Meaning that you cannot rationally demonstrate the existence of your
deity, but cannot just admit that.

On 27 Jul 2006 07:16:35 -0700, "james.thompson"
<jwthompson2@gmail.com> wrote:

Robibnikoff wrote:

"james.thompson" <jwthompson2@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153928650.716728.222440@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...

Bill M wrote:

Sin is totally the creation of church leaders. It is purely a religious
concept.

I'm not going to argue over the reality of sin since that's a fruitless
argument, if you reject the reality of sin then that is fine although I
would have to disagree personally. Sin is mentioned in the earliest
biblical accounts (Gen 4:7),

Which, of course, is meaningless to atheists.

Exactly, which is why I am confused that atheists would even want to
engage in such a discussion. Your basic position on the existence of
God makes this discussion irrelevant.

You've already been told that there's nothing to discuss, and that if
you keep it to yourself you wouldn't be told to put up or shut up.

But for some reason you think that because you believe it this somehow
exempts you from that burden. It doesn't.

lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu wrote:

My guess is that by presuppositionalist, you mean that you
simply "assume" you are right. Since this is not a rational
position you are correct that it cannot be argued rationally.

Not exactly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositionalism

The basic assumption is that the things revealed in scripture are true
and must for the basis for any Christian apologetic. The method hinges
on the basic notion that there is no such thing as neutral common
ground upon which both the believer and non-believer can discuss
certain issues, such as the existence of God. Since God must either
exist or not there is no middle ground where a discussion concerning
God's existence can actually begin neutrally and so the
presuppositionalist rejects the variety of argumentation that seeks to
work from some middle ground on the basis that it is essentially a
flawed endeavor and instead accepts a Christian worldview as the only
valid basis for discussion, of course assuming the truthfulness of that
worldview.

The position essentially refuses to engage non-believers on their terms
and essentially places certain items of discussion, effectively, off
limits to the Christian apologist because they are part of the basic
set of presuppositions. So you are right in saying that my position
assumes I am already correct concerning certain matters, but not
necessarily that I am correct about all things. Again, though, the
original posters question didn't ask for a response regarding the
existence of God but instead they posed a question regarding sin that
can be answered, as I did, within the parameters of my presuppositional
thinking.

I certainly did not intend to poison the well however it is
difficult to put this any other way. As human beings we
perceive some actions as moral and others as immoral.
If you define morality as anything God wants or does,
then we humans have been taken completely out of the
loop, we cannot possibly understand Gods mind, to us
it would seem simply arbitrary.

I'm sure you didn't mean to but if you accept a Christian worldview in
which God has revealed His will through scripture and continues to
interact with believers via the Holy Spirit as well as displays aspects
of his character via creation then man is not out of the loop. God's
moral law becomes intelligible and discernable, although not
determinable, by men.

However, if you reject the Christian worldview
but accept the existence of God I can definitely see where the problem
can arise that God's rules become difficult or impossible to discern
apart from some other clarifying worldview. And, of course, if you
reject the existence of God then moral standards are completely up for
grabs depending on other aspects of human philosophy and thought
regarding theories of right and wrong.

I would assert that God's standards are not arbitrary but arise out of
some intrinsic aspect of His own being.

Human beings certainly think they can perceive the good
from the bad moral actions. If humans share the same
intrinsic aspects that create Gods standards, then morality
can be defined without reference to God at all. On the
other hand, If we do not share these same aspects, then
human beings cannot hope to understand Gods morality,
what we think is right and wrong may not have anything
in commons with Gods concept of right and wrong, we
would be no different than animals.

Perhaps, except that this still assumes the existence of God which puts
the atheist somewhat out of pocket regarding argumentation.

Also, it seems to assume a purely naturalist notion in which special revelation
is not taken into account. Certainly man can discern certain elements
of God's moral standard through His own means as testified to by the
Bible; although I'm not entirely comfortable with the notion of man
having the same intrinsic qualities as God given my particular
Christian worldview.

The issue of revelation becomes key and only
rejection of the possibility of revelation produces the problem you
see.

There is also the problem though of consequences, both temporal
and eternal, in regards to knowing yet still breaking God's moral
standards.

So is slavery moral?

Leviticus 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of
the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall
ye buy, and they shall be your possession they shall
be your bondmen forever."

Genesis 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan;
a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."

Exodus 21:2,7 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six
years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall
go out free for nothing And if a man sell his
daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go
out as the manservants do."

Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your
daughters into the hand of the children of Judah,
and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people
far off: for the Lord hath spoken it."

Luke 12:47,48 [Jesus speaking] "And that servant, which
knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself,
neither did according to his will, shall be beaten
with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit
things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few
stripes."

Colossians 3:22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters."

vs.

Isaiah 58:6 "Undo the heavy burdens let the oppressed
go free, break every yoke."
Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one
is your Master, even Christ."

Slavery is an interesting issue, God provided rules for the treatment
of slaves and even the NT writers deal with proper relationships
between slaves and masters which would seem to imply that slavery is
acceptable (but perhaps not optimal). Certainly the owning of another
human being is disagreeable to our modern sentiments but the question
of whether or not it is moral shouldn't be influenced by our own
feelings. It is possible to treat a slave in a moral way and in a way
that upholds the enslaved person's dignity, the problem with the moral
dilemma of slavery arises predominantly out of mistreatment. Now, I do
not advocate a return to the practices of slavery but it is possible to
have slavery and not be living immorally. But, there is a lingering
question in my mind as to whether slavery in modern society is truly
gone?

Now, certainly the degree is different but everyone who owes another
money or is in some way responsible to another person is a slave in
some sense.

What about the estate tax or stem cell research, what does the
Bible say about this?

Well I have a better less mystical explanation. We fail to do what
we think we should because the consequence of rational thought
are not completely believed. We put off writing a report because
we downplay in our mind the negative consequences.

That's certainly a possible explanation but what gives rise to our
downplaying behavior? Why don't we take the consequences seriously?
What is it that truly causes us and seems to drive some to make bad
choices, and in some cases immoral ones?

He punished his son because he did not make us like he wanted
us, if this is moral, then it must be the arbitrary whim of a deity.

We fell, by our transgression we arrive in a state of condemnation.

Although I reject a libertarian definition of free will I do believe
that humans make actual choices and that our choices bear real
consequences.

Do not forget that we must also abandon logic and give to
your local church.

Abandonment of logic isn't a prerequisite nor is giving to the church.
Logic must be properly employed however, but that requires acceptance
of the Christian worldview.

And giving to the church is not meritous.

but is a means to aid others and further the work of the church.
Volunteers would be much more helpful in many churches.

Yes it seems 100% foolish. I don't suppose you have anything
more convincing, like evidence. My experience in this life is
that unless you can show evidence for something, it is most likely
false.
Whatever created my brain would not punish me for using it.

And that is perfectly fine that you find it foolish, that is consistent
with your worldview. I don't have anything to present that would
convince you or any other atheist, I leave the proving up to God's and
the Spirit.

Also, God does not punish us for using our minds; he
punishes us for sin. But thankfully there is grace to be found for
those who believe.

There's nothing to debate - however if you talk about it as though it
were real you have to be prepared to prove it. Your
"presuppositionalism" doesn't let you off the hook because it's all
about "put up or shut up" - preferably the latter when you realise you
can't do the former.

No. It is arbitrary because the only reason you think things are right
or wrong is because in your mind it says so.

Which is the kind of question-begging that calls for the proof you
attempt to cop out of by hiding behind presuppositionalism.

Try to talk without preaching.

All it does is demonstrate you have nothing to say.

There's nothing to reject. It's merely your wacky religious belief.

You have to prove it exists before there can be anything to reject.