I got really into Christian apologetics a fews years back. I believe that Christians needs to reach out and try to understand atheism and so on. One of my favorite books is Atheism: The Case Against God. I don't agree his main theme, but he educated me. I wish all Christians would see the good in things they don't agree with.

""They're teaching kids the Big Bang. They're teaching kids lies," she told the board. "The world was created 6,000 years ago. In my son's elementary school book, it says the world was created several million years ago."

The world is only 6,000 years old? The Chinese domesticated the dog and the Sumerian's invented glue well before then. I know it's based on the lineage of Adam to Christ listed in the Bible, but that is assuming that it is true. This is the danger of religion. It takes advantage of people's credulity and stifles the search for scientific truth.

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.

"One of my favorite books is Atheism: The Case Against God. I don't agree his main theme, but he educated me."

Jason...As an agnostic/atheist, I can 'hip' you to many other books for further insights (Dawkins, Harris...).
It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.

p.s. I'm not perfectly clear on your requirements for posting but, does having this perspective or discussing religion ban me from this forum, mate?

"Someone is going to ask me for a verse about the "don't speak for yourself" part."

1 Timothy 2:11-12

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

I'm not perfectly clear on your requirements for posting but, does having this perspective or discussing religion ban me from this forum, mate?

Haha, hell no. The only real "requirements" are to keep it PG-13.

There aren't really any topics are off limits, at least not that I can think of, except maybe my personal, private life.

I think I've only banned one or two people.

Jason...As an agnostic/atheist, I can 'hip' you to many other books for further insights (Dawkins, Harris...)

Only if you'll take a look at some stuff by William Lane Craig.

Once again personal conviction being tossed about as biblical truth.

Read "A Case for Christ" or a "Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. An Atheist who set out to right a book to prove his atheistic belief system. Keep in ming atheisism is as much a religon (belief) as any other.

Sorry that was "write" not "right"...been on the southside too long. Also "mind" not "ming". Wow I need more starbucks.

Read "A Case for Christ" or a "Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel.

Two excellent books.

"Only if you'll take a look at some stuff by William Lane Craig."

I am actually quite familiar with him. I have seen/read many of his debates and he does a good job for his side of the argument. Obviously, in my case, not good enough.

"Keep in ming atheisism is as much a religon (belief) as any other."

The common definition of a religion is a belief in a God or supernatural being, not the disbelief of said being.
Just because I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy, doesn't make me a person who lives off that belief as a religion or anything else, it just doesn't enter into the picture.

We are all born atheists and it is not the job of the atheist to 'disprove' a god. The responsibility of 'proof' falls on those that claim such beings exists.

Born atheist? Perhaps, but I was also born unable to walk or do simple math. As you develop, you learn a few things. Romans 1:20-21 says: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.” An honest and intelligent examination of atheism leads to two things: abandonment of atheism or nihilism. There are no other logical conclusions.

Joe,
You believe God does not exist. I believe in God. Both take faith ie. religon. Your religon is the belief in yourself or the belief that this world is all there is.

Unlike this woman you posted about I believe in love and compasion and the understanding that things exist that I do not agree with, but it is not my place to judge. My place is to show love and compasion for all.

Love Ya Man.

"Born atheist? Perhaps, but I was also born unable to walk or do simple math. As you develop, you learn a few things.

My guess is Dutch that you were born/raised in America where Christianity is the pervasive religion. Had you been born in India, you would have been a Hindu. Had you been born in Iran, you would have been taught that the Islamic faith was correct.

Each of these religions were created during the infancy of our species when nobody had the smallest idea of what was going on. Religion was an attempt to meet our driving desire for knowledge, as well as, trying to meet our 'early stage' needs of comfort and reassurance.
The least educated child in our country knows more about the natural order than any founder of those religions.

"Romans 1:20-21 says:..."

I'm surprised you didn't mention Psalms 14:1, but I'm sure you were getting around to it, right?

Basically, you are saying that I know that there is a God but, I am just 'suppressing' that belief. Essentially, you are calling me a liar...oh wait, you aren't calling me a liar, the Bible is. The same Bible that endorses slavery (1 Timothy 6:1-2 , Exodus 21:20-21...there are others). So, surely, the fact that you believe I am a liar or a 'fool', then you must also believe that slavery is okay.

"An honest and intelligent examination of atheism leads to two things: abandonment of atheism or nihilism. There are no other logical conclusions."

I'm afraid you let yourself down a bit with your Hallmark conclusion.
(I did like how you used the words 'honest', 'intelligent' & 'logical' as if it gained you some sort of 'street cred'...nice)
I'm sure your intention with this statement was to somehow imply that I do not value life. You are sadly mistaken.
Just because I do not derive my values from a religion (and I would argue nobody does), does not mean that I do not have any values at all. One example is the 'Golden Rule'. Every religion teaches that rule and predates any religion.

"Unlike this woman you posted about I believe in love and compasion and the understanding that things exist that I do not agree with, but it is not my place to judge. My place is to show love and compasion for all."

Quick correction - I was not the originator of the story...it was Joshua.

"You believe God does not exist. I believe in God. Both take faith ie. religon."

I do not concede to your point. My principles are not a faith. I simply distrust anything that contradicts science or outrages reason.

We are all atheist. I would guess that you do not believe Muhammad to be God? Or believe in the Hindu Gods? Or Zeus or Poseidon?
Does your disbelief in these Gods constitute a religion?

I am not dogmatic about my convictions. I respect free inquiry, open-mindedness and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.
Unlike many who may have posted to this thread, I do not fill in the 'gaps' of unknown scientific knowledge with a God. I am convinced that we will fill in those 'gaps' with reason and evidence.

"...I believe in love and compasion and the understanding that things exist that I do not agree with, but it is not my place to judge. My place is to show love and compasion for all.

And dare I say that you could do all those things with or without a belief in the supernatural.

"Love Ya Man."

Back atcha', mate!

Glad you agree that science does not fill all gaps. You have great faith that it will.

I can not convince you that God exist as you can not convince me that he does not. All I am trying to point out is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian confuses personal convictions with biblical truths. As well as the fact that not all Christians lack intelligence and true compasion.

As to the god of Islam and Hindu etc...there is one major difference between those religons and Christianity. All others you must do something to get to heaven ie praying towards Mecca a certain number of times in a day...Christianity is the only religon where God through his Son reaches and offers His hand to us.

Your faith lies in man's ability to prove all and fill in those gaps. Make no mistake...it is a religon to be an atheist. I respect your free will to choose that path.

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

Personal faith in man or the fact that there is not a God...is a religon.

We could go at this all night. Take care my friend.

Street cred? No, that’s not what I was after. I did get all nostalgic when I read that though…haven’t heard that term since my children were in middle school.

I won’t address every one of your points because atheists rarely listen to anyone about anything, so I’ll limit my rant to one simple question. If you value life, why do you?

"there is one major difference between those religons and Christianity. All others you must do something to get to heaven ie praying towards Mecca a certain number of times in a day...Christianity is the only religon where God through his Son reaches and offers His hand to us."

In Christianity, YOU MUST DO SOMETHING to get into heaven...you must accept Christ as your lord and savior. This difference does not prove it's "truthfulness".
As a Christian, you must also believe that you "were born sick and demanded to be well"...that is, you are born a sinner (thanks to a woman) for which you had no direct responsibility and are damned to eternal hell if you don't believe but yet, the entire universe was created for you in mind and he has a plan for you. Not only that, but he was willing to subject one of his children to a revolting torture to prove his love.
Who was God trying to impress? Why not just make us better?

"Make no mistake...it is a religon to be an atheist.

I realize you are convinced of that mate, but....Make no mistake, my disbelief is not a religion!

"A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals..."

So far, a disbelief does not fit this definition. I follow no shared practices or codes or rituals.

"... and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology,...

Nope, not this definition either. Although, I do study these subjects, I can't say it is under the name of disbelief.

"... as well as personal faith and mystic experience."

Nope. Seeing that faith is belief without evidence, it still doesn't work. And, of course, no mystic experiences.

"The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction."

No disrespect, but was there more? I'm just not seeing how a disbelief is a religion.

"Personal faith in man or the fact that there is not a God...is a religon.

This isn't "personal conviction being tossed about as biblical truth" is it?

I have enjoyed this civil exchange, Publius. Like you said, we could do this all night (I do enjoy such rich discussions). Perhaps another time, mate.

"I won’t address every one of your points because atheists rarely listen to anyone about anything, so I’ll limit my rant to one simple question."

I hope, in the least, that Publius and I proved that this topic can be discussed in a civil manner. We may not agree but I felt he "listened" to me and I hope Publius felt that I reciprocated. I also hope that you did not feel as though I wasn't "listening" to your point. I may not agree, but I did digest your points.
I hope you are not using this an excuse not to post your ideas? That would be a crime, indeed.

"...one simple question. If you value life, why do you?"

I must say, if I were a sensitive man I would be totally offended by that question.
In the past I would have asked, "What sort of audacious, arrogant person would assume that because I have a disbelief in the supernatural that somehow I do not value life?"
I do not blame you for this misconception. But, to some degree, it is rather ignorant (NOTE: I am not saying that you are 'stupid' or 'unintelligent' - DO NOT take this is a jab, mate!).
I can assure you that I am not evil or Satan's minion.

The value of life and the living of life holds a higher significance in the atheistic mind frame. I do not spend this life dreaming of the next "eternal life". We have one go-round and I feel I want to make the best of it. Think of all of those who never had a chance to experience such an "enchanted world".
Killing carries far greater weight, murder becomes a more poignant moral wrong. I value life more now than when I "walked the Christian life". 'Pro-life' literally means something totally different to me now.

The world around me is awe-inspiring and fascinating because there is so much about it I don’t know. From the smallest insect to the outer reaches of the Universe, Life is the most intriguing puzzle of all. Not to mention spending time with family and friends! Whats not to value about this life?

An atheist doesn't just dismiss this exciting existence by saying, 'Oh, God did it and thats all you need to know".

This wonderful ride we call Life needs to be explored until answered and not diminished by a 'promise' of an unprovable afterlife.

I do not get my morals from a holy book and neither do you. Case in point, did people believe that murder was right prior to the 10 Commandments. Surely you would not say yes.

I argue that we have an innate sense of 'right & wrong'. For without it, we would not have survived prior to biblical times or any sacred scripture.
You do not need a 'religious motive' to help people or show compassion or to be involved in any form of charity.
Without religion, it's good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things, but it takes religion to make a good person do evil things.

Perhaps it should be me asking you, "Why do you value this life?"

The question was certainly not meant to be offensive. To have any morality at all, you must have a basis for it. I simply wondered what your basis was. Yours sounds like Naturalism. Almost all Naturalists are moral people, but their morality is logically inconsistent. Darwin said “horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy”. This concept (among others) is why you see very intelligent Naturalists evolving into Nihilism. Once you get there, you follow Nietzsche into the asylum or Hemingway into suicide.

Joe,
Good discussion. You missed the point on the difference of the religons. Christ paid the price there is nothing I can do to gain acceptance into heaven. I fall short everyday and through the grace of God not of my own power, I am accepted.

On the atheism being a religon, that is not a personal conviction just what man has come up with. I tend to agree with Dutch, you appear somewhat of a Naturalist, a religon. You believe in a set of beliefs, there is more than one atheist, so therefore to believe God does not exist and man's ability to prove all things is a set of beliefs held by a certain group.

Sorry mate you do have religous beliefs.

Great civil discussion. We may meet one day and have a face to face discussion. Off to Church.

We are all born atheists...

My guess is Dutch that you were born/raised in America where Christianity is the pervasive religion. Had you been born in India, you would have been a Hindu. Had you been born in Iran, you would have been taught that the Islamic faith was correct.

You make a good case that a child is not born Christian, but then, nobody's saying that that is the case. You've made the argument that children are born atheists. In other words, that they hold the belief that there is no god or higher power.

And that's simply not true. Newborn children don't hold any beliefs at all, either in the belief that there is a god or the belief that there isn't one. I think you could make a good case that we're all born agnostics, that at birth we're a blank slate that is later impressed upon by our parents and culture. But that's not the same thing as being born atheist.

We're aren't born skeptics either (if anything, we're the opposite), but I think it's a good thing when a person learns to be skeptical.

* If it is okay, moving forward, I will respond to both Publius and Dutch as if it were one argument. It's beginning to feel like I'm running through the house closing windows in a hurricane.

"Once you get there, you follow Nietzsche into the asylum or Hemingway into suicide."

Before going any further, I must address a couple of conclusions that are being formed, rather conveniently, on my behalf.

First, to suggest that the end result of my worldview is either lunacy or suicide is totally ridiculous and, somewhat dishonest, in this debate. That's like me saying that the end result for a Muslim is that they will fly planes into a building or that the Christian's end result is that they will bomb abortion clinics. It is a rather flawed flow of logic and one that does not apply in this case.
If I end up in an asylum, or worse, forcing my untimely death, it will not be because of my beliefs but surely driven to madness from trying to battle such silly notions.

Second, the constant attempt at trying to label me or 'pigeon hole' me into some sort of convenient box to make your judgments easier is getting out of hand. "Nihilist", "Naturalist", "religion" - these are all titles you have put on me, not any that I have given myself.

My disbelief is not a religion - I am just a person who has looked at the claims of your ancient text and said 'ridiculous'! Nothing MORE, nothing LESS. I have not made a religion out of that disbelief, no more than I have made a religion out of my disbelief of Santa Claus or Zeus. I do not take that disbelief into account on my day to day activities. There is NO dogma. As so elegantly stated by Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It IS that simple. I have been through your 'definition' of religion, step by step. My disbelief is not a religion. Perhaps you should shy away from using 'wikipedia' as reference for your claims.

Dutch, in case you forget to answer, here is a reminder - "Why do you value THIS life?"

Also, you made hash of your Darwin quote so often used by Alvin Plantinga. If by this quote you mean to say, 'How can we trust our minds to see what is true', then that only proves you could be wrong. If we are going to argue the legitimacy of science then we must also discuss the claims of your holy book. Can questions or contradictory arise from any source? Of course, but in science, if something is disproved it changes.

"You missed the point on the difference of the religions. Christ paid the price there is nothing I can do to gain acceptance into heaven. I fall short everyday and through the grace of God not of my own power, I am accepted."

Do you believe that God is God, Christ is God and the Holy Spirit is God based on the Bible? Is this monotheism or polytheism? Do you believe in once "saved", always "saved"?

No one can be certain one way or the other of a higher intelligence. But, there is a tendency by believers to say, "Ah, you can't prove God, so that puts us on a 50/50 chance that he does exist". That is just simply untrue based on probability. And, if there was such an entity, I argue that he would have come from a simple beginning to an evolved state. Evolution offers that explanation without attacking our credulity. Who knows, we could be an asylum planet for some other intelligence.

"You make a good case that a child is not born Christian, but then, nobody's saying that that is the case. You've made the argument that children are born atheists. In other words, that they hold the belief that there is no god or higher power.

And that's simply not true."

Thanks Loren - I understand your point. Perhaps I should have been more clear in my statement that a child is born an atheist. It really comes down to the 'implicit' meaning as opposed to the 'explicit' meaning of atheism. I tend to favor the illicit meaning - "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it".

Joe,

This has been quite a discussion. I did use wiki for the definition, just easier to copy and paste...laziness on my part.

I read something earlier today online that explains much better my thoughts on the differences. I will put it into my own words.

Most people who are not Christian, ie atheist, Muslims, etc...believe in Karma. That is what goes around comes around. The good or the bad we do comes back to us in the same way. Good karma bad karma. God offers us grace through Christ. I like grace. In my life there have been times when I have done some things that are pretty low down. I choose to believe in God's grace over karma. It just make more sense.

Also no one dispute Christ existance. In fact many leaders of other religons call him a good man, a prophet etc. Well He claimed to be God. He is either insane or who He says He is...there is no room for just being a prophet or a good religous man.

Religon is man made, faith is another matter. We can agree to disagree on unbelief being just as much a religon as belief.

I wish you well on your endeavor and look forward to further discourse at some other time. By the way, the Karma thing was Bono's not mine. I do like his simplicity.

Thanks for the conversation, mate!

If there was a single belief from a world religion or motto, or creed to live by, to me it would be from the Jains (600 years before Christ and heavy believers in Karma). It states simply...

"Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture or kill any creature or living being."

Until next time.

I didn’t answer your question because I felt sure you knew the answer. The Christian basis for all morality is the Bible. It is the Word of God and is the ultimate authority. 1 Corinthians 1:25 says “the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom”. That requires faith on my part that there is a higher being, something outside the box that has revealed truth to man through his word.

You have already acknowledged that you find my beliefs ‘ridiculous’. I find yours equally absurd. For you, there is nothing outside the box, no moral plumb line to measure morality against. In fact, not only do you not know, you can have no confidence in your ability to know. Your leap of faith is as great as mine, only you have put your faith in man. I can see the object of your faith and have found him lacking and inconsistent. I have examined your Naturalism and found it leads to Nihilism, an unlivable worldview in my opinion. It appears that we are at an impasse.

No ones going to drop the Anselm onotological argument?

Thought not an athiest, I'm with joe all the way. Read Carl Sagan, Douglas Adams, Stephen Hawkings, and you see a fascination and love of life and the universe that is devoid in many churches.

Publius, the reason you don't believe in the word karma is becuase there was no word for it in Jesus's culture. That is why he had to create a saying for the exact same concept: you reap what you sow.

Dutch, if you have to believe that there is someone who will punish you to be good, then my dog is a moral being. Not harming others simply for the sake of not harming others (even if they are "different") is the ultimate moral.

Is God so childish as to constantly demand recognition and attention. I would think a creator loves thoses who explore the mystery of creation, isn't that why the cosmos and beings who can witness it would be created? And if an omnipotent being wants me to know something, I know it. Why would God write a book in our language that is based on perception over truth? The sky is only blue if we choose to agree on the meaning of blue and none of us are color blind. If God did write a book it would be in the only language calpable of truth, mathematics.

Steve, you couldn’t be more wrong. Biblical Christians know they aren’t good (Mark 10:18, 1 John 1:8). I cannot earn my way into heaven and am making no attempt to do so (Ephesians 2:8-9). Jesus took my punishment on the cross (1 Peter 2:24). Righteousness has been credited to my account through my belief (Romans 3:22). This is completely different from karma. Even the few rational people who believe in karma realize that it isn’t something that is reconciled in a single lifetime. We have all seen far too many examples indicating otherwise.

Your bringing death into a conversation that is about life. You don't have to believe in reincarnation to believe in karma, it is just a matter of like attracts like, you plant a grape seed you will get grapes every time. Your not supposed to try to earn your way into heaven, but it still matters to follow the way (or tao) of Jesus. What else could you reap what you sow mean?

There is nothing preventing me from believing in Jesus and being a mass murderer, so the morality question just gets flipped on its head.

John 3:16 talks about believing in Jesus, and 2000 years later we take it to mean believe he existed and is the Son of God. But there are two meanings to believe, believing in Santa is different from believing in President Bush, the latter means trust in. John was usually around Jesus, so it wouldn't make much sense for him to say believe that guy right there exists, he was saying trust him. Look at the words of Jesus, he only ever talked about loving one another. He wasn't out there saying praise me, worship me, I'm cool and you all suck; that was Paul speaking on behalf of Jesus (as so many people do) 150 years later.

"The Christian basis for all morality is the Bible."

Obviously, you have not been very critical on where you choose to get your morals. The following is acceptable in God's eyes!

A sample...

'God Accepts Slavery'
Exodus 21:5-8

"The beating of children with a rod"
Proverbs 13:24

"Genocide"
Genesis 6:5-9 (The Flood)
Deuteronomy 7:1-2 (Canaanites)
...so many others!

"Murder"
Genesis 19:12-26
Luke 10:27
...too many to list but will give them upon request.

"Hate Your Family"
Luke 14:26

"Human Sacrifice"
Exodus 22:29
Genesis 22:1-19
-(Abraham heard voices and was prepared to kill his son, Isaac)
Judges 11 - Jephthah sacrificed his daughter
and, of course, Christ was sent as a sacrifice but with a different result than Isaac.

"Kill Children for 'back-talking'
Exodus 21:15
Leviticus 20:9
Mark 7:9-13
Matthew 15:4-7

Christ said...

Matthew 5:17-19 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

You're right. I'm not critical of it at all. It is the Word of God. I choose to believe it and accept it. From the Scripture mentioned above (1 Corinthians 1:25), I know than your most brilliant commentary is dumber than the foolishness of God.

As far as this thread goes, I'm shaking the dust off my feet and moving on. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic.

Joe,

I have come to respect you and your banter. Please continue to do so...taking one verse from the Bible and trying to imply a meaning is not going to work. The same is done by crazies who think handling snakes as a form of religon is biblical. They take one verse and apply it to fit what they would have it to be.

For example. Luke 14:26 taken in complete context is Christ explanation of His followers loving Him more than themselves and their family.

I imagine I will move on now. But look forward to future conversations. I know Jason must be growing tired of this discourse.

Still Love Ya Man.

"You're right. I'm not critical of it [Bible] at all."

It's called credulity...the very thing religions takes advantage of.

"From the Scripture mentioned above (1 Corinthians 1:25), I know than your most brilliant commentary is dumber than the foolishness of God."

You should have continued your rebuke by including the verses that followed (1 Corinthians 1:26-29)

"Consider your own calling, brothers. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.

Rather, God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise, and God chose the weak of the world to shame the strong,
and God chose the lowly and despised of the world, those who count for nothing, to reduce to nothing those who are something, so that no human being might boast before God.

In any case, you have your cherry-picking down and your ability to "conveniently" dismiss and overlook the realities of the moral teachings of the Bible are masterful.
As you "dust your feet and walk away", remember that those scriptures are still apart of the book you claim is infallible.

I "walked the walk and talked the talk for over 30+ years. I know what all of this means and I know how it is used on people. Your scripture-based admonishments only prove my point.

Adios, enjoyed the chat!

"For example. Luke 14:26 taken in complete context is Christ explanation of His followers loving Him more than themselves and their family.

Publius, with all due respect -
Hate, by modern standards, means 'intense hostility or extreme dislike'.

If you are suggesting we use the 'biblical era' meaning (love God more than your family) , then surely this is cherry-picking (something you just accused me of).

If you are going to abide by the 'biblical era' standard of 'hate', then you must also concede that you believe that the 'biblical era' forms of morality are to be followed and are wise. If not, YOU are cherry-picking.

Matthew 7:1-5
"Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye?
You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye."

Joe,

Not sure I get your rant. But I will reply to the bold comments. I dare say, that I have not judged you or anyone else during this debate. My comments have been respectful and nonoffensive.

You and I both have free will to believe or not to believe. I try not to cherry pick as you say and believe I have not. I know that I can not live up to the standard of Christ. Thankfully there is grace.

Keep searching for the answers to fill in the gaps my friend. I wish you well. I promise no more comments on this post.

"I dare say, that I have not judged you or anyone else during this debate."

Webster defines 'judgement' as a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion.

Your previous statement ("judgement")"...taking one verse from the Bible and trying to imply a meaning is not going to work. The same is done by crazies who think handling snakes as a form of religon is biblical. They take one verse and apply it to fit what they would have it to be.

You made an 'authoritative opinion' that I was cherry-picking.
Also, the indirect/direct comparison of me to "crazy snake-handlers" wasn't a judgment? Perhaps just a clever observation?

"I try not to cherry pick as you say and believe I have not."

Again, no disrespect Publius, but you dismissed my point about 'selective adherence' to the Bible and really didn't answer my question...

Hate, by modern standards, means 'intense hostility or extreme dislike'.

If you are suggesting we use the 'biblical era' meaning (love God more than your family) , then surely this is cherry-picking (something you just accused me of).

If you are going to abide by the 'biblical era' standard of 'hate', then you must also concede that you believe that the 'biblical era' forms of morality are to be followed and are wise. If not, YOU are cherry-picking.

I stress this because it makes my point. Either you believe the Bible is all true or it is all false. There is no in between, correct?

I believe it is true.

Just to clarify, I should have said choice and consequence when referring to karma, like attracts like is the law of attraction - which is often confused with karma.

My question remains unanswered, how is you reap what you sow different from karma?

Leviticus says if a father rapes his daughter we are to kill the father, and the daughter. Surely we can rule Leviticus out as a moral authority, right?