Chris,

Thank you very much for your good response, and I, also, wish to affirm my respect for you as a person and express my appreciation for the fine manner in which you seek to uphold your point of view. I commend you for your thoroughness and forthrightness combined with what I take to be an attitude of humility. I hope you will detect the same attitude on my part for though I vigorously disagree with your main premises (as you do mine) I yet esteem you as one who possesses great inherent value and worth because you are made in the image of God. I have long ago given up thinking I am able to “save” anyone.
Should you ever declare yourself a follower of the Christ (even though now you don’t believe He ever existed), it will not be due to any power of illumination on my part. My aim is mostly to demonstrate that the Christian system of belief is coherent within itself and is really the only worldview that comports and makes sense of reality.

As for a shared belief in a common ancestor I think I agree with you, but I suspect we may disagree as to who (or what) it is (another topic for discussion some time, perhaps).

Be that as it may, let me proceed to offer some thoughts on your very helpful rejoinder to my last email.

Believing the Bible in Its Entirety
You make a gallant effort to rehabilitate your thesis that Christians have changed the meaning of the law of God and because they fail to live by it in its entirety (e.g., practicing slavery, eating shellfish, observing the Sabbath, not executing adulterers and homosexuals, etc.), it demonstrates the incompetence of the Bible to be a moral guide. But I still find your thesis unsustainable.

A major aspect of my response has been to demonstrate that the Biblical text itself bears out distinctions between temporal aspects of the law (e.g., parapets on roofs of houses, dietary laws, sacrifices, etc.) and those that are eternally valid (e.g. prohibitions against murder, stealing, etc.). However, even in the temporal “husks” of laws framed in terms of ancient culture a permanent, abiding moral standard inheres. As one example, the parapet law (Deut. 22: required a fence on the rooftops of homes because roofs were flat and people often spent much time on them (cfr. 2 Sam. 11:2; 18:24). That specific case law embodied the principle of the Sixth Commandment of guarding and protecting life. Christians who fail to erect fences on the rootops of their homes are not guilty of disregarding the law of God, but they well might be if they fail to fence in an in-ground (or above-ground) swimming pool.

Jesus did indeed uphold the validity of the law of God given through Moses (Matt. 5:17-20), but its “fulfillment” can mean a change in its outward shape though the underlying moral principle continues for all time. Again, an example of this would be Jesus’ declaring all foods clean (Mark 7:19). Frankly, I am not aware of Paul changing any law “when he became inspired.” He, like the other Apostles, recognized the focal point of the work of Christ in fulfilling laws meant to demarcate Israel as a distinctive nation and laws that typified His work (as the writer of Hebrews explains).

You observe rightly that the Sabbath law is contained in the Ten Commandments and that many Christians today ignore this. However, I do not believe it is accurate to say that this “isn’t something reflected today in Christian teaching.” I agree that many Christians are inconsistent on Sabbath observance, but submit that it is not due to the untenable-ness or anachronism of this moral law. Inconsistency in practice does not necessarily connote a problem with the system. It can also mean a problem with the practitioner. Though I recognize certain temporal aspects of the Biblical laws regarding the Sabbath (e.g. plowing of fields in the seventh year, Jubilee, seventh-day, etc.), the Sabbath principle is still abiding for today, and we Christian ministers declare it to be such. The fact that I do not picket Wal-Mart does not mean I condone it being open for business on the Lord’s Day. I “picket” Wal-Mart by not patronizing it on Sunday. I’ll admit that sometimes my practice is not as good as my theology in other areas of Sabbath observance, but the problem is not with the Bible, but with me!

The man who was executed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32ff.) was one who did so in direct defiance of Almighty God. This wasn’t a guy who innocently went out one morning to start fire to keep warm. His actions were a direct challenge to the kingship of Yahweh’s rule. The context shows it as an example of such defiance (v. 30) as to be liable to capital punishment (v. 35).

It’s interesting that pre-Second Temple Judaism was much derelict in its Sabbath observance. Was that because they believed it irrelevant? Hardly. They viewed Sabbath laws as interfering with their selfish gains (Isaiah 58) and failed to see that they would instead prosper by showing their love for God through obedience.

Though I hold that the New Covenant Church is now to be viewed as God’s people (1 Pet. 2:9), I don’t believe I’ve indicated that it is in every respect the same as Old Covenant Israel. There are continuities, to be sure, but there are also discontinuities also. I don’t know the source of the lengthy quote you offer, but I would be almost certain that this person as well would make the same distinctions as I do regarding the moral and ceremonial aspects of the law. If not, he or she would be in a distinct minority.

Galileo
I don’t agree with your assessment of Galileo. Whether or not he was a genuine believer in God isn’t the point. Your views of Galileo put him more in line with Kant than the age in which he lived. His beef with the Roman Catholic Church was about a Copernican versus an Aristotelian view of the universe. In essence it was an intramural debate that went bad. Actually, the Catholic Church had been so wedded to Aristotle that it couldn’t make a distinction between him and Christian teaching. To challenge Aristotle was to challenge the Church.

You do not give a source of the quote from Galileo so it is difficult to ascertain its context, but in a 1615 letter to Madame Christina Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany, he wrote, “I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the Holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood." (Stillman Drake, Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo (Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957), p. 181).

Galileo said this of Copernicus, “He did not ignore the Bible, but he knew very well that if his doctrine were proved, then it could not contradict the Scripture when they were rightly understood" (ibid., pp. 179-80).

And about Augustine’s view of faith seeking understanding, Galileo wrote, “And in St. Augustine [in the seventh letter to Marcellinus] we read: 'If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there’” (ibid., p. 186).

It is unfortunate that the Galileo affair is marshaled as primary evidence that free inquiry was only possible only after science liberated itself from the theological chains of the Middle Ages. The Roman Catholic Church had its problems (still does), but Galileo did not repudiate a Biblical worldview. He believed he could be a man of science and a Christian (though even in many respects he apparently did not live up to the Biblical standards of morality when he abandoned his wife to go to Tuscany).

Evolution
The matter of evolution and whether it is a fact or theory would take up much more space than I have time for at present. I am not so much interested in discussing the particular evidences for or against it as I am in exploring its implications if it is a fact.

It is interesting to me that those who challenge evolution on the basis of science are treated in a similar vein as Galileo was by the Church. They are not confined to house arrest as Galileo, but they are labeled disturbers of the peace and ostracized for promoting “junk” science. But his can become a topic of discussion at a later time, if you desire.

Stem Cell Research
I think you are right that the debate is in the “early stages” so that success or failure in either direction is “foolhardy.” However, many forget this very thing and make claims that the research (as far I understand it) cannot bear out. Sure, it might offer hope for various ailments, but there is as yet no solid basis for these claims.

As far as the issue of the soul, your argument relies upon a specific theory of how the soul might be transmitted. There are other views as well, but these do not seem to be to be a necessary avenue to debate. The Scriptures do not tell us how the soul and body are united. Creationism and traducianism have their strengths and weaknesses but neither is beyond dispute. The Bible does indicate that God at least at conception considers the union of cells a “person” (Jer. 1:5 – “before I formed you in the womb”). The fact that God “knew” Jeremiah even before conception could make a stronger case that human conception should not be used for experimentation.

What I fail to understand is how, on a non-Christian basis, personhood can be concretely determined? Viability? Third trimester? Birth? Brain waves? Utility? How can a morality and worldview that is non-absolute (as yours is) even say what a person is, much less what ought to be done regarding research on human embryos?

Regarding the burning hospital scenario, from a strictly utilitarian standpoint (“greatest good for the greatest number”) the 50 human embryos would be saved without any hesitation. From a Christian point of view the scenario is a false dilemma based upon developmental factors. The question may just as well be posed, “Whom would you save? A newborn baby, a five-year old, a college graduate, or a senior citizen?”

In my country an eagle’s egg cannot be destroyed, even accidentally, without impunity, but a 30-week fetus may. This demonstrates some warped ethics to my way of thinking.

Slavery
My Christian ethic views the “slavery” (indentured servanthood) of the Mosaic legislation on the same par with the legislation regarding polygamy, divorce and remarriage. Neither slavery, polygamy, nor divorce was a part of God’s original created order. Man is responsible for these less than ideal conditions. God certainly could have prevented sin from marring the works, but it was not His purpose to do so as He purposed to bring glory to Himself in ordaining the fall of man. So discussions based on what God could have or should have done or allowed with respect to sin are fruitless from a Christian point of view. What He has purposed is ultimately for the highest good, His glory. Now, there will be no slavery or divorce in the consummated heaven and earth. Until that time, divorce and even “slavery” can and will occur. God did not command divorce; He regulated it and legislated against its abuse due to the hardness of man’s heart (Matt. 19: – same thing with slavery.

God has His purposes for slavery. Since the fall of man, slavery is a fact of life in various forms for every person. Mankind (not necessary every particular person) will always try to place under bondage his fellow man. And every person starts out as a slave to sin. At the core every person is selfish and full of pride. Just as God uses sickness and disease for His purpose, so He used slavery and bondage for a greater good.

Again, I’ll not go over the same ground as before but address some of your specific concerns for I believe it represents a misunderstanding of what the Bible is doing regarding slavery.

Biblical “slavery” is not on a par with murder, stealing, and various other sins. Servanthood is clearly contained in the Ten Commandments as a fact of life – “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor” (Ex. 20:17).

Your understanding of Exodus 21:20-21 fails to consider the context dealing with restitution. Certain principles of liability appear. The guilty party is liable for the medical expenses of the injured (Ex. 21:19). The guilty party is also responsible for the lost time from work (21:19). If the guilty party was an owner, and the injured party was his slave, then there was liability for death or for injury, but not for time lost, since the loss was the loss of the owner; he had at this point damaged himself (Ex. 21:20-21; Lev. 24:17-20).

Israelites were forbidden to sell slaves (Ex. 21:16). They could purchase slaves sold by other countries because of punishments for crime or for debts, but they could not abuse them. If a slave ran away from his master, he could not be returned to him (Deut. 23:15-16). The presumption is that an owner would not abuse his servants and the flight of the slave was prima facie evidence that he was. If the slave ran away, he could not get him back, and may be guilty of other crimes. Ownership was not of the person but of the labor. It was an ancient welfare system. Israelite slaves could not be slaves permanently unless they chose to voluntarily. The slave was a member of the household with rights therein. And a slave market did not exist in Israel.

Slavery as practiced in the UK and US in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was abominable by Biblical standards. But even if it had been structured according to Biblical norms there was good reason to work towards abolishment of it just as societies under Christian influence did so regarding polygamy. The Apostle Paul wrote, “Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you — although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord’s freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ’s slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.” (1 Corinthians 7:21-23). Some understand Paul to be exhorting Philemon to free Onesimus (Philemon 15). Slavery does not need to be explicitly abolished in the books of the Bible for the seeds of the new era of the kingdom of Christ to do its work in replacing it.

But all this detail is really beside the point. I have a basis for evaluating the institution of slavery – creation and the fall. The question you must answer is: “On what basis can I justifiably condemn Biblical ‘slavery’ (indentured servanthood)?” What standard of morality or even personhood justifies a prohibition on your part? How can you judge a society such as the Aztecs, Incas, Egyptians, certain American Indian tribes, or certain African tribes that practiced and built their civilizations on the back of slaves, and if so, how? It seems to me you would want to avoid a utilitarian or a natural law ethic as you employ elsewhere (“all of these things required the help of other humans …”; “One only needs to look at the animal kingdom to see morality at work”) because both can be a two-edged sword.

Making Sense of Evil/Basis of Morality/Right v. Wrong
My remarks about evil being a “problem” was to the effect that only on the basis of a Christian worldview can one speak meaningfully about “evil.” In order to talk meaningfully about evil you must adopt the Christian worldview. I posit the basis for the Christian ethic in the person and character of God and His revelation in Scripture (and nature as interpreted through the lens of Scripture), and specifically creation and the fall.

It is interesting that the Bible being its own interpreter is a “vague and metaphorical” notion to you. Surely you have not become agnostic regarding the communication process. I recognize that communication has a subjective component to it, but if you jettison any objectivity in the communication dynamic, there can be no such thing as real communication. The sentence, “This is the work of a brain, and it is used to process all information that comes in through the senses” then would be meaningless. I have not in the least made the assertion that a claim makes something true, but that there are things that carry self-attesting authority. People used to speak of “self evident” truths. They may have disagreed about what they were, but they didn’t dispute the notion. I suspect that you probably consider your morality self evident, for otherwise how would you empirically establish the notion of morality? You might establish the behavior, but you haven’t proved “morality.”

Your view on the limits to God’s freedom based upon His moral guidelines assumes a non-Christian view of reality to which I do not subscribe. As a Christian I hold that there are no independent rules of morality outside of God to which He is subject. Truth and morality are expressions of His nature. It is an abstraction to suppose that God is somehow limited because He cannot lie, fail, or be righteous. If there were an athlete who could never fail I doubt if he would take it as a limitation that the one thing he could not do was lose! Your view reflects Western philosophy’s failure to solve the problem of the “One and the Many” because man, starting from himself, cannot arrive at an equally ultimate one and many in which unity and particularity can meaningfully relate to one another. The Christian truth of the teaching on the Trinity, however, can account meaningfully for an absolute One and an absolute Many.

You look to nature for a basis for morality. You observe that many animals belong to herds or flocks for mutual strength and survival. You apply that to the human species, but the question is why that and not others? But again, on the basis of a herd ethic, how can the individual have meaning except as it contributes to the whole? Many pack animals are known for their propensity to drive away (or kill) any member that fails to measure up or for no observable reason at all. In short, this type of reasoning is guilty of the naturalistic fallacy.

Unless I misunderstood, I understand you to be saying that morality is person-specific, not absolute, that it is connected to survival, and affected by the “ideals” of others in society. You believe it is wrong to discriminate because others are different and that morality must be meaningful due to the struggles of minorities. But, of course, all of this begs the question as to how to establish a basis for morality at all especially in view of your evolutionary worldview. How do you get an “ought” from an “is”? And why is discriminating against someone because they are different wrong? Animals do it all the time. If you really subscribe to natural selection how can you not discriminate? On your own basis, this seems to be very arbitrary to me.

I would agree that progress is being made as you do. But I believe it is in spite of your worldview and not because of it. On your view, how can you discriminate (in the sense of evaluating) between a developed nation and an undeveloped one?

From an evolutionary standpoint you see opposition to murder as self-evident. However, one could indeed argue that society could survive through fear of being killed by others. The mechanism of adaptation would come into play.
Undoubtedly, you believe this is a rational explanation for the human species surviving, but from an evolutionary standpoint, perhaps the human species should not survive. Murder, mayhem, and whatever else may very well contribute to a superior gene pool after all.

I applaud your confidence in expecting the morality you hold today to march on and grow stronger a hundred years from now, but you’ve provided no solid basis for why it should. Could it not possibly happen that in a hundred years some social engineers or psychologists might find a meaningful rationale for eradicating the world of midgets, pygmies, homosexuals, and even Christians!

Religion Changes
I agree that there are changes within religion just as there are changes within a person from childhood to adulthood. There may be some religions that look nothing like their beginning, but within Christianity there is amazing continuity while at the same time progression. Very few things in life remain static.

I’m intrigued that you deny the concept of chance behind evolution. Are you then, in fact, a determinist? Are there inflexible laws of the universe that determine everyone’s fate and so your function of choice is just an illusion?
Is the universe derived from a basic impersonalism or personalism, or a combination of the two? If you reject chance then are you a believer in some kind of “eternal mind?” It appears you have thought much about this, and I would be most interested to hear more about your views on this if you care to elaborate.

Higher Rates of Murder, Etc.
I’m somewhat confused by this line of discussion. It seems that earlier you were extolling progress in nations that were developing. I do appreciate that you want to be fair in placing blame on the problems in Africa, and I am not privy to what every “Christian” group is or isn’t doing. But assigning causality is a tricky business. People have killed and harmed (unjustifiably) in the name of Christianity. They have done so in the name of science (e.g. Mengele, Tuskeegee experiments, Manhattan project, etc.), politics (Mao, Stalin, Hitler), and sex (Japanese in 1937, sex trade in Africa, etc.). As some of my Second Amendments pals like to say, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” In your sense, not only religion, but science, politics, sex, guns, and rock ‘n roll have all “caused” the deaths of many people. It doesn’t seem to me to advance your argument.

You know, I agree that it does seem to go against our “natural biological instincts” to eschew sex until marriage. But then, some have “natural instincts” to have sex with animals, little children, dead people, and coke bottles. If the Bible is what it claims (its claims, not mine), then our “natural instincts” are not really natural but corrupted to a large extent. One of the prominent messages of the Bible is that natural man has exchange the truth of God for a lie (Rom. 1:18ff) and has become darkened in his understanding (Eph. 4:17ff).

Flood
About the flood, I do believe there are mountains of physiological evidence for a worldwide flood, but my belief in it is not ultimately dependent upon the spade of an archaeologist or the diggings of a paleontologist. Because there is no ultimate disagreement between faith and science there will be evidence for historical accounts recounted in Scripture. Sometime later we can explore this if you wish.

Why did God destroy mankind in the flood? The text says that man’s wickedness had become great (Gen. 6:5). I suppose God could have “snapped His fingers” and made man listen up and obey. God doesn’t use His Word as a magic wand to whip people into shape. Maybe it would be a lot simpler if He did, but imposing how God must operate is not something I’m qualified to do.

Genesis 6:9 describes Noah as blameless among the people, so it’s likely that Noah’s drunkenness was accidental. Some suggest that Noah was unfamiliar with vineyard husbandry and the fiery nature of wine. But whether or not, Noah’s survival was God’s sovereign choice (Gen. 6:.

The Scriptures do not view children as “innocent” in terms of their being free from liability before Almighty God (i.e. original sin).

Necessity of Scripture
Perhaps I should expand on this just a bit. Revelation from God is both in nature and in word. Both are authoritative because they are from God. Due to sin the Scriptures are necessary to be the corrective lens to interpret everything. Man knows God apart from Scripture, but not in a saving way.
Fallen man corrupts and twists what Scripture says, to be sure, but it is an infallible, objective witness to his corruption and ignorance of the truth.

Furthermore, the truth he does glean from creation is suppressed. Still, this knowledge is sufficient to render him without any excuse before God. No person can ever claim ignorance of God. The law of God written on the heart is not only the truth that God exists but that things like murder are wrong, that love is good, etc.

The Scriptures give to man a saving knowledge of God. They are necessary for a more complete, though not exhaustive, knowledge of God and His will. Mankind knows enough of right and wrong (Rom. 1:32) apart from Scripture, but the written revelation of God in Scripture gives a more exact, precise, and comprehensive understanding of God’s will for the reclaiming of God’s fallen creation.

Applying the Ten Commandments to Society
It seems to me important to understand that no disestablishment of “religion” as such is possible in any society. A church can be disestablished, and a particular religion can be supplanted by another, but the change is simply to another religion. No society can exist without a law-system that codifies the morality of its belief system/religion (e.g. Christianity, Islam, Communism, Humanism, Secularism, etc.).

There are differing views within the history of Christendom regarding the civil magistrate’s responsibility to uphold the Ten Commandments. Some view the first table of the Law (Commandments 1-4) as delineating sins and not crimes so the magistrate has no jurisdiction here. Others view both tables of the Law (1-4 and 5-10) as crimes as well as sins falling under the jurisdiction of the state.
Others subscribe to a common law of nations that roughly parallels the Ten Commandments but the Commandments themselves are not within the State’s purview.

It seems to me the discussion is not as cut and dry as one might suppose. The American experiment separated church from state because in Western civilization religious truth became mostly identified with a particular denomination or group that often wielded power through the state or vice versa. However, I find in Scripture the civil magistrate is responsible before God for both tables of the Law, not just the second.

In America things have worked fairly well in this regard, but as secularism becomes more and more dominant it begins to look like, and take on, most of the same characteristics of religion. It has the best of both worlds in not being subject to the First Amendment while at the same time being the dominant worldview that informs laws, public policy, etc. All this to say that I, as a Christian value choice, but I also value truth. When the two come into conflict it’s not always easy to reconcile.

In part I can understand your viewpoint that Christian societies really don’t believe what they say they do. The UK, as I understand it, is Christian on paper but secular in practice. In the Europe Christianity has waned and the institutions that sprang from it are mostly marginalized.

I’m not for imposing any religion on anyone. Unlike Islam, Christians do not conquer by the sword, but by Scripture and sound reason. As societies are once again persuaded that the truth of Scripture is right and use it again as the basis for every sphere of life (Deut. 4:6), Christianity will once again not only be enshrined in public documents, but will be written on the hearts of the populace. Christian societies had to learn this painful truth as well since historically freedom of religion meant only freedom of choice between various geographical areas.

A big part of the problem in your discussion in this area, I believe, stems from not making a distinction between a sin and a crime. The case laws of Exodus through Deuteronomy are instructive in making these kinds of distinctions. The civil magistrate is not charged with enforcing personal belief, but rather public behavior.

For example, it is a sin to hate one’s neighbor (Lev. 19:17), but one should not be charged with a crime or incarcerated for it. However, if a person acts on his hate and assaults or murders another, then a crime has been committed. “Hate crime” legislation in our country blurs this distinction and ends up being very arbitrary as well.

I see we agree that lying to a friend is not generally a civil offense, and that lying under oath in a courtroom is.

Unbelief is a personal sin before God, but not a crime in the eyes of the state and therefore not punishable. However, if someone seeks to overthrow the laws of the land and counsels sedition or treason, there may be sanctions. This is the point of Deuteronomy 13 and forms the basis for treason laws.

Assuming that the populace in a representative republic adopted a constitution based on the Ten Commandments, prohibition of idolatry would be a public crime, not a private one (it could be sanctioned as well ecclesiastically if the person belonged to a church, although not through force). If someone followed Buddha in his or her home, it would not be grounds for a public trial unless he or she advocated publicly for it (freedom of speech is not absolute even in the US, e.g. the Don Imus controversy, April. 2007).

As far as the Sabbath “blue” laws are concerned, here in this country the government imposes many strictures and obligations upon business and commerce for paternalistic reasons based upon a certain morality. Laws reflect that morality. If the government can mandate that companies may not trade with certain countries, why can it not mandate that they may not violate the eternal command of God contained in the Fourth Commandment?

Most of the applications you cite tend to evaluate a law based upon its perceived effects (jails being full, too many children in the court system, etc.). This may play some role in penology, but as a Christian, I cannot subscribe to the smorgasbord approach you adopt. For me, the question is “Whose morality? Yours or God’s.”

Christians in this country are speaking out in the courts and in the halls of government against homosexual “rights.” There are some areas where Biblical law and the laws of some of the Islamic nations agree. This should not be surprising. Homosexuality is contrary to nature (Rom. 1:26). I may disagree with how they often make no distinction between the public and private realms (but I do not, therefore, think everything done in private is off limits from the state, e.g. child molestation), but at least they are not regressing in this area.

I don’t recall saying that Christians are opposed to gays because they wish to eradicate AIDS. I have no reason to quarrel with your lesson on the spread of it. Christians are opposed to homosexuality because Scripture condemns it.

Age of the Universe and Earth
As you, I believe that science confirms the constancy of the speed of light. What science seems to be showing is that time is not a constant. Stephen Hawking believes that time is “pear shaped” and has added relativistic time dilation to his early big-bang universe (The Universe in a Nutshell, 2001, p. 40). This provides promise for credible explanations of varying cosmic times scales and many are working on how this fits in with six-day earth creation.
John Hartnett, for example, incorporates Einstein’s and Hawking’s theories to explain an old cosmos but a young solar system and earth. The “near-field” problem you speak can possibly fit into his model of creationism. I’m not saying he’s right, but it shows how faith and science can be integrated.

Jesus’ Existence
The Dionysus story is not the only one that counterfeits the Messiah of prophetic Scripture. Other legends such as the Gilgamesh Epic mirror the Biblical accounts. There are many others as well. Still, the gospels are unique in their own right because of the system of truth to which they belong.

I simply fail to understand how you can meaningfully make your moral judgments and argue for them beyond other than, “This is what I think it should be.” My moral judgments are not based on what I prefer but on the argument for the impossibility of the non-existence of God. You talk of chance of timing, but on your worldview you cannot make sense of chance and timing. On my perspective, your birthplace and mine inhere because of the plan of God. There is nothing random about it.

From your point of view religion is a deus ex machina, but that assumes the non-existence of God. From your starting assumptions I would expect you to view the Christian religion as such. Purely naturalistic explanations can only take one so far though. Plato discovered this when he appealed to the gods to explain how the world of the forms come into contact with the material world. A purely naturalistic explanation was not sufficient.

Evidence for God
The evidence for the existence of God is clear but people suppress it in their unbelief. Your belief system cannot account for morals – at least the kind of morals that can make meaningful, transcendent, judgments. All your morality can say is that at this moment you believe murder to be wrong because you can’t imagine how it benefits the human race. But you have no basis upon which to evaluate what does or does not “benefit.” You have no assurance that such will continually be the case or even should be the case. You really cannot judge any other standard that disagrees with your view of morality other than it is “different” (and even then your worldview cannot distinguish between difference and sameness; though you know better because you live in the world God made and cannot escape these God-created facts). Perhaps the human species is just a stepping-stone to another evolutionary rung, and murder may help the process along.

What Only Matters is Believing In One God
I hope I have understood you here. If I have not, please correct me. I do hold that believing in the one, true God is essential for life (this and the one beyond) because truth is a coherent whole. But it doesn’t make the other matters we have been discussing irrelevant. Good works by an atheist and a Christian have significance on a human level. However, the greatest duty every person has is to love God with his/her entire being. As the creature of God everything I am and have depends upon Him. Shall the clay say to the potter, “What are you making?”

But it is God who determines what is truly good. I refer you to read Matthew 19:16-26. Murders, rapists, child molesters, and thieves who repent, turn to Christ, and follow Him will indeed go to heaven. They won’t stay murders, rapists, and child molesters though. You rank these sins as heinous, and they are, but in God’s eyes, so is the one who refuses to love and walk with Almighty God who has clearly revealed Himself. People may never kill or rape anyone, but they reject the source and fountain of truth and knowledge. Separated from God they will inevitably express their hatred for God in heinous ways.

I don’t know why you don’t consider it good news that God loved the world such that He gave His Son, Jesus, that whoever believes in Him might have eternal life now and forever (a quality of existence as well as quantity)? I find that incredible news! I suspect people don’t want to believe because they love themselves, their own understanding, and their own ways more than God who clearly tells them the truth and comes to them in Christ.

I’ve yet to see people argue against the existence of the tooth fairy and Santa as they do against the God of the Bible. These do not have the self-attesting authority that the God of Scripture carries. Things that are obviously fantasy are not worth the time.

“Religion” is word that has been confined to theistic devotion, but in its broad sense religion is any belief system. I have my beefs as you do with how some “religions” and “denominations” work out the truth. I have beefs with politicians, educators, artists, and musicians as well. They have problems with me. But the problem is not with the Christian worldview. The problem is with people. Even though I belong to God because of His work in Christ I have not yet been perfected. If your problem with the “effects” of religion has to do with hypocrisy, insensitivity and the like, I can stand with you on things like these. If your problem is with the firm belief in an absolute triune God who is the lawgiver, judge, and Savior and the absolute truth that comes from Him, then it’s a different story.

As always, Chris, it’s been a delight to correspond with you. I do hope to converse again. I’m sorry it has taken so long to respond but my schedule does not allow me to get to things right away. Thanks for your patience.

I do wish you the best. I shall indeed try to avoid the “eighth” sin of fomenting strife in exchanges. I’m grateful for your participation in this adventure.

Sincerely,

Michael

_______________________________

Michael,

Thank you for your latest message. I apologise for the lateness of my previous one. A few days passed before I was informed by automated email it had not reached you, and after sending it again, I was informed of yet another delay. Still, science is trying to iron out these things, and we should be grateful science overcame certain difficulties so we could reach the point in which you and I could communicate so easily from such a great distance. The lateness of this one was due to a very busy couple of weeks.
I am especially grateful you were able to find a way to acknowledge the 'eighth' sin yet continue conversing with me. Interpreting the word 'debate' to mean 'fomenting strife in exchanges' is something my limited mind could not have dreamt up.
I find myself limited in understanding how I am an image of the Judeo-Christian god too. I am neither invisible nor everywhere at once, although I think I have put on a little weight recently to fill up more of the Universe.

Ceremonial Laws-

Regarding the ceremonial laws that became 'fulfilled', I can see how something like erecting a fence on ones roof may protect life, although the protection is from manslaughter, not murder as indicated in the sixth law. You mention a moral standard inherent in the other old laws too, but I do not see the underlying morality of not wearing clothes made of two materials, not eating shellfish or sacrificing animals because the smell is pleasing to God, just to mention a few. If an underlying moral code exists in some of the old laws, it is certainly not apparent in all. On the point of the law not to murder, this is certainly not set in stone, for elsewhere in the Bible, God is commanding his followers to murder certain people. I will address this issue in more detail shortly.

If Paul becoming inspired led him to start the Christian movement and remove Old Testament laws which Jesus said must be followed just a generation earlier, I cannot see how you are unaware of this. Perhaps my wording was off, but that is what I meant.

The views of the Christian who thought of the modern church as still being God's people, bound by the same laws as the Israelites can be found here- http://seedsofrestoration.wordpress.com/2007/04/03/christianscheck-your-filter/
This individual does think all of the laws should be followed, and while you say this person would be in the minority, I would now like to quote from one of your previous emails.
You wrote: 'But from my perspective, if I am understanding Biblical justice correctly, Biblical authority does not bow to a majority vote.'

The Proof of Existence of Jesus (or Lack Thereof)-
Your claim that many stories were counterfeits of the Jesus story would hold weight, had the counterfeits not come first. Unless people were capable of travelling through time, I do not see how the story of Jesus is the true one, if indeed any are true.

Matters of Science-
Part One. Galileo-

You mention how Galileo was going against the teachings of Aristotle and not that of the Christian worldview. The Christian worldview rests on the Bible, so I feel it prudent to explore passages within the Bible that Galileo's (and other oppressed scientists' ) research did not agree with.
On the idea that the Earth does not move, these scriptures are worth noting. 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1 and Psalm 96:10: '...The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved.' Psalm 104:5: 'He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.'

While you will no doubt say these scriptures are open to interpretation or metaphorical, it seems clear that before science expanded our knowledge in these things, the church would of course have taken these things as literal. To go against these beliefs would have gone against the church's view of scripture, supplemented by Aristotle.
I'm not sure I would call Galileo 'primary evidence' for religion's opposition to science, but religion has certainly had an influence in the past. If one were to ignore or explain those events as anything but a matter of religion versus science, present day opposition to science will be alot harder to justify. Stem cell research and the teaching of evolution are indeed held back by religious motives.
Regarding Galileo however, you have shown that there is more to this example than meets the eye. Unless Galileo wrote something along the lines of 'The following statement is a lie' I am unsure how his quotes can be taken as anything other than his speaking out against the pressures laid upon him by the religious people of the day.
To add to the previous quotes, in 'Blind Watchers of the Sky' (Helix Books), authored by Rocky and Edward W. Kolb, p. 101, Galileo is quoted as saying "...nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages."
The words of Cardinal Bellarmino, the 17th Century Church Master Collegio Romano who imprisoned and tortured Galileo, are also difficult to see as anything other than a matter of his opposition to science on religious grounds. "To affirm that the Sun ... is at the centre of the universe and only rotates on its axis without going from east to west, is a very dangerous attitude and one calculated not only to arouse all Scholastic philosophers and theologians but also to injure our holy faith by contradicting the Scriptures."
In Galileo's Recantation, dated 22 June 1633, he wrote "Having been admonished by this Holy Office [the Inquisition] entirely to abandon the false opinion that the Sun was the center of the universe and immovable, and that the Earth was not the center of the same and that it moved... I abjure with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, I curse and detest the said errors and heresies, and generally all and every error and sect contrary to the Holy Catholic Church."
Here is an example of words speaking to us. Reading between the lines, we are aware that this 'confession' was made under the watchful eye of the Inquisition. He also states that his research was heresy, heresy being something that goes against religious teachings, and it is a point he drives home when he says he contradicted Catholic teachings.
However, your quotes need looking into too. There is a contradiction between what he is saying, either due to my quotes being less literal in reality, or yours being made under duress, or some other factor. Discovering the exact context for all these quotes will take time, but it is something I will look into more deeply, and perhaps we can return to this part of our discussion at a later date.

Part Two. Stem Cell Research-

Knowing when life starts for certain is certainly a grey area, but science not being definitive on the issue does not make the Bible's explanation the default answer. In the US you state a fetus 30 weeks old or less can be aborted, in the UK I believe the limit is 22 or 24 weeks. This shows the difference of opinion even between countries.
I am not sure what you mean when you say I cannot know what a person is, a person would be a human, although one cannot say for certain when the human life begins. You speak of God thinking of Jeremiah as a person even before conception, which would mean every sperm that did not make it to the egg was a sacred and precious life which died. From a strictly utilitarian standpoint, one would have nightmares knowing between 400 and 500 million potential humans die in order to create just one. To bring the argument in that direction really does cause more problems for the Christian worldview. Regarding the burning hospital scenario, a Christian could add one sperm or one egg to the list and struggle over whether to save one of those over an already born person. The male body does eventually flush out the sperm it creates, it cannot be stopped. I wonder, from the Christian worldview, how you can possibly sleep at night.

To know that there is no solid basis for the success of embryonic stem cell research at present does not mean the debate is over. It means that more research needs to be done to make a claim one way or the other. Adult stem cells do hold the cure to various human ailments, as the following websites demonstrate.

Here we see the breakthroughs regarding type one diabetes- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article1637528.ece , Metastatic Cancer- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061221074806.htm and the growth of heart tissue- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1602328.ece
But these types of stem cells are limited in what they achieve, and it is the hope of scientists that embryonic stem cells, which have the potential to become any kind of human tissue, could do alot more.
The ethics of the law regarding eagle eggs strikes me as odd. I would guess the reason they are held above human life is due to a rarity of eagles, but I cannot be sure.

Part Three. A Worldwide Flood-

You say there is plenty of evidence to support a worldwide flood, and I could present plenty myself that shows no such flood occured, so at this moment I feel it would add too much to our debate to bring all of that to the table. Piling more things to chew over on to our plate of discussion would make the task daunting, so I suggest we focus on the tasty morsels we have at present. They will be alot more appetizing that way.
I see the difference in opinion regarding why the flood occured and why Noah was saved. You do not feel you can question what your god does, and I feel it shows a lack of love on his part. I suspect we will never come to an agreement on this part of our discussion.

Part Four. The Attitude of Scientists-

Regarding scientists labelling Christian scientists disturbers of the peace, it cannot be compared to the times the church has avoided change. Science only seeks the truth. If they agreed there was scientific evidence there was a creator, that is the information they would share. Science has no ulterior motive, it is unbiased and impartial. What we see with the Christian scientists is a clear discrimination against science that goes against the Bible. They have a belief about how the world came to be and try to make the information fit around that. The truth should not be made to fit around anything, a search for the truth should be just that, uninhibited by ancient texts and illogical thought. Most of the theories these Christians come up with have already been analyzed and dismissed by scientists long ago, and even though they are repackaged and made to look new (creationism to intelligent design) the stale smell of old, disproved ideas wafts well outside the shiny wrapping. The church does not accept deviation from its teachings by new scientific evidence, as it would destroy their worldview. Such change (when it has taken place) takes too long, and comes at a price.

Part Five. The Light of Stars-

You attest to the fact Christians try to make the evidence fit around their religious beliefs in the wording you chose regarding the light of stars. You wrote about one theory, then said 'many are working on how this fits in with six-day earth creation.' So, they ignore every other piece of information gathered, and decide to focus only on the theories that may end up supporting the Bible. Also, the creation story tells of stars being created on the fourth day, which narrows down the amount of time available for their light to reach Earth. One wonders if mankind had to wait a while before stars started appearing in the sky.

Part Six. Evolution-

You have a few misconceptions regarding evolution and chance, so I shall try to clear them up. When you mention laws of the universe determining everyone's fate, you are referring to something such as cosmology, not evolution. Indeed, even life from no life is not evolution, that is abiogenesis. Evolution is simply how living creatures change over time. The animals we see today (including us) have come about by the right changes.
You may agree with the notion of microevolution, which shows small changes occur within a species. All evolution is is a series of small changes over a long amount of time. If you were to visit an elderly man who showed you his family photo album, and turned to a page with a picture of himself as a baby, you would not be surprised that the physical makeup of each was considerably different. You would be aware that it took tiny changes (unnoticable to any observer looking for a short time) over a lengthy number of years for the baby to change and develop into the elderly man.
Every species we see on Earth today has changed in just the right way in order to still be here today. If a species has not changed in a way that guarantees its survival, it has died out. This is known as an evolutionary dead end and scientists believe 98% of all species that have been on Earth have died out, either by these dead ends or changing enough to be called a different species altogether.

A dodo had wings, but they had not developed to the point in which a dodo could take flight. If they had, the dodo may still be around today. Their evolutionary change may have benefited them if man had not found them, and it would have continued. But the species' life was cut short because such a change, if it had come, was too late. Perhaps its legs would have changed so that it could run as fast as an ostrich to avoid being killed, perhaps its brain would have developed in such a way as to be fearful of animals with machines, but of course, the change did not come in time and the dodo is now extinct.

Does the theory that we are only another species of animals, no more significant to the others from a purely evolutionary standpoint, belittle the human species and cast doubt on our 'God given right' to be in control of this planet? Yes. Does wishful thinking that we want to be more than that make something true? No.

Morality-
Part One. The Sabbath Law-

In my personal experience of being raised Christian, I can honestly say that there was little to no teaching of the Sabbath being a work free day, and that we were all to follow it diligently. The fact most people ignore it could be an indicator that the teaching is not emphasised enough in other churches. I cannot speak for you, but I would imagine when you preach to your flock that remembering not to do any gardening or shopping after church is not something you would mention with the frequency of other laws found in the ten commandments. If I am wrong in that assumption, by all means bring it to my attention.

I admire your honesty in admitting you do not follow this law as well as the others, and perhaps it is for the reason of not wanting to be a hypocrite you feel it is inappropriate to teach it very often. I do see the rule as inconvenient. For a heterosexual person to avoid homosexual relations, no effort is required and that law can be followed, enforced and made clear to anyone who disobeys it with relative ease. There is a clear distinction between how you view the law not to be gay and the law not to work on the Sabbath. But not in the Bible. Both are punishable by death.

The action you and other Christians (although I am hesitant to think most) take regarding the knowledge that people are going against the Sabbath law - in your case, not shopping on a Sunday - is nowhere near the amount of action taken to point out the immorality of being gay. Is it not also the duty of the state to put Sabbath workers to death? Should there not be more outrage that this 'sin' has continued for as long as it has? Should you be supporting Wal-Mart other days of the week, knowing full well their stance on Sunday shifts?

For the system of morality you follow to work, there needs to be consistency. Either Sabbath workers should be the target of just as much action as Christians devote to homosexuality, or gays should be 'picketed' against by Christians not attending gay clubs or same sex civil partnerships/marriages, but otherwise remaining silent on the issue.

You mention how the man who picked up sticks did so in direct defiance of God, and was worthy of death. You too, know that it is in direct defiance of God, because the law is part of the moral code you learnt as a child, memorised and believe to be worthy of respect. How will you fare when God judges you on how well you observed that law?

Personally, I have no problems working on a Sunday. I work every third weekend infact as part of my shift rotation. I imagine it would be laughable indeed if Christians called for the deaths of Sabbath workers, and that most Christians would be the ones laughing along with the rest of us. This law is conveniently ignored or only done in part, and to make the comparison if applied to the law on homosexuality, it wouldn't be a big deal to break that law once a week also.

You may mention that according to God, the Sabbath law is important and must be followed, otherwise God will label us sinners. But for something so important, you personally don't pay as much attention to it as you should and neither do most Christians. What is it that filters out this law somewhat in your mind? As I said earlier, I believe it is inconvenient, and this is the reason most people ignore it, even to the point they do not feel God will punish them for disobeying it.

Part Two. Evolution and Morality-

You make some good points regarding morality and the meaning and consequences if it comes from evolution. First let me say that I agree with many of the things you've said, but that it does not make 'human morality' unneccesary.
I do not feel one could argue that as a species, working together has not helped us survive and made life easier. Clearly it has.
As a species we have learnt that treating others with kindness has brought about a greater chance of survival. If one looks at the killing in Iraq now, we see that more people have died there in recent years than in the UK or any state of America during the same timespan. The chance of survival for them diminishes whenever a person capable of procreating is killed before they have the chance. They have adjusted by imposing curfews, having security checks and attemting to capture anyone they believe wants to harm others. But note that for this adjustment to work, the majority of people there need to be opposed to the killing. In a world in which EVERY person was killing another, such adjustments would not work. They would not even be considered. If protection from death was unavailable, the only people who could survive would be those who barricaded themselves in their homes, and found a way to be self sustaining, while at the same time wanting to get past the defences of other barricaded people and inventing new ways to acheive this. An even greater problem would be that of procreation. How could genes be passed on if people wanted to kill others more than they wanted to have sex, or raise children?

It is on this basis that nature has found a way to change us (via evolution) to have the required chemical reactions in our brains (simply another, yet more complex, body organ) so that things like murder and oppression become uncomfortable to carry out.
The same argument can be made for when the brain sends out signals that make us uncomfortable when the body needs food, so much so that we find it impossible to ignore the uncomfortableness of being hungry until we eat.
It is in our genes to change in order to survive. If we do not, the human race could die out. Our brains also function in a way that makes them open to the ideas of others, so how we are raised can affect the way we think. It is no coincidence parents have to teach their children the difference between right and wrong. Passing everything we have learned on to the next generation ensures better survival for the human race.

Part Three. Slavery and Morality-

If indeed something like slavery became neccessary for our very survival, we would have to adopt it again. I'm stretching my mind to understand how it would help us survive, but for the sake of argument and the following I will assume that it is needed. If slavery really was a matter of life or death for the human race, we would of course carry it out. However, as a species that has come together globally, there would almost certainly be regulations to how it was carried out, and at this point in history it would be alot fairer than the Bible's regulations. 'Fairer' from the view of a human living in this time and at this level of evolution.
In two hundred years, who is to say how the brain could have adapted- we may find it better for our survival if only one race is put to work as slaves. But in the here and now, such regulations would most likely include making every able bodied person a slave for a limited amount of time to 'share the burden' or treating slaves as workers who are not to be harmed at all, even with whipping or the like.

The workforce today is effective because most people do their part, gain money to make their lives easier and make a contribution to society as a whole. While slavery did make life easier for a portion of society, the evolution - change and adaptation - of the human race found a more effective way.
I can speak out against how slavery was carried out on the basis that my genes have made my human brain function in such a way that I cannot ignore that I do not want to go back to such a time, as it would not be as effective for our survival.
We understand too that slavery, if carried out on one race is not going to help them survive. Hard labour could shorten their lifespans, for one. Take away the hard labour, allow for people to change what work they do and replace the punishments with rewards, and what we are left with is a good working model of the human workforce today.

Even during times of slavery, it was only seen as something that made life easier for the people in power, not a moral view. A white person kidnapped by black people and forced to be their slave would have no doubt realized it felt wrong and went against everything their brain told them about how a human is to be treated for our better survival. It was carried out because the white man had the technology to be in control, they felt it improved their personal lifestyle (although not human survival) and they had the backing of the Bible, in which God never says slavery is wrong. For this reason, I can say slavery practised by other people such as Aztecs, Incas, Egyptians or other tribes was not 'right' because although it did, I'm sure, help to build the respective societies, it went against the thoughts of the slaves (governed by the brain) and was not as effective for all of humanity's survival as the way in which society works today.

Part Four. Vegetarianism and Morality-

An example in which humans may be changing their views again based on survival is the eating of meat. As a species, we have needed to eat meat in order for our bodies to have the required nutrients and vitamins for strength of body and mind. We have now advanced to the point where we can manufacture alternatives to meat, which contain what the human body needs. As a result, there are now people who are becoming vegetarian.

During our history, there has been a change in how we consider other lifeforms. From caring only about our own race, to caring about all races, to caring about other species. If we advance to the point where none of us feel comfortable eating animals, would this make our actions today wrong? I do not believe so. If someone from a future time looks back and observes that we eat meat, he/she would understand that we needed it for our survival, and that even if we didn't, the urge to eat meat, the fact our brains cause us to feel pleasure when we take a bite of meat, has still been passed on by our genes from a time when we did need it.
Some could argue that the alternatives do not adequately fulfill our nutritional needs, and if it becomes apparent that alternatives are simply not good enough, perhaps people would move away from vegetarianism. It is a change occuring now, so it is difficult to see how we will feel about it in the future, and even harder to see further into the future to a possible time where we once again need to eat meat in order to survive.

We are constantly changing, visually in recent years with the fact humans are growing taller and within the brain, when it changes our worldview in order to help us survive. There is no sense of ultimate perfection, for even if we were to reach a level we considered perfection, no doubt changes in circumstances would require us to change again. 'Perfection' is the way we ought to be in order to have the best chance of survival at a particular point in history. This is why it is important, this is why I believe it holds weight, and this is why I don't believe it should be ignored.

Part Five. Homosexuality and Morality-

If there was no Bible, does this mean one could abandon all law? Would we all start stealing and killing each other without the 'lens of truth' telling us not to? Of course not. Our view of what we can or cannot do in our lives is reliant on what helps us survive the best.

The changing view of homosexuals is a rather obvious example of this. It used to be the case that gay people received harsher treatment by humans than today. In a tribe of people, where survival meant passing on your genes through procreation, a homosexual may have been seen as a danger to this survival, as two members of the same sex are unable to produce offspring. Killing them could have served as a reminder to others not to live a gay lifestyle, but to couple with someone of the opposite sex in order to help the human race survive. Even if this meant burying their natural instincts.
Nowadays, the world has enough people in it that we understand if people are gay, the human race is not going to suffer a blow to its survival chances. Quite the opposite infact. Children without parents could be better off in a family atmosphere, and where gay couples want children of their own, the adoptions can be mutually beneficial. Killing homosexuals would take away humans suitable for helping these children survive, or at the very least grow up in an atmosphere of love, which is what humans crave. I will go further in saying that it may be the case gay people are needed for our very survival, to prevent the Earth becoming overpopulated, and to help look after children already on Earth without families.
Again, changes in the human brain have led to the better treatment and acceptance of homosexuals, because we learn that keeping them alive and treating them as equals is better for our survival at this point in history.

Part Six. Animals and Morality-

You mention animals discriminating others that are different. Does this happen within a species? Different kinds of domesticated cats don't discriminate, they realize they are still cats. Different kinds of domesticated dogs do not discriminate, they realize they are all dogs. Cats may discriminate against dogs, and vice versa, because they belong to different species. You say that many pack animals will drive away or kill a member for no apparent reason, and I would be interested in seeing examples of this. I would also subscribe to the idea that even if it seems there is no apparent reason, the limitation is in our understanding of the animal in question, and not a fact to support animals randomly killing for no purpose. This may require more study on my part.

Part Seven. Empathy and Morality-

So while I spoke of things like compassion and empathy determining our actions, even those things are dependant on our need to survive. It always goes back to that. I have gone into some depth on the desire to maintain the survival of our whole species, but there is reason to treat others well for our own personal survival too. The 'Golden Rule', to treat others the way you would like to be treated, is a very effective way to stay protected.
None of us desire to be killed, and so there is an understanding between us all that in order to stay alive, we all have to refrain from harming others. If a person wants to harm another, they know the possibility exists that someone could harm them. While this rule can be found in the Bible, it can also be found in the teachings of other faiths around the world. It can even be found in people without faith, even moreso because they follow no books calling for the death of others.

I hope I have done well in demonstrating how human morality comes from our need to survive, and while I agree there may be a time down the line in which murder of a group of people may become neccessary, it is my understanding at this point in time that it will do more to damage our species than help it.
Another reason would be that of wanting to enjoy life and not to suffer. It is within us to want to be happy. This is why we listen to music, engage in our hobbies, prefer to eat food which tastes nice rather than something bland. In the same way we want others to survive, because it helps us, we also prefer seeing people happy and not suffering, so that the favour can one day be returned to us, or to acheive a sense of personal happiness from our act of kindness, even if it is not returned. Upon hearing the cries of a baby, most of us will have the desire to do what is neccessary to comfort the child. It becomes uncomfortable to us to allow it to continue crying.

One of the ways in which our body survives is by realizing instantly when we have physical pain. It is the body's way to tell us that it is being damaged, and it becomes an instant reflex to stop that damage. Another way we can experience pain is through our emotions. A very simple way to look at morality is to know when something is causing someone pain, physical or emotional. Slavery, the killing of homosexuals, racism, the poor way women are treated. I can condemn all these things on the basis that they cause physical or emotional suffering, and it is not moral to allow these things to continue, or to take part in them ourselves.

The Danger of Religion.
Part One. When Killing Becomes Justified-

We are all governed by these laws in our minds, except in cases where the brain has developed in a way not in line with the rest of the species (psychopaths, etc) or when the teachings of our religion say that we must kill others in order to keep God happy.
For you to claim it is your God that would allow and infact demand the deaths of people once hated by most people in the past, you cannot be critical in the least of any Muslim who would wish to rob you of your life. Both beliefs are based on ancient texts with no proof which have been passed down as literal truth to children who must believe and obey their parents in order to survive.
If a parent instructs a young child not to jump in the pool, the child risks its life if it decides to disobey. If a parent explains something is hot and therefore dangerous, the child's brain is developed in such a way that it knows it must take heed. And if a parent tells the child that they are at risk of burning forever in hell if they do not believe that they have the one true religion out of the thousands of others, current and historical, the child listens and grows up believing it, ready to pass it to their own children as literal truth.
You are absolutely right when you say a person's choice of religion is not random, but it is not based on God's decision. It is based on geography and upbringing, otherwise if God did determine who to save, he does appear to be keeping it within the family lines of every religious faith.

Part Two. The Conscience Versus Religion-

You hold to the view that the Bible is the ultimate law giver, yet I feel you dodged my question on whether you believe gay people should be put to death. You spoke of Christians trying to get the state to pass laws calling for capital punishment of gays, and I saw this as 'passing the buck'. I ask that you answer the following questions with a direct yes or no, and then expand in any way you see fit.

Do you personally want homosexuals put to death by the state?

Do you personally see Saudi Arabia as a country more in line with God's laws when it comes to the treatment of homosexuals? If so, do you see it as a good thing?

These are difficult questions, as it is not always easy to find our own thoughts in line with what is written in the Bible. Yet killing homosexuals must be something written on our hearts according to the Christian worldview. If it was written in our hearts, it has certainly been rubbed off to an extent, completely in the case of someone like myself. Trusting in God and having faith are extremely dangerous ways to think, in my opinion. If killing gays is not something you feel comfortable with, it is the brain's way of telling you it is going to harm human survival. Yet, you may feel inclined to carry it out based on one out of a thousand religions, which you believe to be true because it was how you were raised. This concerns me greatly.

While it is true homosexuality is still hated by many Christians, could this not be a remnant in their brains of a time gays may have had to be killed in order to boost our survival chances, the result of personal distaste of homosexual acts because they would not feel comfortable engaging in them personally, the result of upbringing by religious parents and/or the uneducated views of AIDS being somehow related to homosexuality?

Part Three. Religious Teaching and Incorrect Beliefs. Hand in Hand?-

It would appear you have not been given the correct teaching about evolution, and I hope I managed to help you in that regard earlier. Another incorrect belief many religious people have is thinking there is a firm link between homosexuality and sexually transmitted diseases.

If I am wrong regarding your view AIDS is somehow related to homosexuality, I apologize. I will however, have to point out the bad structuring of what you said, and the inclusion of a completely unrelated topic at the most inappropriate time.

You wrote:
'It’s happening here in the US as well, and the Christians are opposing it from many angles. But Christians do not advocate persecuting gays. Christians are just as concerned about AIDS and are doing something to try and eradicate it.'

Not only is the comment about AIDS in the same paragraph as Christians' views of homosexuality, the wording makes it look like one of the reasons Christians are opposed to gays, is BECAUSE they wish to eradicate AIDS. For all the relation to the topic at hand, the sentence may as well have been 'Christians are just as concerned about ingrowing toenails and are doing something to try and eradicate it' or 'Christians are just as concerned about headlice and are doing something to try and eradicate it' or 'Christians are just as concerned about cancer and are doing something to try and eradicate it.' There was no relevance to the topic of gays when you mentioned AIDS, but it did seem you were making the connection where none existed.

So on the note of Christians wanting to eradicate AIDS, how are they doing this? Perhaps as a more important question, SHOULD they be doing this? If AIDS is one of the ways God is punishing humans for the sin of Adam, is it right to try and avoid it? If God has his reasons for diseases and who will or won't get them, who are humans to interfere in that plan?

Part Four. When Religious Teaching is Abandoned-

It isn't just gays that should be put to death according to the Christian worldview. If not by individual Christians, it must be the duty of the state to kill adulterers, children who fail to obey, or choose to strike or curse their parents, people who have sex with animals, people who commit incest, Sabbath workers, witches, people of other religions and more. Passing these off as ceremonial laws won't work. If one considers the law on gays to be a moral law, so too must these other people be put to death. I will again ask some direct questions which require a yes or no answer, and then you can proceed however you want.

Is it the duty of the state to kill you, for the many times you have disobeyed the law of the Sabbath?

Is it the duty of the state to rid the country of non-Christians?

Christians used to burn people they considered witches, and in the Bible it talks of witches. Do you believe witches have ever existed?

Clearly many of these capital offences are not even being considered, nevermind being preached or attempted by anyone to be worked into state law.
Mentioning how people who blaspheme, or disobedient children, would clog up the judicial system, I did not mean to say that this is the reason it should not be carried out. I wished to express the humour and audacity of such laws if they were to be passed, as the number of people in jails would leave the remainder outside a tiny proportion of the country's population. Every child disobeys at some point, and almost everyone takes your God's name in vain at some point. Society couldn't function if the minority had to take care of all the inmates. The vast majority of the population in the jails could form their own society and claim back the country with all the manpower they have against such a small minority of 'good' people. In towns and cities, instead of houses, there would have to be wall to wall jails to hold everyone. It is right to think that the laws regarding disobedient children or blasphemers, if applied to the state, would be laughable and unable to function adequately.

You say the moral code found in the Bible is only one that makes sense of reality, but at the same time we abandon certain parts when our worldview changes. Slavery has been abolished, the notion that women are less worthy than men is changing, the Sabbath law is broken by almost everyone, including religious leaders. Even your thoughts on killing certain people is abandoned in some cases, and difficult to admit in others. The Bible makes no sense of the reality we live in unless we ignore the parts we don't like, and if we are choosing which parts to follow, why is the Bible needed as a moral guide at all?

When I gave the examples of countries developing better without the Bible, you discussed how I cannot claim to know what constitutes development from my worldview. While I do not agree with you on this matter, I can also say that the countries in question have developed better in terms of a Christian worldview too. Many of the things achieved are better ways to live Biblically. It seems that in order to follow the Bible better in some regards, one must abandon it.

Part Five. Fighting Religion-

When you say humanity may require other people be put to death in time, including Christians, I can agree. What we have at this moment in time is one country who believes God is on their side, and other countries who believe God is on their side, in control or in the possible hope of controlling nuclear weapons. It is becoming increasingly obvious to me that people need to speak out and address the issue of religion because of this type of danger to our very survival. A Muslim who believes Allah will help him smite all non-muslims needs his dogma inspected extensively and without respect when he gains the technology to kill thousands of people. Christians who believe their God will not allow this to happen need to have their teachings probed, tested and evaluated for proof, and if none is found, we should all question whether it is good to keep telling our children that the Judeo-Christian god will keep us safe, when infact there may be no safety at all.

At this point in history, the survival of our species depends on debating or addressing religious people with logic and reason and getting people to think critically about the religion they believe in, simply because that is what they were raised to believe, and they found it too hard to adopt a non-belief stance or question it due to circumstances in their lives, such as the fear of losing family members. Where before it didn't make as much difference to our survival, more people now speak out against it because it is a threat to our survival. Killing homosexuals, nuclear weapons in the hands of people willing to destroy others in the name of their faith, preventing science which may help humans survive, to name a few.

I expect in your time as a pastor, you have seen the number of people oppposed to religion growing. While before we could have shown respect to a person's beliefs, now it is extremely dangerous to do so. The effects of religion are now a cause of global concern. I would not go so far as to say religious people should be killed at this point though. Within Europe, discussion, science and reason have been enough to lower the number of people calling themselves religious. In the UK, a recent survey by BBC Radio placed the number of churchgoers at 10%, with that number falling each year. George Bush spoke about how he talked to God before invading Iraq. When asked whether he ever prayed with Bush, our Prime Minister Tony Blair laughed and said he had not. The question posed to him would have resulted in mockery if he had stated the opposite. Religion is on the decline in my area of the world, and all without the act of murdering religious people.

I do see a difference between deaths caused by Christianity (and other religions) and deaths caused by science, politics, cars etc. Within science, politics, or the other examples, the purpose is not to kill. The central premise of science is to seek the truth, the central premise of cars is to transport us to different locations easily. A car manufacturer does not create a car with the purpose of killing people, and science or politics does not seek out to kill either. However religion does teach, as one of its central themes, that certain people must be killed. It is not an unintentional bi-product of a system, it is the system.
I am not even sure if you would have me put to death by my actions in trying to turn people away from religion. I offer no other god, but perhaps wanting to turn people away from theirs would be enough to justifiably kill me, according to the kind of morality set out in the Bible.
It is because I value my life, that of my homosexual friends and other human beings that I endeavour to drag religion out into the open and not keep quiet about the dangerous ideology it teaches otherwise good people like you.

As mentioned before, if nuclear weapons are now in the hands of groups of people who wish to see other groups of people destroyed, based on where they happened to be born and what they were taught in the cycle of religious indoctrination, I must try to destroy the problem, before the problem destroys us. It is no longer acceptable for people to say "I have the one true religion and everyone else is wrong."
As a species with the need to survive, each religious claim must be analyzed for proof, for proof is the means in which we govern every other aspect of our lives. To have faith is simply not good enough when we consider the number of opposing religions which always resort to preaching to followers that they must have faith, while switching off their minds to all evidence, logic and reason that contradicts their holy books.

The Ten Commandments-

I will now move on to the topic of the ten commandments and how they should or could be applied to the law of the state. It is your belief that all ten commandments should be applied, as you wrote 'I find in Scripture the civil magistrate is responsible before God for both tables of the Law, not just the second.'
However you also say you are not for imposing any religion on anyone. Muslims have used violence or the threat of violence in order to keep people followers of Islam. So have Christians with regard to Christianity. While the time of conquest is at an end for now, Christians use the fear of hell to keep people religious. Or there is the shunning of apostate family members, the discrimination of atheists (in America) and the promotion of Christianity in third world countries where the help given is done 'in the name of God', and in many cases requires the people to attend services before they can receive help.
There are many ways to impose religion on someone, some more subtle than others. You say that 'As societies are once again persuaded that the truth of Scripture is right and use it again as the basis for every sphere of life (Deut. 4:6), Christianity will once again not only be enshrined in public documents, but will be written on the hearts of the populace.'
How can this be seen as anything other than wanting to impose the religion of Christianity on others? All atheists would have their rights taken away, and the same can be said for Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists etc living in America.

You have made the automatic assumption that your religion is the true one, but no one can know for sure. This is why conflicts arise between religions, and to say most people in your country agree Christianity is the correct way to live is no justification either. If you lived in Iran, it would be Christianity which would be the minority. People wanting to keep church and state seperate do so for your benefit too. If another religion were to gain popularity within the higher parts of power, then you would almost certainly be opposed. Can you imagine having 'In Allah we trust' on your money? Christians would be screaming from the rooftops "Seperate church and state!" Wanting to have the two connected more closely at this time does open up that possibility.

If idolatry were to become a public crime, I see many problems arising even amongst Christianity. Which sect would have the right to say their version of the ten commandments was the correct one? There is more than one set in the Bible. Catholics could make a strong case for their idols, others may disagree, but when considering these things for state law, who wins? Is it a majority vote based on which religion is the most popular at the time? How often would it have to be reviewed? But even outside of Catholicism and other religions which have idols, what would be the distinction between something being an idol or not? A statue of Jesus dying on a cross could be outlawed, but what about the crosses many people wear around their necks? Would that be considered a form of idolatry too? These things are not quite so easy to put into practice as one may think.

We see a similar problem with the Sabbath law. Which day becomes the Sabbath? It varies between Saturday and Sunday depending on which sect you belong to. Should one rule over the other by a majority vote? Should both days be considered Sabbaths? Exactly what would constitute working on the Sabbath? Shopping and gardening could be rather obvious examples, but what about cooking, picking up sticks, taking the dog for a walk, driving? How would this law be enforced? No policemen could work. And on that point, what about firefighters, ambulance drivers, hospital staff, sea rescue personel, authors, even pastors? Which jobs would be allowed and which would not? If a job is allowed if it is a matter of life and death, so too can shops be open, for if someone has no food in and it's the Sabbath, the need to eat becomes a matter of life and death. If something goes wrong with a person's plumbing so that they cannot get water to drink, does this mean plumbers would be allowed to continue working on the Sabbath? As I have demonstrated, these things may look good on paper, but would not function very well in the real world.

Would you consider homosexuality to be a sin or a crime? For it to be a sin, no rule can be made within state law regarding the practice of homosexuality. If it is a crime, as I think you are saying, then privately done, no law has been broken. Most people have sex in private, to do so in public does become an offense, but for anyone. Straight people included. On this reasoning, I cannot see how engaging in homosexual acts is wrong to humans.

You touched on the tenth law in part, regarding not being allowed to covet your neighbour's possesions. I would agree this can be covered well with the laws on murder and stealing, but doesn't the scripture mean more than this? Isn't it saying that you cannot acquire it even by mutual agreement and payment? If so, to make this law would do severe damage to the economy, and even worse than that, your ability to survive. Think back to the example of the meal. How could you have one without people wanting something from others, and agreements being made to exchange goods and services?

Matters of Faith-

You hold to the belief that you have found the one true religion, even though this coincides with the religion you were taught to believe. If you are right, I can understand your joy in thinking Jesus will save the worthy Protestants and deliver them into everlasting life.
Unfortunately, the odds are about 1/1000 at best that you are in the right religion. I do not think I could be so sure personally with the odds stacked against me like that. Every religion has members who have felt a conversion in their hearts and every religion thinks they alone will be saved by Jesus. I would also have to question just how much joy can be had in knowing that even if you were right, billions of your fellow humans will burn forever, even if they wanted to worship God but chose the wrong religion through no fault of their own, or decided every religion was false.
You talk about the Christian worldview and the hope Christians have regarding Jesus' return, and I feel this is not technically being truthful. I believe what you mean to say is the Protestant worldview, and the hope Protestants have regarding Jesus' return. The Christian worldview varies depending on which Christian sect you are referring to.

You suspect people may not want to believe because they love themselves more, but if one were to love themselves, surely they would want to live forever. That sounds like a wonderful thing, but I understand the odds of picking the right religion are insane, to go against scientific facts staring me in the face is insane and to believe in something so much because of a fear of death is insane.
I personally don't try to change people's opinions regarding the tooth fairy, UFOs, Santa or any other creation of the human mind, because these beliefs do not affect daily life. The belief in an invisible being in the sky who created the Earth in six days and breathed into some clay to make the first human does.
You speak of self-attesting authority of scripture, and you try to show how the Bible speaks to me by this method, but so far I see no more reason to believe in the god of your book than the god of the Koran. Each claims to be true, each has millions of followers who feel they have been touched on a personal level. On what basis do you think that morality or creation (as you see it) automatically makes the Judeo-Christian God true? Any number of gods could be responsible for these things.

I am unsure if you meant to say that Christianity is true partly because it has lasted so long, but this line of reasoning would make the Buddhist religion true, as it has been around alot longer. When Christianity changes, new Christian religions spring up. This is how Christianity adapts and changes with the times.

Saving People-

When you mention your lack of belief that you can 'save' anyone, are you speaking of a personal history in which the 'spiritual seeds' you throw have fallen upon stony ground most of the time, leaving you with little trust in yourself that you can make a difference? Or was it when you learnt only God predestines who is to be saved, so you feel that even though the Bible commands you to attempt bringing others closer to God, you know that God has already chosen who to save, leaving your actions somewhat empty? Or perhaps there is another reason.
But within your congregation, surely you must feel you are saving the children of the parents who attend your church, by telling them your beliefs before they are able to think clearly for themselves and must, as a survival instinct, believe everything they are told from their parents, and other adults their parents have told them to trust. If God predetermines who to save, he's certainly decided to keep it confined to the family line for the most part. If not that, teaching young children Protestant beliefs may be the main factor in whether or not they become Protestant themselves. I feel we would disagree on which is the case.

In Conclusion-

I want to thank you for your thoughts on what morality is if it is not governed by a creator, it certainly has made me think alot and stretch my mind (not the truth) on this subject. I believe I have come to a greater understanding of how and why I think the way I do.

We are indeed on an adventure, our species knowing more than our ancestors, and wanting to know more. It is foolish to think we will understand as much as our descendants in our lifetime- like the caveman would be clueless as to how to conceive of, nevermind build an aeroplane. And yet it is by looking up at the sky and wondering how to get there that we came to find out ourselves. Each step we take in wanting to understand everything around us will help our species develop, and each step is needed in order for future discoveries to be made. I am pleased to have found a fellow human with the willingness and desire to explore these deep issues as much as I do.

Chris.