Looks like when we have coffee, the weather will be the topic of discussion.

Looks like when we have coffee, the weather will be the topic of discussion.

I thought about you a couple of hours ago. I was outside working and it was actually PLEASANT out there. Low humidity and a breeze made it all pretty nice. 92 degrees but didn't feel that hot.

I asked you earlier if you had contributed. I took your non-response to be a "no", but feel free to correct that misunderstanding.

You ask a question and there is no response. So you take that to mean "no". Lacking an answer, you simply invent one to your liking. No wonder you have no friends.


I don't recall saying that, but if I did it was improper.

Yeah, you recall.


The recognition of a moral code associated with three religions would rather plainly not do that

It's more than "recognition". It's supporting religion by posting its tenets on a government school bulding.


As to the first three commandments, if you do away with those, you lose all moral authority to make the final seven authoritative.

Good grief! So without the first three commandments, there is no moral code? Where in the world did you get that from? Your Bible? Did you know that the flood story has its origin in The Epic of Gilgamesh?

I noted previously to your comment that "this country has no Buddhist heritage" that this country has no Islamic heritage either, yet you include Islam as one of the supporting religions for the Ten Commandments in schools. You're confused.

You ask a question and there is no response. So you take that to mean "no". Lacking an answer, you simply invent one to your liking. No wonder you have no friends.

You have whined and complained about it so much, I don't care anymore if you gave or not. If you want to say what you did, then fine. Otherwise try whining about something else.


It's more than "recognition". It's supporting religion by posting its tenets on a government school bulding.

So? There is no prohibition on supporting the general concept of religion.


Good grief! So without the first three commandments, there is no moral code? Where in the world did you get that from?

Without God there are no moral absolutes. It all just comes down to opinion.


Did you know that the flood story has its origin in The Epic of Gilgamesh?

There is no evidence whatsoever of that. It is all conjecture. The Epic of Gilgamesh is significantly different from the Genesis account (i.e. the boat is cube-shaped, built in only seven days, flood lasts only seven days) other than it accounts for a world wide flood. If Genesis is a copy of that, it is a fantastically inaccurate one.

I don't care anymore if you gave or not.

For someone who doesn't care, you sure whine about it.


So? There is no prohibition on supporting the general concept of religion.

There is a prohibition against supporting a particular religion by posting Ten Commandments ON A GOVERNMENT BUILDING. This is really basic stuff. You brought it up so I assumed you at least were familiar with the basics.


Without God there are no moral absolutes. It all just comes down to opinion.

Therefore, your statement "Without God, there are no moral absolutes", is just your opinion.

All questions of God come down to opinion. The color of the desk I'm typing on can ultimately come down to the existence of God. (That's a philosophical question you need not worry about). The answer can only be an opinion.


It is all conjecture. The Epic of Gilgamesh is significantly different from the Genesis account (i.e. the boat is cube-shaped, built in only seven days, flood lasts only seven days) other than it accounts for a world wide flood. If Genesis is a copy of that, it is a fantastically inaccurate one.

Of course, it's conjecture. What else could it be? The authors were not sitting side by side. Read Gilgamesh, and you will find the similarities striking. To claim it is "fantastically inaccurate" reveals you have not read it. Scholars from both traditions agree on seeing it as the source of several stories in Genesis. But we need not argue the point here. You can see for yourself by a cursory check on the internet.

For someone who doesn't care, you sure whine about it.


Imitation is the ultimate flattery.


There is a prohibition against supporting a particular religion by posting Ten Commandments ON A GOVERNMENT BUILDING. This is really basic stuff. You brought it up so I assumed you at least were familiar with the basics.

We've just discussed that posting the Ten Commandments does not support a particular religion. But even at that, how do you explain the Ten Commandments being inscribed in the Supreme Court chambers?


Therefore, your statement "Without God, there are no moral absolutes", is just your opinion.

All questions of God come down to opinion. The color of the desk I'm typing on can ultimately come down to the existence of God. (That's a philosophical question you need not worry about). The answer can only be an opinion.

Well, at least you are willing to admit that you consider morality to be purely subjective. You can consider actions to be illegal, but not really immoral. No wonder you support abortion.


Of course, it's conjecture. What else could it be? The authors were not sitting side by side. Read Gilgamesh, and you will find the similarities striking. To claim it is "fantastically inaccurate" reveals you have not read it. Scholars from both traditions agree on seeing it as the source of several stories in Genesis. But we need not argue the point here. You can see for yourself by a cursory check on the internet.

It would be very helpful if you would read and actually absorb posts, such as stuff like the seven day flood and the cube-shaped boat built in only seven days. Those are fantastically different details, and there are many others.

There was morality before the bible and stories of ancient man before the ones that wrote or practiced Christianity, and Islam, or Judaism. Why do artificial differences discount one for the other?

There was morality before the bible and stories of ancient man before the ones that wrote or practiced Christianity, and Islam, or Judaism. Why do artificial differences discount one for the other?

I'm not sure what you're asking.

Can you be moral not belonging to your religion? (Or any for that matter)

Can you be moral not belonging to your religion? (Or any for that matter)
Yes! Romans 2:15 ([The Gentiles] show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Can you be moral not belonging to your religion? (Or any for that matter)

I'm not talking about BEING moral. I'm talking about being able to tell the difference between right and wrong, or between moral and immoral. If there is no God, then there is no final judge to appeal to, and we are all left in the terrible void of each one having to decide for him/her self what is right. And even worse, we are left with the knowledge that, in the end, it really doesn't matter. Who is there to care? I think this generation, and even the one preceding it, recognize that all too well.

jlisenbe: In the end ALL people need something to answer to: The atheist and agnostics live wretched lives because their very existences are rudderless.....this is one of the many problems on the left.....as they edge closer and closer to Marxism, they wander further and further away from having to answer to anything, thus they are capable of lies and deceit WITHOUT any repercussions of consciousness.

The left, like it or not, should come to terms with the fact that the U.S. WAS founded by people of the Christian faith....not any other religion.....it is part of U.S. history.....why in the hell they keep trying to change history is beyond me.....why they fight it is beyond me: Accept it, its fact, and move on. We are a secular society but we are definitely Christian in our founding. The left sounds really crazy with their offensives at the slightest hint of Christianity anywhere in the public square. At the same time they beg the courts to support Separation of Church and State, they have NO PROBLEM wanting to teach Islamic history in our Public School Systems.....why is there a dichotomy on this?

jlisenbe: In the end ALL people need something to answer to:

That's true, but it does not establish the existence of God. It does, however, illustrate the pointless nature of life if we believe that what we see here is all there is. If that is so, then we are of no more importance than a cockroach or a grain of sand. We can pretend otherwise, but honest people know better.

jlisenbe: We ain't nothing but animals.....but most people don't want to confess that, either. Those of the Jewish faith believe what we have here is all there is. The commies think there is no God. I happen to believe in the MYSTERY OF FAITH....and I only have to see a bird lay an egg to know that God exists....I need no scientific proof.....but that's just me.

I'm not talking about BEING moral. I'm talking about being able to tell the difference between right and wrong, or between moral and immoral. If there is no God, then there is no final judge to appeal to, and we are all left in the terrible void of each one having to decide for him/her self what is right. And even worse, we are left with the knowledge that, in the end, it really doesn't matter. Who is there to care? I think this generation, and even the one preceding it, recognize that all too well.

I didn't ask if their was a God or not. I simply asked if a person can be moral if he is not of your religion, or any other.

jlisenbe: In the end ALL people need something to answer to: The atheist and agnostics live wretched lives because their very existences are rudderless.....this is one of the many problems on the left.....as they edge closer and closer to Marxism, they wander further and further away from having to answer to anything, thus they are capable of lies and deceit WITHOUT any repercussions of consciousness.

The left, like it or not, should come to terms with the fact that the U.S. WAS founded by people of the Christian faith....not any other religion.....it is part of U.S. history.....why in the hell they keep trying to change history is beyond me.....why they fight it is beyond me: Accept it, its fact, and move on. We are a secular society but we are definitely Christian in our founding. The left sounds really crazy with their offensives at the slightest hint of Christianity anywhere in the public square. At the same time they beg the courts to support Separation of Church and State, they have NO PROBLEM wanting to teach Islamic history in our Public School Systems.....why is there a dichotomy on this?

No one is changing history, they were Christians but fact is not all Americans are Christians now. I know many atheists and even a few agnostics that have their own beliefs and are good moral people who live very happy content fulfilling lives, and what's wrong with teaching the ways and history of other parts of the world besides your own?

The founders were also slave owners and had no problem denying them their language or cultural identities to force them to be as they said they should be. At least you aren't beating fellow humans in this country to convert them, even though you still practice oppressing their descendants. If all men are created equal, where does it say you must be a Christian to be equal?

Talaniman: I'm not speaking for jlisenbe but I think it is impossible for a person to be moral if they are not of any religion.....because there is no compass or rudder to steer them to be moral. Atheistic societies (old U.S.S.R., PRC, and N. Korea) have no evidence of moral code....and I think it is not coincidence that they have no religion, either.

So being a good human is not enough for you?

Talaniman: No, if you thought I was saying that, you misunderstood me, or I probably didn't explain myself too well, more likely: I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching the history of any religion or even the culture of any religion....but what I am hearing is that, in some school districts, they want to teach about Islamic history and culture BUT NOT CHRISTIAN ONES! Now, that is plainly wrong and it is most likely an overreaction of some pinhead educator who is trying to look like they are fighting-off Christian overtures....I don't know but that is what it sure seems like....like they are petrified of anything with a Cross!

I had an agnostic relative: Just didn't get a warm and fuzzy feeling out of him, at all....and his selfishness was obvious.

Look, I LIKE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BEING SECULAR but, at the same time, I don't think its a Federal case if someone says a prayer or displays religious symbol in a public building, either......My God, we are an uptight, thin skinned bunch these days!

Not wanting anyone to receive a beating to convert to any religion.....its a choice that is very personal and should remain so: There have been enough beatings and killings throughout history in the names of religion to do us for eternity....enough is enough of suffering for that reason.

Talaniman: Being a good human being IS ENOUGH FOR ME.....but that wasn't the question: The question was "Could you be moral without having any religion?" And I don't think that is possible without religion of some sort.....Good doesn't necessarily equate to moral.

I am hearing is that, in some school districts, they want to teach about Islamic history and culture BUT NOT CHRISTIAN ONES!

Please list the school districts that want to teach Islamic history and culture BUT NOT CHRISTIAN ONES (Your emphasis). This sounds very much like a right-wing trope that has making the rounds for many years. However, if you are referring to pure history - not proslytizing - I would not be against teaching the history of other religions. Comparative Religion is a common college-level subject.


I had an agnostic relative: Just didn't get a warm and fuzzy feeling out of him, at all....and his selfishness was obvious.

No comment.


Look, I LIKE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BEING SECULAR but, at the same time, I don't think its a Federal case if someone says a prayer or displays religious symbol in a public building, either......

Does that include displays of religious symbols from Judaism, Islam, Voodoo, Wicca, Christianity, Buddhism, Druidism?


Good doesn't necessarily equate to moral.

Agreed. Good is above morality which often changes according to the temper of the times.

I didn't ask if their was a God or not. I simply asked if a person can be moral if he is not of your religion, or any other.

No one can be moral. At best we are a mix of moral and immoral. But I will say again that you cannot use the term "moral" without the existence of God, or at least you cannot use it with any real meaning. If morality cannot rise above opinion, then it really has no meaning. It's like a ship without an anchor. You never know where to find it.


Agreed. Good is above morality which often changes according to the temper of the times.

How do you determine what "good" is?

Athos: When I say SECULAR about the Government, I mean ALL religions. And, the school district was one up around Minnesota...I don't remember the detail but its not a Right Wing story, its real: Some idiot Administrator decided to make such a move to placate: You would think most of them are Vampires the way they react to Crosses! Or like the dolt Macron, who wants rebuild the Notre Dame without a Cross atop it: He is true dingbat. And that is what I said: Teach all religions or none from a historic perspective.

Athos: When I say SECULAR about the Government, I mean ALL religions.

That's NOT what secular means. It means non-religion.


And, the school district was one up around Minnesota...I don't remember the detail

Not very specific. Maybe you confused it with something else. Rightists are prone to do that.


but its not a Right Wing story, its real

Something isn't so, because you say it's so. We deal in facts here.

How do you determine what "good" is?


By the collective wisdom of a society based on informed individual consciences and learned over the history of human evolution. Good is always revealing itself.

You will say by a book. Problem with that is that it's static.

No one can be moral. At best we are a mix of moral and immoral. But I will say again that you cannot use the term "moral" without the existence of God, or at least you cannot use it with any real meaning. If morality cannot rise above opinion, then it really has no meaning. It's like a ship without an anchor. You never know where to find it.



How do you determine what "good" is?

Usually morality is defined by the group/culture or society, you know the "moral majority". At least they define the parameters sometimes strictly, and sometimes in some things not so strict. Things can sometime blend together as in a good human with morals, with or without god in the equation. Even with god in the equation there is a range of opinions, mores, tradition and values that can have a wider spectrum within that society.

You know humans though, they can be saying the same thing, maybe in different ways, and still disagree. I guess others agreeing with you determines what's good, or not, so it depends on whose doing the determining. I've seen Christians and Muslims and practically every other group or culture disagree on many things, and about the same things, so it's safe to say some things have meaning to some and not to others.

A ship with an anchor cannot sail unless you pull it aboard so you either want to sail, or just sit their. Consider me one who wants to sail. I'll let you know when I'm ready to drop anchor.

By the collective wisdom of a society based on informed individual consciences and learned over the history of human evolution. Good is always revealing itself.

You will say by a book. Problem with that is that it's static.


How can good always be revealing itself when you say it is determined by something called "collective wisdom"? It's not being revealed, but rather made up as we go along.

As to it being static, that should be the most reassuring thing we know of, that it is not left up to the whims and ideas of people. For it to be constantly revealing itself, wouldn't it have to be static?

Your faith is in man, and my faith is in God. I like my chances a lot better than yours.


Usually morality is defined by the group/culture or society, you know the "moral majority".

Really? So when slavery was legal in the south, it was moral? Or when homosexuals are executed in the Middle East, then it is moral? Or when women were denied the vote, it was moral then, but then it's not moral now? I don't think you really believe that. What is legal and what is moral are not the same thing, or at least not in my worldview.

The character of man is to justify his actions cruel and immoral as they may be, as we never know what triggers change, or evolution. As Athos pointed out morality can change and what was moral is no longer. It's usually after a big fight or long struggle to change things.

Plus it was moral to them at the time wasn't it?

The character of man is to justify his actions cruel and immoral as they may be, as we never know what triggers change, or evolution. As Athos pointed out morality can change and what was moral is no longer. It's usually after a big fight or long struggle to change things.

Plus it was moral to them at the time wasn't it?

I completely understand what you are saying, which is that morality changes over time. Slavery was considered moral at the time, but is now considered immoral, or at least it is in our part of the world, but who knows? It might be considered moral in another decade or two.

So if a culture decides slavery is OK, then should we say, "OK. If you consider it to be moral, then for you it is." Should that be our response? If not, then on what do we take our stand? Our opinion? Man, that sure does seem lame.

I'm so glad my soul does not live in that world. It reduces morality to nothing more that a public opinion poll. The history of humanity is by and large an ugly affair, so I wish us all luck. We will need it. But then again, with no god, it really doesn't matter. A hundred years from now, do you think anyone will really care?

How can good always be revealing itself when you say it is determined by something called "collective wisdom"? It's not being revealed, but rather made up as we go along.

Revealed in the sense of discovered. Your Bible is a good example of the good being learned over time.


As to it being static, that should be the most reassuring thing we know of, that it is not left up to the whims and ideas of people.

Your "whims and ideas" is one way of looking at it. Others may think of the process as a lived life marked by thoughtful examination over eons. Trial and error plays a role.



For it to be constantly revealing itself, wouldn't it have to be static?

No. Revelation is a process.


Your faith is in man, and my faith is in God. I like my chances a lot better than yours.

There you go again. You have no idea what my faith is, yet you manage to denigrate it by saying yours is a "lot better". When you find condemnation in beliefs other than your own, that tells us something very important - that your faith is a little shaky to find it necessary to condemn other ways of believing.


Really? So when slavery was legal in the south, it was moral? Or when homosexuals are executed in the Middle East, then it is moral? Or when women were denied the vote, it was moral then, but then it's not moral now? I don't think you really believe that. What is legal and what is moral are not the same thing, or at least not in my worldview.

These are good examples of how morality changes over time. They are all found in your Bible.

The history of humanity is by and large an ugly affair,

Fascinating, revealing comment. Unlike you, I find the movement of mankind over the millennia always tending to the good. To see it as an ugly affair explains your religious beliefs tending to condemn the great majority of humans who have ever lived to "eternal punishment in hell".

Believing that, I don't know how you can find any joy in life.

These are good examples of how morality changes over time. They are all found in your Bible.

I'm not sure how to explain this any more plainly. For something to be discovered, it must exist. If it exists, then it has to be static. A lot of math has been "discovered" over the past centuries, but discovering it did not bring it into existence. It was always there, but just undiscovered. If we have "discovered" morality, then we have discovered what was always there in the mind of God. Either that, or we have made it up as we go along. In terms of the Bible, morality was not "discovered". It was revealed by God. It was something God did, and not what man did.


Fascinating, revealing comment. Unlike you, I find the movement of mankind over the millennia always tending to the good. To see it as an ugly affair explains your religious beliefs tending to condemn the great majority of humans who have ever lived to "eternal punishment in hell".

I would question your knowledge of history. The vast majority of humans who have ever lived did so in poverty. Wars have been constant. Illness, for most of history, has run rampant. Perhaps as much as 60% of the population of Europe, for instance, died of bubonic plague in the Middle Ages. Life was very, very hard. Living in the West, a culture heavily influenced by Christianity, might convince us otherwise, but that would be incorrect.

My comment about your faith in mankind is based on this statement of yours. "By the collective wisdom of a society based on informed individual consciences and learned over the history of human evolution." Now that sounds an awful lot like a faith in mankind's collective wisdom. You did not mention God. Perhaps you meant to but forgot.


Believing that, I don't know how you can find any joy in life.

My joy comes from knowing and following Jesus. It is not attached to this world. Where does your joy come from?

If it exists, then it has to be static.

You exist. You're not static.



In terms of the Bible, morality was not "discovered".

If man did not do the discovering, who did?


I would question your knowledge of history.

On what basis?


The vast majority of humans who have ever lived did so in poverty. Wars have been constant. Illness, for most of history, has run rampant. Perhaps as much as 60% of the population of Europe, for instance, died of bubonic plague in the Middle Ages. Life was very, very hard. Living in the West, a culture heavily influenced by Christianity, might convince us otherwise, but that would be incorrect.

Wow - it's hard to know where to start with this collection of historical misreading. 1) You don't understand the term "poverty". Think of it as relative and go on from there. 2) Wars have not been "constant". That reflects how you read history which often emphasizes wars. Ordinary life is not as interesting and doesn't get nearly as much press. See Social History. 3) Illness is just as "rampant" as it ever was. I think 60% is at the high end for plague, 30% would be closer. 4) "Life was very, very hard". In terms of YOUR life experience, probably so. Review the term"relative" again. 5) "Living in the West"... etc etc. This is precisely the mistake you are making with this post.


My comment about your faith in mankind is based on this statement of yours. "By the collective wisdom of a society based on informed individual consciences and learned over the history of human evolution." Now that sounds an awful lot like a faith in mankind's collective wisdom.

Yes, that is my statement. It was a reply to the question of morality. Yes, it is faith in mankind's collective wisdom.


You did not mention God. Perhaps you meant to but forgot.

The question was about morality. If you wish to talk about faith in God, why don't you just say so, instead of casting aspersions where you know not.


My joy comes from knowing and following Jesus. It is not attached to this world.

I have difficulty when you associate your "joy" with Jesus. This is the Jesus whom you associate with billions of human beings, including babies and children, being sent to everlasting punishment simply because they never heard of Jesus and COULD not believe in him. Or, just as bad, having heard of Jesus, they stuck by their own beliefs in preference to Jesus.


Where does your joy come from?

I take joy in the progress made over the millenia as humanity slowly moves to what Teilhard de Chardin called the Omega Point. Never smoothly, but always forward as in two steps forward, one step back.

You exist. You're not static.

True, but I am here. I don't come into existence when someone discovers me, and they cannot imagine me to be something else when I am found. I'll say it again. You cannot "discover" what does not already exist, and the properties of that discovered object are fixed, just as mine are.


If man did not do the discovering, who did?

Go back and read my comment carefully. You will see the answer.


Wow - it's hard to know where to start with this collection of historical misreading. 1) You don't understand the term "poverty". Think of it as relative and go on from there. 2) Wars have not been "constant". That reflects how you read history which often emphasizes wars. Ordinary life is not as interesting and doesn't get nearly as much press. See Social History. 3) Illness is just as "rampant" as it ever was. I think 60% is at the high end for plague, 30% would be closer. 4) "Life was very, very hard". In terms of YOUR life experience, probably so. Review the term"relative" again. 5) "Living in the West"... etc etc. This is precisely the mistake you are making with this post.

Poverty? When you don't know what you will eat next week, or when your life expectancy is 40 years, or when half of newborns die, or when many women die in childbirth, or when freezing in the winter is a real possibility, or when you can reasonably expect to lose many of your teeth by age 35, or when finding clean water is a challenge, then yeah, I'd call that poverty in any time periood.

Wars have not been constant? Find the period in the last 2 millennia when there have not been wars and we'll talk about it.

Illness is as rampant now as ever? Wow. What a statement. Go back just to the Civil War where more soldiers died from illness in camps that in combat. Or go back to the flu epidemics or smallpox epidemics of just a hundred years ago. You wonder why I question your knowledge of history? Well, there you are.

As to Jesus, if you ever come to know Him, you will have the answer to your question. They stick to their own beliefs in preference to Him? A day is coming when the foolishness of that position will become evident to all. Now if Jesus is not who He claimed to be, then your statement is valid. But if He is, then it is nonsense.

Man's progress over the millenia? Go to many parts of Africa, South and Central America, Asia, even parts of our own country, and tell them about that wonderful progress. Go to Haiti and tell them about it. Get back with us and let us know what they say.

True, but I am...........................skip skip skip.............................................. .

You have completely missed the point I was trying to make. I will take the blame for that. It wasn't easy to understand.



As to Jesus, if you ever come to know Him, you will have the answer to your question. They stick to their own beliefs in preference to Him? A day is coming when the foolishness of that position will become evident to all. Now if Jesus is not who He claimed to be, then your statement is valid. But if He is, then it is nonsense.

You constantly avoid getting to the heart of this "question" - where your absurd belief sends unbelievers. Now you're saying beliefs other than yours are foolishness. There's a name for that - religious bigotry. Read The Good Samaritan.

Jesus has nothing to do with your belief. You would know that if you understood your Bible.


Man's progress over the millenia? Go to many parts of Africa, South and Central America, Asia, even parts of our own country, and tell them about that wonderful progress. Go to Haiti and tell them about it. Get back with us and let us know what they say.

The larger picture escapes you. I suggest you carefully read what I wrote. I don't think I can make it any simpler. You are blinded by your bias which is a not uncommon trait, but it can be overcome with a sincere effort.

Man's progress over the millenia? Go to many parts of Africa, South and Central America, Asia, even parts of our own country, and tell them about that wonderful progress. Go to Haiti and tell them about it. Get back with us and let us know what they say.

I don't think going anywhere and calling people heathens or treating them like sheeple in need of shepherding helps if they are in tune with the world they live in. Just because they haven't developed as technically advanced as others doesn't mean converting them to your way of thinking will make them happy. You can teach them these new technology's to make their lives better without the conversion can't you? Or do you hold those things as leverage to your conversion tacti?

I take your comment as talking down your nose at other cultures, but I'm sure that's not your intentions, nor meant to imply that you cannot be happy without Christ.

You have completely missed the point I was trying to make. I will take the blame for that. It wasn't easy to understand.

Man. What a statement. You try to present an argument which cannot be defended, and then seem to suggest that you are the only one smart enough to understand it. Wow.


You constantly avoid getting to the heart of this "question" - where your absurd belief sends unbelievers. Now you're saying beliefs other than yours are foolishness. There's a name for that - religious bigotry. Read The Good Samaritan.

Interesting how you appeal to one part of the Bible (good Samaritan) to explain away a different part of the Bible such as, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." At any rate, my beliefs don't send anyone anywhere. And I'll say it again. If Jesus is who He said He was, then we should listen to Him with all our hearts. If not, then we can do what we please. I have no patience with those who advocate some kind of middle ground.


Jesus has nothing to do with your belief. You would know that if you understood your Bible.

And again, if we understood everything as well, I suppose, as you do, we would all agree with you. You'll have to make a much more substantial appeal than that. You make no appeals to scripture other than to assure me that I don't understand it. Well, have a go at explaining it. We are all listening.

Honestly, I don't like exchanging ideas with you. When you are cornered, you try to suggest that I don't understand this or that, with the clear inference that you do. No explanations are offered. You cannot explain, for instance, how someone can discover that which is not already there. You just propose the idea that a person, it would seem, must be Athos to get all of this. I find that I am constantly walking a fine line between being honest and being kind. It is a difficult task.

Should not who one opens their heart and mind to be a choice they make for themselves?

I don't think going anywhere and calling people heathens or treating them like sheeple in need of shepherding helps if they are in tune with the world they live in. Just because they haven't developed as technically advanced as others doesn't mean converting them to your way of thinking will make them happy. You can teach them these new technology's to make their lives better without the conversion can't you? Or do you hold those things as leverage to your conversion tacti?

I take your comment as talking down your nose at other cultures, but I'm sure that's not your intentions, nor meant to imply that you cannot be happy without Christ.

I didn't talk about converting anyone. Athos suggested that we have made all of this wonderful progress, and that would seem to be a fair enough point. My comments were only made to point out that there are many, many people on this earth who still live in poverty and virtually constant danger. Do some reading on Haiti, for instance. I've been to Guatemala. It is a completely different world. Look at how quickly Venezuela went backwards to grinding poverty. As for technology, all it's going to take is for one madman to push the button one of these days, and we'll all be back in the Middle Ages. Don't kid yourself. The heart of man has not changed.

I am definitely not degrading anyone. It's simply a recognition that life is super tough on many parts of this planet.


Should not who one opens their heart and mind to be a choice they make for themselves?

Who has suggested otherwise?

Man. What a statement. You try to present an argument which cannot be defended, and then seem to suggest that you are the only one smart enough to understand it. Wow.
Interesting how you appeal to one part of the Bible (good Samaritan) to explain away a different part of the Bible such as, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." At any rate, my beliefs don't send anyone anywhere. And I'll say it again. If Jesus is who He said He was, then we should listen to Him with all our hearts. If not, then we can do what we please. I have no patience with those who advocate some kind of middle ground.
And again, if we understood everything as well, I suppose, as you do, we would all agree with you. You'll have to make a much more substantial appeal than that. You make no appeals to scripture other than to assure me that I don't understand it. Well, have a go at explaining it. We are all listening.
Honestly, I don't like exchanging ideas with you. When you are cornered, you try to suggest that I don't understand this or that, with the clear inference that you do. No explanations are offered. You cannot explain, for instance, how someone can discover that which is not already there. You just propose the idea that a person, it would seem, must be Athos to get all of this. I find that I am constantly walking a fine line between being honest and being kind. It is a difficult task.


I think I struck a nerve. That was not my intention, but it is what it is.

I think I struck a nerve. That was not my intention, but it is what it is.

You did. People who cannot defend their positions irritate me.

You did. People who cannot defend their positions irritate me.

By far, the biggest non-defense of a position is your position that unbelievers go to hell where they are punished for eternity. Nothing else you maintain comes close.

By far, the biggest non-defense of a position is your position that unbelievers go to hell where they are punished for eternity. Nothing else you maintain comes close.

I have defended it well, but you don't agree, so that's where we are. I am comfortable with what I've said and I imagine you feel the same way about your comments. I'm moving on.

I'm moving on.

If only these debates could move on

If only these debates could move on

I don't think anyone is compelled to read them.

For me, it is much more of a confined argument: I believe in the mystery of faith. All of philosophical arguments in world cannot shake that belief. Following the teachings of Jesus is the methodology by which to get to heaven and attain eternal life/life ever after death. Following Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ alone, is the only way to get to heaven.

If Jesus said it, then, that is that....it really doesn't matter if you believe it or not! This is the part of the understanding that many people "don't get".....there is the false narrative out there that there are many choices available and that all these choices will get you to the same answer/same place: This is a false teaching that will condemn your soul.

Your beliefs are of your own free will but only one belief will provide you with eternal life.

I can admire and respect those of strong faith. To each his own. Call before you come over please.

Vac, I like a lot of what you say except to say that faith is a mystery. To me, there are many reasons to believe that the Bible is authentic and true. I love scriptures such as this one. "1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us."

He is saying that he did not make the story up.

JL, my favorite is this one, Micah 6:8. We used it at my younger son's funeral last year. It was his life in just a few words:


"what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God”

jlisenbe: The Mystery Of Faith simply means that you accept the world as it is, without having to know exactly how or why all in the universe exist or why.....as long as you believe in Him, nothing else really matters.

JL, my favorite is this one, Micah 6:8. We used it at my younger son's funeral last year. It was his life in just a few words:

Very sorry to hear of that loss for you. I preached my nephew's funeral a few weeks ago. He was only 46. It is tough. God bless you in your healing process.

Very sorry to hear of that loss for you. I preached my nephew's funeral a few weeks ago. He was only 46. It is tough. God bless you in your healing process.
Thank you. Jeremy was 42 and died very unexpectedly of a pulmonary embolism during a morning walk.

I have defended it well,

You have not defended it at all. To say it is written in a book is not a defense.

Thank you. Jeremy was 42 and died very unexpectedly of a pulmonary embolism during a morning walk.

My goodness. I know that was heart-breaking. Life can be tough.