened]... don't make this personal as well, it makes having
a discussion interesting not painful.
Kelly

So believing God is a empty term meaning there are 0 gods is a position, and that is a positive one. If your saying that someone is an atheist because they are not sure about any god being real and are looking for proof that sounds more like an agnostic to me not an atheist.

i am willing to admit that throughout this discussion and others related to it i have probably been a little too picky about terminology and the existence of positive assertions. even though the general atheist makes no positive assertion, i also recognize that specific types of atheists do make assertions that need to be substantiated.

I don't worry to much about proving God is real, that is in my opinion God's job not mine.

i do not think the question should be 'can i prove god is real?' i think the question should be 'is it rational for me to believe in god?' i do not think i can adequately answer the first question, and that is in fact one reason why i answer the second question with a no.

it makes having a discussion interesting not painful.

i've said before and i say it again that i like you KJ because in the past i think i was sort of a jerk to you a couple times and you held no grudges.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you, I believe God has revealed Himself as you have
said. It does not mean everyone will acknowledge Him, but He has
made Himself known and when everything hidden is revealed no one
will be with an excuse. I also agree simply believing in God does not
mean much either, or all the demons would be safe and they are
not.
Kelly

i think here you are referring to some argument along the lines of what coletti was arguing earlier, namely that there somehow are no true atheists -- just theists who reject their belief in god because somehow everyone 'knows' god exists. if this argument were simply just a case of semantics, i would maybe be okay with it; but i am pretty sure the argument is fallacious.

consider this example: instead of calling a truck a 'truck', we could call it a 'car that is actually not a car but rather a truck'. besides being completely unnecessary and silly, such a construction might still work because it remains true to the idea that a truck is still just a truck. however, the above argument is different because it does not remain true to the idea that an atheist is, after all, an atheist.

in particular, an atheist (a person who lacks belief in a god or gods) is certainly not the same as a theist who denies his own belief in god (which would be a person who believes in a god or gods but nevertheless denies this belief). i am also confused by the concept of a person who denies his own beliefs -- what exactly does that mean and what would it entail?

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I pointed out to this line or reasoning before, if you assume that
every child is a blank slate not knowing anything until they learn
it...then they do not know their parents, trees, rocks, water, and
everything else. We know they are real, so simply pointing that a child
born does not know or believe only shows that one must grow up to
get understa ...[text shortened]... does not make not
believing in God something abnormal for a new born, if that is true.
Kelly

my example about the child was to demonstrate that there is such a thing as a 'true atheist' because the child that has not reached any religious maturity is an implicit atheist, ie., the child lacks a belief in god because the child is not even familiar with the concept of god.

the child example is meant to demonstrate that it is not true to state that there is no such thing as an atheist but rather just theists who deny god. otherwise, you would have to demonstrate how this child has a concept of god without having had any exposure to the idea of god.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i think here you are referring to some argument along the lines of what coletti was arguing earlier, namely that there somehow are no true atheists -- just theists who reject their belief in god because somehow everyone 'knows' god exists. if this argument were simply just a case of semantics, i would maybe be okay with it; but i am pretty sure the arg ...[text shortened]... of a person who denies his own beliefs -- what exactly does that mean and what would it entail?

i think here you are referring to some argument along the lines of what coletti was arguing earlier, namely that there somehow are no true atheists -- just theists who reject their belief in god because somehow everyone 'knows' god exists.

It is not an argument as far as I'm concern, it is a statement of faith.
A biblical fact given through scripture, it isn't something I can prove
or give evidence for.
Kelly

Originally posted by LemonJello
i think here you are referring to some argument along the lines of what coletti was arguing earlier, namely that there somehow are no true atheists -- just theists who reject their belief in god because somehow everyone 'knows' god exi ...[text shortened]... n beliefs -- what exactly does that mean and what would it entail?

i am also confused by the concept of a person who denies his own beliefs -- what exactly does that mean and what would it entail?

Do you believe that some people can and do things that go against
what they know is good or true? For example, spending money on
drugs when the kids are hungry, breaking a promise simply because,
stealing from family and so on? People condemn other people for
things they do too, such as stealing when they take things from where
they work. People deny what they believe to be true and good all the
time.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b] i am also confused by the concept of a person who denies his own beliefs -- what exactly does that mean and what would it entail?

Do you believe that some people can and do things that go against
what they know is good or true? ...[text shortened]... e deny what they believe to be true and good all the
time.
Kelly[/b]

Do you believe that some people can and do things that go against
what they know is good or true?

yes, quite regularly this happens. however, i don't see how this is relevant to the question of 'how can one deny one's own beliefs?' the belief in question is something along the lines of 'i believe that it is wrong to commit action X'. if i then go ahead and commit action X, i have NOT denied this belief -- i still believe that i acted wrongly (which constitutes the whole basis for guilt). all it shows is that people are often too weak to abide by their own moral code.

i still think that the person who denies his own beliefs is a very odd person indeed, and i still am not sure what such denial would entail.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Do you believe that some people can and do things that go against
what they know is good or true?

yes, quite regularly this happens. however, i don't see how this is relevant to the question of 'how can one deny one's own beliefs?' the belief in question is something along the lines of 'i believe that it is wrong to commit action X'. i ...[text shortened]... own beliefs is a very odd person indeed, and i still am not sure what such denial would entail.[/b]

I believe we all do that, that is do things we know we should not.
I also believe that what burns us a great deal about life is when we
get on people for doing wrong things we ourselves do. Guilt is what
occurs, because we do not do what we should, or because we do
something we know we should not. Scripture teachs that all things
not done in faith is sin, meaning that if I'm doing something I know
I should not I'm causing myself to sin against myself. Now this type
of sin may vary from person to person, as I may be able to eat pork
and my friend cannot. Even if we both are Christians, I may be able
to listen to some types of music another may not, again because it
goes against what we each believe is correct. This of course makes
some put thier ideas of what is right and wrong upon others, and
instead of trying to hold up the weak some want to take them in
tow.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe we all do that, that is do things we know we should not.
I also believe that what burns us a great deal about life is when we
get on people for doing wrong things we ourselves do. Guilt is what
occurs, because we do not do what we should, or because we do
something we know we should not. Scripture teachs that all things
not done in faith is s ...[text shortened]... g upon others, and
instead of trying to hold up the weak some want to take them in
tow.
Kelly

I believe we all do that, that is do things we know we should not.
I also believe that what burns us a great deal about life is when we
get on people for doing wrong things we ourselves do. Guilt is what
occurs, because we do not do what we should, or because we do
something we know we should not.

agreed.

Scripture teachs that all things not done in faith is sin, meaning that if I'm doing something I know I should not I'm causing myself to sin against myself. Now this type of sin may vary from person to person...

this sounds to me like you are saying that a person has a moral code that he discerns through reason, and scripture then says that going against this moral code is sin. if this is true, then scripture and even the existence of god are unnecessary for morality -- the person already understands morality through reason. in that case, scripture may be used (possibly) as a method for defining sin, but it does not mandate whether or not an action is moral.

do you think that the existence of god is necessary for morality to be understood? i do not because even god being god, he cannot simply declare something moral or immoral through fiat. whether something is moral or immoral can only be discerned through reason.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I believe we all do that, that is do things we know we should not.
I also believe that what burns us a great deal about life is when we
get on people for doing wrong things we ourselves do. Guilt is what
occurs, because we do not d ...[text shortened]... omething is moral or immoral can only be discerned through reason.

[/b]To a point I agree with you, but I also believe there are some things
that God as setup that do not have anything to do with our views.
It goes to that natural law discussion, God has said do not murder,
so that takes away all of our personal views of I believe I can do this
and get away with it, because in my heart I'm justified because this
person I want to murder is so evil, or I cat get something out of this
other persons death.

One thing about Christianity is that Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to
those that follow him. The Spirit of God, Jesus said, would lead us
and guide us into truth. That means one must be following God's
lead, the "this is the way." Truth, in my opinion is the person of
God not a written on paper set of rules, not a written on a rock set
of rules. This matters because it is sometimes not clear cut, what if
life is at stake, do I protect my life or risk it to save another. On one
hand I believe life is holy, so now I have two choices, what to do?
We were given the ability to know God, but that does not mean we
are all going to take God up on His offer.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
To a point I agree with you, but I also believe there are some things
that God as setup that do not have anything to do with our views.
It goes to that natural law discussion, God has said do not murder,
so that takes away all of ou ...[text shortened]... s not mean we
are all going to take God up on His offer.
Kelly
[/b]

God has said do not murder, so that takes away all of our personal views of I believe I can do this and get away with it,

but god may not even exist. if he doesn't, then the bible was simply written by men. therefore when the bible tells us 'thou shalt not murder', it is only men telling other men what they already know. that is why 'thou shalt not murder' goes without saying -- it's obvious, like the nose on your own face.

if 'thou shalt not murder' was not written in the bible, men would still know that it is wrong to murder.

EDIT: i don't think whether or not you think you can get away with it is an issue; rather, the existence of guilt is revealing. even if the bible did not say that we shouldn't murder, one would still feel guilty after committing a murder, don't you think?

Originally posted by KellyJay
To a point I agree with you, but I also believe there are some things
that God as setup that do not have anything to do with our views.
It goes to that natural law discussion, God has said do not murder,
so that takes away all of our personal views of I believe I can do this
and get away with it, because in my heart I'm justified because this
pers ...[text shortened]... lity to know God, but that does not mean we
are all going to take God up on His offer.
Kelly
[/b]

In other words, if someone who says he is a Christian believes that he is doing God's will he can do ANYTHING and it is moral. A spear in a baby is no big deal if God wants it there. This is what I mean by the totally amoral philosophy of the extreme Divine Command theorists on this site.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Read Joshua carefully and then say the OT outlawed murder,,

It only applied within the group.

So that means I can go and murder anybody I wish. I hardly think that the verse you cited is only applicable to Jews alone. No one individual has the right to murder, capital punishment is reserved alone for the government, (read Romans 13: 1,2) To have laws there must be absolutes, absolutes requires a foundation that is unchangeable, otherwise, nothing is absolute.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In other words, if someone who says he is a Christian believes that he is doing God's will he can do ANYTHING and it is moral. A spear in a baby is no big deal if God wants it there. This is what I mean by the totally amoral philosophy of the extreme Divine Command theorists on this site.

I have killed, while in the U. S. Army. You know how many people tried to ruin my life when I said that? Baby killer, butcher, and other terms not appropriate for reading. I struggled with that for some time.

Originally posted by no1marauder
In other words, if someone who says he is a Christian believes that he is doing God's will he can do ANYTHING and it is moral. A spear in a baby is no big deal if God wants it there. This is what I mean by the totally amoral philosophy of the extreme Divine Command theorists on this site.

No, didn't say that! People can and do use God to justify what they
want to do. I don't believe you read my post very clearly, but you
normally never do, you read my mind instead.
Kelly