Evidence for God from Science

Beanybag wrote:

Spock wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

Spock wrote:If we cannot judge what the Bible says about Yahweh then we cannot judge Yahweh to be moral (good) or immoral (bad) and all moral qualities the Bible attributes to Yahweh are emptied of meaning.

Again, this is based on a misunderstanding of the moral philosophy of God.

I think I understand your argument - please correct me if I am wrong. I think you think that God's nature defines morality. Therefore, anything God does is necessarily good which means that if God commanded the Israelites to slaughter babies, then slaughtering babies in that context is "good." Is this what you meant?

Yes, but this is not what I believe.

Excuse me? If you don't believe it, how can it be an argument against what I said?

Butterfly wrote:

B. W. wrote:In the same thought, Jlay, there would be no accountability if chemicals in the brain alone are what defines love and the GR. You have nothing, nothing to look forward too, all good deed and bad deeds are merely nothing. For example, brutal sexual pedophilia murder is no no more wrong than Mother Teresa giving all to feed the poor/shelter the abused. There is no accountability in the naturalist materialist view, unless humanly defined, but even that allows a brutal sexual pedophilia murderer to have gotten away with the deed because when you die and you die and then, well, nothing. You know then, Life's a B---ch, then ya die - becomes the new morality. We live in it now. Human derived GR provides no accountability.

By that reasoning, where is the accountability for a "brutal sexual pedophilia murderer" who asks forgiveness from Jesus? In God's eyes all is forgiven and wiped away like it never even happened...right?

Butterfly, what would you do with a brutal sexual pedophilia murderer?

Would you grant them the Death Penalty or a Life Sentence?

Remember that, according to you, Spock, BryanH, that Human Derived GR is morally superior in all things. It is based upon a – Doing unto to others as you would have them do unto you mindset as its absolute guiding principle all must live by. You all brought this out repeatedly.

This places you in a predicament because it pits your GR against itself. How? The brutal sexual pedophilia murderer most certainly does not like the Death Penalty or a Life Sentence just as you would not like it for yourself. This brutal sexual pedophilia murderer would thus pit your GR against its own rules to avoid punishment in this manner: you cannot punish because it will cause you to break your personal GR. How so? No matter how hard you try to say, that this person did wrong, or deserves either the death or life imprisonment due to his/her acts, he or she would come back at you and say, "You can’t do this because you would not like a death or life sentence either."

You could respond and say, "Well I don’t commit murder like you, you deserve the penalty."

Then he or she would point out that if you did the same deed, you would not like either form of punishment because your GR states: – Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you and you would not like the punishment either.

Welcome to the world of the criminal mind! That pit rules against themselves in an attempt to gain an advantage. Yours, Spock’s, BryanH’s idea on Human derived GR breaks down here. By your GR standard you cannot bring anyone into judgment or hold them to account. This is one area William Lane Craig brings out in his discourses very well.

Still don’t agree, see the next example:

Next example is this regarding human derived Golden Rule (GR): You, Spock, BryanH have come onto this Forum to attack the Christian faith, maybe with the attempt to destroy it, or at least attempting to lead other to your cause i.e. proselytize, all under some grandiose moral imperative. Now Spock mentioned that He a Butterfly did not come to attack the Christian Faith to Beanbag, yet, their very words, comments thus far on this forum prove that this – ain’t so. A Lie is a lie. Many do not like to be lied too – do you? In fact, Spock mentioned this to Bean:

Spock wrote: If that morality is actually immoral, then we must conclude that Yahweh is not the true God … all moral qualities the Bible attributes to Yahweh are emptied of meaning..

If this is not an attack or does not prove your real intent on this forum, then nothing does…

So Butterfly, Spock, BryanH, If we came on your forum and blog and treated you with equal disdain and with equal nefarious purposes, you would not like this, would you?

So you are imposing your human derived GR as morally superior yet break that superiority by not living up to the standard you hold dear: doing unto to others as you would have them do unto you and live and let live of the GR you hold dearly too.

True?

Why don’t You and Spock and even BryanH actually live up to your own human derived GR and voluntarily leave this forum, now, never come back, and live and let live, thus proving that you actually adhere to what you believe in?

So why are you here, on this Forum, attempting to pit the bible against itself to go after God? I quoted Spock’s comments that verify this intent as true.

Are you not in essence doing the same as that brutal murderer attempts to do by saying, "You can’t hold me to account – look at what you have done – na nanan na!" Understand now how the criminal mind works?

So would God be unjust in any judgment and actions toward such a lot as any of us are?

Yet, He came as one of us but without sin, to expose and reveal true human sin to humanity, in order to deal with it, and expunge it from our hearts by, with, and in the most absolute just terms imaginable. How just: God grants all just a simple choice, accept what he did for us and through his help transform one’s life out of darkness that each individual person can freely accept or reject.

So Just is God, that one can simply reject this offer and continue to put God on trial, mocking, spitting, dividing his possessions for one's gain, continue betraying, continue bearing false witness against him, plotting philosophic tricks to entrap him at his own word, temp him, lie about him.

Jesus did say this: "...inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me," in Matthew 25.

Why are you here?

Again:

Why don’t You and Spock and even BryanH actually live up to your own human derived GR and voluntarily leave this forum, now, never come back, and live and let live, thus proving that you actually adhere to what you believe in?
-
-
-

Spock wrote: I have no recollection of any conversation with you concerning "strong" vs. "weak" realism, so I searched this thread and confirmed that we never had any such conversation. If I missed something, please quote our exchange. I don't even know what you think you mean by that distinction. If you want to base your argument on it, you must at the very least define your terms. But be forewarned - there are a wide variety of ways to separate realism into "strong" and "weak" forms and there is no consensus on the validity of such distinctions. This is why your bald assertion that you and I have settled this issue is so mind-numbingly absurd, especially since it is predicated on a conversation we never had.

I never said strong versus weak realism. We had a discussion about the term objective. There were two definitions sited. The first one you held. The 2nd one would comply with realism, the position I hold as do many here and of course WLC. I even commented that in this sense (1st defintion) the GR is objective, but this is not the sense in which WLC (realism) is using the term objective. So I am using the term strong and weak in the sense of the GR being objective. You objected and said he is equivocating. I know you've asserted it, but I don't see how you've proved it.

And as for your love affair with the word "equivocate" - it is CRAIG who equivocates, in spades. He doesn't even bother to inform his audience that their naive realism might have some philosophical problems and that there are many other possibilities and that there is nothing like a philosophic consensus on this question. Yet it is the foundation of his argument. And worse, if we accept the definition you say he is using for "objective" then his argument fails because God is a mind and so if morals are grounded in his mind, they are not "independent of mind."

Love affair? Please. I mean listen to the way you are talking. Insulting for the sake of insulting? For someone who lauds such a high IQ of philosphy, you should refrain from such antics. Plus, I think you know we are talking about independent of the human mind.

The first question to ask here is, “what does Craig mean by ‘objective’”? Here’s the definition from Reasonable Faith:

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or evil independent of what any human being believes. Similarly to say that we have objective moral duties is to say that certain actions are right or wrong independently of whether any human being believes them to be so (p. 173).

This is a silly definition. On this definition, someone who believes morality is whatever space aliens tells us it is counts as a believer in objective morality. A more sensible definition would be something like “morality independent of what anyone says or thinks.” And I do think morality has to be objective in something like that sense.

Craig’s reason for defining “objective morality” the way he does is that he wants to claim the only moral theory that works is one based on God. Craig is trying to rig the definition of “objective morality” to favor God. But not only would this be ruled out by a sensible definition of “objective morality,” Craig’s moral theory is in fact completely insane.

According to you.

In short, Craig’s moral argument depends on claiming that his insane theory of morality is the only possible one. I could move on to the next argument now, but I want to say a couple things about how Craig argues for premise (2) of his argument. Frequently in his debates, his entire argument for premise (2) is to cite atheists who (he claims) agree with him about (2).

there you go again. When you preface something by saying "Insane theory" it only indicates you aren't being intellectually honest.
So, even if he is wrong, how does this prove your moral theory?

This is a terrible argument because many atheists, as well as some theists like Richard Swinburne, disagree with Craig about (2). This has been frequently pointed out to Craig, but he has yet to drop his appeals to authority.

So, other philosophers disagree. What's new?
Is that how truth is determined? Polularity poll. Who is appealing to authority??

If that is what your friend said, then your friend is a philosophical fool of the first order. It indicates he has no understanding of the complexity of the issues we are discussing. Indeed, it proves he does not even understand that realism vs. nominalism is a false dichotomy because there are many other possibilities. No serious thinker could come to that conclusion from what I have written in this thread, let alone assert it as if it were "at a minimum." No serious philosopher would baldly assert such a presumptuous and preposterous claim which directly contradicts my own words.

Then please explain your position. You've told us what you aren't. What are you then? A conceptualist? Of course we would contend that this is a nominalist only under a different name. My friend has read the thread entirely. I guess we could both throw the same accusations at you. I think you do not udnerstand what Craig is arguing. There are many possibilities but I still contend that they ultimately fall under one or the other. Bottom line, you reject that morals are objective in the strong sense, no matter how much you argue otherwise. Fair enough. Therefore you are not following realism. He actually said you would respond exactly how you are, because he said you don't think you are nominalist. Calling myself or him a fool only supports that you are being sophomoric and condescending. Either way, whatever you aren't doesn't verify your argument. It seems your entire argument is based around defeating Craig's. Of course we all know that even if Craig's argument is false, it doesn't make yours valid.

PaulSacramento wrote:Actually, if we are to take the bible as literal and concrete (that is another story of course) then Yes, according to the telling of the great flood in Genesis, God did commit Genocide when He killed "all the inhabitants" of Earth.

Good point Paul, if the flood was local it was not genocide as well as all the other so called "genocides" in the Bible.


Dan

Spock wrote:Excuse me? If you don't believe it, how can it be an argument against what I said?

I'm an atheist. I just think you should use the right argument.

Beanybag wrote:

Spock wrote:Excuse me? If you don't believe it, how can it be an argument against what I said?

I'm an atheist. I just think you should use the right argument.

That's enlightening. What is the precise error you see in my argument?

B. W. wrote:
Butterfly, what would you do with a brutal sexual pedophilia murderer?

Would you grant them the Death Penalty or a Life Sentence?

Remember that, according to you, Spock, BryanH, that Human Derived GR is morally superior in all things. It is based upon a – Doing unto to others as you would have them do unto you mindset as its absolute guiding principle all must live by. You all brought this out repeatedly.

I would choose to give the murderer a life sentence. Taking a life does not bring back the life of the victim, so if perchance the murderer can in someway do something with his life that could benefit humanity no matter how small, I would choose that. A life for a life benefits no one.

B. W. wrote:
Why don’t You and Spock and even BryanH actually live up to your own human derived GR and voluntarily leave this forum, now, never come back, and live and let live, thus proving that you actually adhere to what you believe in?
-
-
-

You forgot to add Beanybag to your list, he say he's an atheist. So, I gather it's okay for you to preach at others, but you don't like to be challenged.
-

Butterfly wrote:You forgot to add Beanybag to your list, he say he's an atheist. So, I gather it's okay for you to preach at others, but you don't like to be challenged.
-

My purpose, when I can, is not to challenge the beliefs of the Christians on this forum, but to understand them. I think this conversation is generally within the rules, plus it's getting a lot of particularly high activity. I can't really say.

B.W. wrote:Why don’t You and Spock and even BryanH actually live up to your own human derived GR and voluntarily leave this forum, now, never come back, and live and let live, thus proving that you actually adhere to what you believe in?

Actually we do respect the GR rule. We challenge some concepts and at the same time you can challenge my concepts. I think that's a basic definition for a debate.

You forgot to add Beanybag to your list, he say he's an atheist. So, I gather it's okay for you to preach at others, but you don't like to be challenged.

There are many people here all with different ideas. Apart from Beany, we have pierson, Ivellious and Sandy too(I hope that's right ) Proinsias is agnostic I believe, Echoside is a former agnostic/atheist, B.W is a former atheist, 1over137 is an former atheist, , FL is a former atheist, I am a former atheist. Plus many come and go all the time. There are many more here too, just not regulars.

In fact Echoside and 1over137 were agnostic atheist when they joined this forum. We welcome people and we are challenged almost routinely, B.W point is that there is board guideline, just stay within it. To be honest and speaking as a former atheist, it is one of the few boards where people from opposition are allowed to post with such liberty and choice and not be bullied or ridiculed with personal insults. We respect you, it is only fair that you respect us back, if you disagree with what we believe, sure say all you want but remember there comes a point where the repetition of the points being disagreed upon will just turn into insult and insulting language. E.g you keep on saying, God is sexist, genocidal maniac and other things along the same line. Well, we don't worship a God that fits that description, there is a plethora of apologetics for these issues. If you still disagree than best is to leave it at that and move on to a next topic. There is nothing further which can be done then agree to disagree. If you keep at it, then that is insulting to people beliefs, unless you alone have the truth claim on these issues.

*******BOARD PURPOSE
This message board is publicly open to anyone who wishes to register and participate in discussions, however it is ultimately intended for a specific audience. It is intended to serve as a place for:

Sincere seekers to inquire and ask questions;
Christians to give and receive encouragement and instruction; and
Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and reason sensitively and respectfully.

This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civilized discussions on Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.
********

Now, I am not an admin but as a member, and a senior one at that , my observations are:

Despite the fact that the board has a rather targeted audience we receive people all the time who violate the guidelines and yet we are accommodating. There are many heated debates, by non-christians a lot of times because they take unfair advantage of our politeness. We haven't banned any of your attacks on faith, have we? Though I can assure you that on an atheist board you would have been banned on your second post when attempting to discredit atheism, worse if you had been allowed to stay, you would be the center of every joke and insult one can imagine.

No one is a savage here wanting to burn you and our God whom we worship commanded us to love. You disagree, that is your opinion, not ours. No one wants to see you go, but we do expect you to stay with in the guidelines and the purpose. Every member has to.

I think it is important to understand that, IF one has made up their mind about something, that while we can still debate and discuss it, no one is changing anyone's mind.
SPock and Butterfly have stated their views and those views should be respected and discussed and they have been.
Personally I disagree with them, as do others and we have stated our reasons why.
That is really as far as this discussion can go.
No one is gonna convince anyone else.
So...


On to this part:

Good point Paul, if the flood was local it was not genocide as well as all the other so called "genocides" in the Bible.


Dan

Well, we can define genocide to apply even to a "local" event if we want but my point is that, if we take certain passages in a way that they were not intended to be taken by those that wrote it, all we are doing is inserting our view and interpretation on something that is NOT what it was.
We must remember that the books of the bible were written FOR Us but NOT TO US.

spock wrote:
If the Bible is true, then yes, Christ got all his teachings from God. But I don't believe that everything the Bible says is true, so what's the point?

If the bible is true, Christ IS God. And He is the source of OM. Spock, you and butterfly are doing the same thing. You're both using scripture to back your argument when it suits you. But you toss aside scripture when it doesn't fit your argument. You don't believe everything in scripture, but you make sure to let us know you believe in your interpretation that God is immoral.
See what you wrote in response to Daniel here:

Spock wrote:
I find it curious that that Golden Rule makes no sense to you. Christ hung the entire divine revelation upon it! How is it possible that its truth is not immediately self-evident to you?

You argue that, then you say you don't believe everything the bible says is true. So, since you used it in
your argument, you must believe it's true. And, since you agree that the bible says Christ is God, then
you understand the significance of your saying that God hung the entire divine revelation upon the GR.

Spock, if you were a true believer as you say you were, you would have had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And since God promises eternal life to those who believe, and that He would never leave us nor forsake us, even if we decide to forsake Him like you claim you did. If you ever were a believer, you still are. Are you ignoring the correction of the Holy Spirit in this? When a believer comes to difficulties in scripture, we have the witness of the Holy Spirit in us, who will bring us to the truth, if we listen to Him.
The other possibility is that you were never saved. Now, only you and God know for sure.

RickD wrote:

spock wrote:
If the Bible is true, then yes, Christ got all his teachings from God. But I don't believe that everything the Bible says is true, so what's the point?

If the bible is true, Christ IS God. And He is the source of OM. Spock, you and butterfly are doing the same thing. You're both using scripture to back your argument when it suits you. But you toss aside scripture when it doesn't fit your argument. You don't believe everything in scripture, but you make sure to let us know you believe in your interpretation that God is immoral.
See what you wrote in response to Daniel here:

Spock wrote:
I find it curious that that Golden Rule makes no sense to you. Christ hung the entire divine revelation upon it! How is it possible that its truth is not immediately self-evident to you?

You argue that, then you say you don't believe everything the bible says is true. So, since you used it in
your argument, you must believe it's true. And, since you agree that the bible says Christ is God, then
you understand the significance of your saying that God hung the entire divine revelation upon the GR.

Good morning Rick,

Your comment makes no sense at all to me. Anyone can make true statements about what the Quran says without believing the Quran is true. Likewise, anyone can make true statements about what the Bible says without believing the Bible is true. You quoted words I wrote. Does that mean you assume everything I say is true?

RickD wrote: Spock, if you were a true believer as you say you were, you would have had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And since God promises eternal life to those who believe, and that He would never leave us nor forsake us, even if we decide to forsake Him like you claim you did. If you ever were a believer, you still are. Are you ignoring the correction of the Holy Spirit in this? When a believer comes to difficulties in scripture, we have the witness of the Holy Spirit in us, who will bring us to the truth, if we listen to Him.
The other possibility is that you were never saved. Now, only you and God know for sure.

Your logic is based on presuppositions that you have not shown to be true. First and foremost is your presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God. How do you know that? The Bible doesn't even state which books belong in it, and even if it did that wouldn't prove anything because the book was put together by fallible humans. Maybe they added books that shouldn't be there, or removed books that should. And since there are different traditions (e.g. Catholics, Greek Orthodox) how is it possible to say who is right or wrong on this question? Therefore, you logic and your beliefs are based on what fallible men have told you. Why do you put your faith in fallible men?

Second, for all you know I could be sent by God to help you see that you have put your faith in a false idol. I have not spoken a word against the possibility that there is some sort of God. Perhaps your entire faith is no different than Mormonism or Islam. How would you know if you can't give good reasons for what you believe? This is why I have never felt threatened by folks with different beliefs. I have nothing to lose but the errors I may hold. Folks who challenge my beliefs are my greatest allies because they help weed error from my Garden of Truth for free. The only beliefs that are threatened by truth are falsehoods. When I was a Christian running my forum, I never banned anyone for challenging my beliefs. On the contrary, it was my greatest joy because I felt I had incontrovertible evidence supporting my beliefs. Of course, I wasn't challenged with the kinds of things that now convince me I was wrong because my focus was on my discovery of the Bible Wheel, which is the only objective evidence supporting the closure of the traditional 66 book canon that I have ever seen. It also stands unrefuted to this day and I still think it is the best evidence. It used to trump all the problems that now convince me that the Bible is not true, so I am simply stuck with a paradox - I have solid evidence that there is a supernatural design in the Bible, but I cannot believe that the God it describes (or at least the traditional interpretation) is true.

neo-x wrote:

You forgot to add Beanybag to your list, he say he's an atheist. So, I gather it's okay for you to preach at others, but you don't like to be challenged.

There are many people here all with different ideas. Apart from Beany, we have pierson, Ivellious and Sandy too(I hope that's right ) Proinsias is agnostic I believe, Echoside is a former agnostic/atheist, B.W is a former atheist, 1over137 is an former atheist, , FL is a former atheist, I am a former atheist. Plus many come and go all the time. There are many more here too, just not regulars.

In fact Echoside and 1over137 were agnostic atheist when they joined this forum. We welcome people and we are challenged almost routinely, B.W point is that there is board guideline, just stay within it. To be honest and speaking as a former atheist, it is one of the few boards where people from opposition are allowed to post with such liberty and choice and not be bullied or ridiculed with personal insults. We respect you, it is only fair that you respect us back, if you disagree with what we believe, sure say all you want but remember there comes a point where the repetition of the points being disagreed upon will just turn into insult and insulting language. E.g you keep on saying, God is sexist, genocidal maniac and other things along the same line. Well, we don't worship a God that fits that description, there is a plethora of apologetics for these issues. If you still disagree than best is to leave it at that and move on to a next topic. There is nothing further which can be done then agree to disagree. If you keep at it, then that is insulting to people beliefs, unless you alone have the truth claim on these issues.

*******BOARD PURPOSE
This message board is publicly open to anyone who wishes to register and participate in discussions, however it is ultimately intended for a specific audience. It is intended to serve as a place for:

Sincere seekers to inquire and ask questions;
Christians to give and receive encouragement and instruction; and
Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and reason sensitively and respectfully.

This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civilized discussions on Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.
********

Now, I am not an admin but as a member, and a senior one at that , my observations are:

Despite the fact that the board has a rather targeted audience we receive people all the time who violate the guidelines and yet we are accommodating. There are many heated debates, by non-christians a lot of times because they take unfair advantage of our politeness. We haven't banned any of your attacks on faith, have we? Though I can assure you that on an atheist board you would have been banned on your second post when attempting to discredit atheism, worse if you had been allowed to stay, you would be the center of every joke and insult one can imagine.

No one is a savage here wanting to burn you and our God whom we worship commanded us to love. You disagree, that is your opinion, not ours. No one wants to see you go, but we do expect you to stay with in the guidelines and the purpose. Every member has to.

The point is that this forum DOES allow agnostics and atheists to participate in discussions and debates. If you don't want to be challenged in the first place then don't enter into the discussion. As far as I can see on this thread most of the insulting language has come from Christian members of the forum like Domo. The only reason there is repetition of points, like genocide is because they keep being challenged, you know it takes two people to keep arguing back and forth when both parties think their ideas are valid. I noticed that you dropped out of the morality debate with Spock (at least for the time being), that's all anyone needs to do if they are tired of arguing back and forth.

When we speak about God, we are specifically referring to the god that is portrayed in the Bible, and what the Bible says about him. Are you saying that we should deny what the Bible says, because it disagrees with your own personal view of god? Why would you say I'm insulting you when I quote chapter and verse that shows where the Biblegod is being biased? I didn't write those words. If you want to discuss and debate then that is what we should do, equally arguing back and forth on whatever topic we are debating. Otherwise don't start.
-

neo-x wrote: In fact Echoside and 1over137 were agnostic atheist when they joined this forum. We welcome people and we are challenged almost routinely, B.W point is that there is board guideline, just stay within it. To be honest and speaking as a former atheist, it is one of the few boards where people from opposition are allowed to post with such liberty and choice and not be bullied or ridiculed with personal insults. We respect you, it is only fair that you respect us back, if you disagree with what we believe, sure say all you want but remember there comes a point where the repetition of the points being disagreed upon will just turn into insult and insulting language. E.g you keep on saying, God is sexist, genocidal maniac and other things along the same line. Well, we don't worship a God that fits that description, there is a plethora of apologetics for these issues. If you still disagree than best is to leave it at that and move on to a next topic. There is nothing further which can be done then agree to disagree. If you keep at it, then that is insulting to people beliefs, unless you alone have the truth claim on these issues.

I have a very different view about the value of our discussions. I do not believe that truth is so relative and ambiguous and meaningless that we should just quit conversations when we come to a disagreement. I think TRUTH (unity of conception with reality) is one of the highest values. It is aligned with LOVE (unity with others) and INTEGRITY (unity of self), etc.

You say that there is a "plethora of apologetics" for the issues we raise. That is true. But quantity is not quality! The vast majority apologetic arguments Christians have produced to defend the problems in the Bible are notable only for their abysmal absurdity. The convince no one but those already convinced. They have no power to compel a rational mind. On the contrary, they repel rationality with great force.

You suggest that if we come to stalemate it would be "best is to leave it at that and move on to a next topic." I think that is absurd. If we come to a stalemate then we know one of two things: either 1) one of the participants is stubbornly holding to falsehood, or 2) the truth is indiscernible on this point. In either case, pursuing the discussion to the point of resolution is in the interest of all parties concerned.

You say "There is nothing further which can be done then agree to disagree." Yes, there is a time to "agree to disagree." And when is that time? After we have isolated and articulated the precise point of disagreement and the reasons for the disagreement. That will benefit everyone. We are limited and fallible people so it is inevitable that we will encounter points of irreconcilable disagreement. But that doesn't mean we can't come to perfect clarity about the nature and reasons for our disagreements.

neo-x wrote: *******BOARD PURPOSE
This message board is publicly open to anyone who wishes to register and participate in discussions, however it is ultimately intended for a specific audience. It is intended to serve as a place for:

Sincere seekers to inquire and ask questions;
Christians to give and receive encouragement and instruction; and
Non-Christians who are willing to "walk a thin line" and reason sensitively and respectfully.

This board is not for those who have strongly made up their mind that Christ is "not" for them; who merely wish to put down, debate, and argue against essential Christian beliefs. As such, those who are Christian, have not made up their minds, or desire civilized discussions on Christianity are encouraged to join, while others who merely wish to attack and try to discredit Christianity are discouraged and will be heavily moderated.
********

I'm totally willing to "walk a thin line." It would have been a lot easier if folks on this board, including a certain admin, had shown by example the standards we all are expected to obey.

neo-x wrote: Now, I am not an admin but as a member, and a senior one at that , my observations are:

Despite the fact that the board has a rather targeted audience we receive people all the time who violate the guidelines and yet we are accommodating. There are many heated debates, by non-christians a lot of times because they take unfair advantage of our politeness. We haven't banned any of your attacks on faith, have we? Though I can assure you that on an atheist board you would have been banned on your second post when attempting to discredit atheism, worse if you had been allowed to stay, you would be the center of every joke and insult one can imagine.

Is that a joke? If Butterfly or I had spoken the way we were spoken to by some Christians on this board, we would most likely have been quickly banned. But overall, I am pleased with tone of the conversation.

neo-x wrote: No one is a savage here wanting to burn you and our God whom we worship commanded us to love. You disagree, that is your opinion, not ours. No one wants to see you go, but we do expect you to stay with in the guidelines and the purpose. Every member has to.

Excellent! I am in total agreement that we all should seek to carry on our discourse with much logic and mutual respect.