Hi Mike,

I have a couple minutes to respond here. Maybe more later...

>>They are conclusions that are IMO very rational and that in no way violate rational thinking processes. IOW, it is reasonable to take a position of faith, and in my mind far more reasonable that an other positions.
>
>I've got a question you might be able to answer:
>If God is all powerful, and perfect (correct me if I'm wrong there), how come he has to step into the affairs of human beings?

He doesn't have to I suppose. That He does is pretty cool IMO. Well, actually, there's a little more to it than that. Jesus said in Mark "And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.", essentially asserting that man indeed will destroy himself unless God steps into history again directly. I see nothing in current news that would persuade me that man is on an upward path.

> Doesn't that point out that something wasn't right and needed to be interveened?

Well, not really, unless you are also asserting that mankind does not have free will or the ability to choose. I think that man should take responsibility for man's choices and that mankind should stop blaming God for mankind's bad choices. So, no, I don't see anything wrong with God but a lot wrong with mankind.

>
>If your guess that the force holding atoms together is God himself, admittedly, doesn't that prove that God erred in creating the universe?

How so? What in the universe (or creation <g>) would you say would cause people to think God erred? Mankind and the way mankind acts perhaps?

If you are asserting that there is error in the universe (are you?) how would you explain it in a purely materialistic sense? Additionally, using only a purely materialistic, deterministic position how do you explain 'error' (evil, wrong, bad, etc..)? I contend that in apurely material sense there is no such thing as wrong or right. There's no such thing as morality being able to be derived from a purely mateial starting point. Unless death is bad. But for some who are hideously ill with, say cancer, death is freedom and good, not bad.

> Doesn't it seem more reasonable that a flawless God would set everything in motion, and be able to step away without the universe exploding?

Well, just dealing with the 'exploding' issue, no, I don't think so. If you take the position that it's His continuing to hold things together I don't suppose you could logically conclude that if He stopped holding things together that they would hold together apart from God's direct involvement. Could God have designed things differently? I suppose but don't really have a clue about that issue. IOW, I just don't know God's mind or reasoning on that issue so I honestly cannot really address it with any authority.

>
>IOW, why theism and not deism?

Well, here's how I will understand your question. Please correct me if this isn't what you mean, ok?

"IOW, why a personal god and not an impersonal god?", which I think is a great question! This is an essential difference between the Historic Christian position and so many other faiths. Many teach, in so many words, that God is dis-interested, non-personal, a 'force' (cosmic or otherwise), distant and so forth. One of the more intriguiging philosophical issues is to explain how man has a personality is self-aware and also able to communicate with others if there is no observable source these attributes may be derived from. OTOH, Christianity teaches that God is personal and is immensely interested in each individual to the point that He knows the number of hairs on their head. Stuff like that. <s>

>
>And why Christianity and not Islam?

Well, the God of Islam is, in fact, different than the God of Judaism/Christianity. For example, He could be defined as 'capricious' in Islam and not once is he defined as 'Father'. They are defined differently.

>Were you already a Christian before thorougly reading the Quaran?

Yes.

>Or were you exposed equally to Islam and Christianity at the same time?

Nope.

>Was your deity already outlined in your mind before you set out to determine whether or not a deity existed?

No, not at all. My first prayer was something like this, "God, if there is a god, and if it's true that Jesus died for my sins, and you want to be a part of my life, and you will forgive me, please do it." Something like that. It was very much the prayer of (at best) an agnostic. I did want an answer and from that POV I suppose I was sincere. To be honest, I've always had a lot of questions and have many times gotten some of my dear Christian brethren 'irked' at me. I don't tolerate the, "Don't ask questions, just believe", line very well. <g> I want answers and I have found them when I honestly sought them. I define 'honestly' as 'open minded and without pre-conceived notions and willing to be wrong', BTW. <s> I doubt in this life I'll ever get them all answered.

>
>IOW, are your conclusions really predefined conclusions that you have found evidence to support, or are your conclusions derived from finding impartial evidence and logically arriving at rational conclusions (as youy claim above)?

Well, probably a little of both. I really didn't have mush exposure to Christianity early in my life. I was certainly exposed to a couple of religious systems and even was confirmed as an Episcopalian but I really didn't have a personal encounter with God until I was 19. So, other than the general shadows left in society of the influence of CHristianity I didn't really have much exposure at all.

Candidly, the evidences I've discovered have pretty much all been after I became a Christian. However, I must remind you that I didn't give up my ability to reason when I chose to believe. <g>

>If it is the latter, then it would be very simple to list the premise, and present the symbolic logic needed to reach your conlcusion.

I've suggested several times that you investigate the writings of the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer's writings. Primarily because he does such a better job here than I ever could. <s> He deals directly with the whole issue of the fundamental philosophical reasoning that exists for the existence of God than I ever could. His (Schaeffer's) approach is very erudite and if you're into philosophical 'ventures' you will not be disappointed. I recommend him for this specific reason.

>In fact, it would be so simple for you since this end-all-to-be-all argument would be a common peice of information among the intellectual community. Unfortuantely, it is not.

Not so. It is precisely at this point that men choose not to believe. At no point can you word your phrases, questions or arguments so as to presume that at some 'magical' point you can remove man's volition. Christianity asserts man's moral depravity - that is, mankind often does not want God in his life. IOW, it's a moral issue, not an intellectual one.

Additionally, I can cite many examples of cases where someone challenged the claims of Christianity and when they honestly looked at the evidence they became believers. That really doesn't prove anything to you but it seems that you're making an incorrect presumption that if we just gave people the facts they would respond accordingly. If that were the case we wouldn't have any alcoholism, now would we? Or any heroin addicts. Or other self-destructive behaviors.

The facts are that we do have so many many people engaging in self-destructive behavior Mike that it seems a little silly to me to even have to point this out.

You see, choice can be more than pure intellectualism.

>Which leads me to believe that the latter cannot be possible, and what we're really dealing with here is a case of the former whether your refuse to admit that or not. The former, obviouslly, is NOT very rational and violates the rational thinking process despite what you say above.

An incorrect conclusion, given the behavior of mankind. We don't live in a vacuumn now do we? <s>

I could reverse this then and ask you then, based upon your stated premis that just given the facts man will rationally respond, to please explain to me then the existence of evil. Evil is self-destructive. If we know this to be the case then why does mankind still engage in evil? Not uneducated people either! Highly educated people can be very evil as well as genetically stupid people can. There's really no direct correlation here.

>
>Of course, you could accept the premise that what the Bible says is true.

I do. <g> Understanding that one should take responsibility for making sure they do their research and so forth. No blind faith allowed. <s>

>But I have a hard time understanding how two conflicting ideas can both be true. For example, the word of God says "Don't kill", but Exodus 32:27, I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 and quite a few other passages show the word of God saying "Kill".

Sure, an old old question. The "Don't kill" is actually in the Hebrew more correctly understood as, "Don't murder." There is behavior that is so vile that the only way to stop it is to take the life of the individual(s) acting that way. Would you hesitate to shoot a rabid dog? I wouldn't. I'd kill it on the spot. Some people are rabidly evil. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and many others. The right and responsibility for reacting to such individuals has been delegated to governments (by God BTW) and these goernemnts have an awesome responsibility in this area and should never use this power irresponsibly. It's certainly a thorhy issue and in the States we have a lot of protections (rightly so IMO) and sadly some times there are mistakes -but- that's always been the case with man. We do goof at times.

>Also, right off my head, from our conversation earlier, 1 Timothy 2:12-15 says some pretty specific things about what women can and cannot do, and what they are good for (they will be saved by childbirth). However, you claim that in Galations 3:28 it is clear that God does not favor men over women. But, that does not change what Timothy says! The fact that other parts of the Bible state something else does not make the issue closed, it raises more of its own, like, which one should I believe? Should I believe any of it?

You should believe all of it! *gd&rvvf*

Typically the issues here come from one of two sources. One would be the idiot guy who wants to use the scriptures to 'lord it over' some woman. That's sick and NOT at all condoned in the Bible. Men are to love their wives and to (literally if necessary) lay their lives down for the gal. The Bible is very specific that the man is to be resposible for his household and if he doesn't he's "worse than an infidel (non-believer)".

Secondly, there absolutely are and have been cultural differences that, in context, make a lot of sense but out of context seem harsh. That women should cover their heads is one for example. In Corinth the temple prostitutes kept their heads uncovered as a sign of their position as prostitutes. Paul instructed the ladies at Corinth to keep their heads coverd for that reason. And, if you had done your homework <g> and read a verse or two later Paul specifically states (in so many words) that "We have no such custom", meaning regarding himself and the 'general' body of believers. It was geographically specific in that case.

There certainly is a lot of confusion on issues like this Mike, that's for sure but the answer is to educate one's self.

Also, in life we try and have the right folks in the right jobs. If God created mankind it isn't wrong that He should place man and women in the relationship to each other He deems best is it? When you understand that in the scriptures there is a far heavier responsibility on the man and that he's supposed to lay his life down in love and for love's sake - for his wife and kids - you will begin to understand that this isn't a free ticket to mis-behavior and abuse but rather a solemn call to responsibility and faithfullness and 'other thinking' as opposed to 'self thinking'.

Let me ask you this; did this opinion you just expressed come from another source, your own observations or your own studies?


>
>Bottom line: you express opinions that I disagree with and when it all boils away, it is these spiritual differences that are really the cause of the disagreement; if you want me to agree, you have to convince me that spirtually you are spot on.

Well, I'm certainly willing to do my best to answer any queastion you may have. I will goof even though I try not to. My hope here is that, if nothing else, you might realize that honest men can have honest differences and still respect one another. I cannot, nor will I attempt to force you in any way to believe something but at the same time I reserve my right to respectfully disagree and attempt to correct misconceptions. Hope you can live with that. <s>

In no way do I mind being put on the spot by tough questions. Candidly there are times I'll just have to answer, "I don't know."

Like why would God want to love a knucklehead like me?

I don't know.

But He does and I, for one, am not going to turn down a great deal. <g>

>
>Which was John Ryans question.

Best,


DD

A man is no fool who gives up that which he cannot keep for that which he cannot lose.
Everything I don't understand must be easy!
The difficulty of any task is measured by the capacity of the agent performing the work.