>Mind if I jump in? <g>

This is a public place, and you were mentioned. I did expect some reaction :)

>>Nope, that's atheists - the guys who feel the urge to deny the existence of deities. Agnosticism simply states the matter is undecidable (and therefore not worth the trouble) - as in "can not be known".
>
>Exactly. I think Mike has take the agnostic position. Perhaps he's just unaware of the definition of the word?

Probably. Clearing up the terms never hurts.

>>I've been under similar half-insults from believers before, which usually boil down to two types: type A, "you can't be a good person because you're not believing", or type B "you seem to be a good person, therefore you're living a life of a good Christian but you won't admit it".

>Not trying to insult him at all.. (And thanks for thinking that I might be an exception. I try very hard on this though I do get riled up at times. <g>)

It can happen without trying - the things one takes for granted may be basically insulting for another.

>Frm a Christian perspective NO ONE is ever good enough - even after becoming a Christian. Period. Peopel CAN be good or doo very good deeds even if they are not Christians. That just isn't enough to 'save' them is all. Certainly Christians do NOT have a monopoly on 'good' whatsoever. As a matter of fact far too many are a bunch of knuckleheads. <g>

Your readiness to say this is what makes you an exception :)

>The problem is is that so many (so-called?) Christians try and use some set of phony rules as a means of controlling others. We typically call that a religion after it becomes formalized into a set of creeds and dogmas. The Historic Christian position (that is, what Jesus & the Apostles taught) is all about a one to one relationship between me and God or you and God - directly with no middlemen.

But then why did god(s?) punish them by making them a church? (OK this is a trick question)

>>This is actually such a sort of implied insult. I read "If man is just an animal and all that there is is a physical universe then the concept of love is a cruel hoax" as "there can be no love among unbelievers", i.e. "the unbelievers are not completely human", i.e. ... how many steps does it take until some real segregating action is taken?
>
>No.. The point here is that love is without intellectual basis in a philospohical system that asserts that man is only an animal. Love elevates man above the animal levels. So, to assert on one hand that man is ONLY animal but at the same time has the capacity for love (not eros - agape, phileo & sturgio) is in itself an implicit recognition that man is indeed more than animal - therefore invalidating the position that man is only an animal. IOW, they are mutually exclusive.

>Now.. Simple observations indicates that man IS capable of love, whether a believer or not. Therefore, man is more than an animal.

My eyes are too tired to look for the previous messages where I thought you wrote someting different from this - and the search may prove me wrong, so I'll drop that.

The initial sentence is wrong - not ONLY an animal, but ALSO an animal, in the biological sense. We do share a sufficient number of traits with other non-plant life on Earth to qualify as animals. And we do have some more, so we're more of a special case, but also fitting into the general case.