Dragan,

>>Mind if I jump in? <g>
>
>This is a public place, and you were mentioned. I did expect some reaction :)

<g>

>
>>>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.

Yes. Words and definitions are extremely important. I think at times Mike needs a little help.

>
>>>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.

Sure, but in that case please explain to me and unless I am required to change what I believe I will try to do everything in my power to help. I must, I suppose, point out that that in the Bible it says that the cross of Christ is an offense so at some point I will offend.

>
>>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 :)

Well, that's sad. Perhaps you may be confusing people who call themselves Christian with what is actually Christianity as taught in the New Testament? There's a lot of that around.

>
>>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)

Men made the churches, not God. As defined in the New Testament the "Church" is an organism, not an organization. I am a mamber of the Church but hold no written membership in any office anywhere..

>
>>>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 writings of the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer cover all of this. Recommended reading...

>
>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.

Ah.. Yes.. Man certainly has the animal portion of his nature. But man is more than an animal. He has a spiritual side and also elements that we generally designate "personhood", or personality. For example, he's self-aware. Animals really aren't. No monkeys have built monkey hospitals for example.

The trouble people get into here is that they want to lower their expectations of mankind because man shares some phtsical traits with animals. Christianity wants to elevate the spiritual side of man's nature. The word "Christian" actually meant "little christs" in Greek. Sort of an insult like "Jesus Freak" is today.