Chris,

I appreciate very much your reply and the subsequent qualifier. I truly want to commend you for the adamant way you set forth your position and the attempt to put yourself in the position of your detractor to uncover suspected incongruence.

Regarding the matter of the Christian nation issue, let me just say that I do not define or confine Christianity to any particular sect or denomination. It just seems to me that many (if not most) Western nations have moved away from some distinctively Christian principles. But again, this is a separate discussion that need not distract us from the main topics at hand.

Regarding the moral/ceremonial distinctions put forward, I offered the passages cited as verification that the Biblical writers themselves legitimate that some aspects of the Mosaic legislation are no longer viable. Clearly the New Testament writers do not envision that moral aspects such as murder, stealing, and so forth are no longer binding. The writer of the Hebrews focuses on the fulfillment of the sacrificial (including all that belonged to the Temple) and thus no longer to be observed. Paul in the Ephesians passage deals with the “wall of hostility” (Eph. 2:14) that existed between Jew and Gentile now being broken down in Christ. A perusal of the book of Acts and Galatians shows that Gentiles were not required to become Jews by adhering to laws that set that nation off as distinctive. They were not required to be circumcised, to eat the kinds of (kosher) foods the Jews did, to wear the distinctive garb, and so forth. For the nation of Israel these laws carried stiff sanctions for non-compliance. Having served its purpose, these “ceremonial” or “restorative” laws and their sanctions are no longer necessary. So when Jesus says that heaven and earth will pass away before one jot or tittle is “fulfilled” does not detract from how certain of these laws are now no longer applicable in their distinctive form. Does Jesus actually expect every disciple to put a “fence” around the roof of his house or be guilty of disobeying His law? So, to the questions you raised from these passage, if you do not find these distinctions cogent, you need to explain what laws the New Testament writers believe are fulfilled and therefore no longer observed. Sacrificing of animals does not cover the entire spectrum as Paul makes clear in Ephesians 2, (the sacrificing of animals in and of itself would not have been such a “wall of hostility” to Gentile nations).

Regarding the matter of slavery it is clear why you want to insist that God “created” slavery in spite of the fact the Bible never says He did. My Christian perspective can do justice to the viewpoint that slavery is the result of man’s sin and subsequently regulated by God but not meant to be permanent. I agree with your assessment regarding God’s sovereignty and slavery being under the control of God. Everything is under His control – including evil – but that doesn’t, from a Christian perspective, do violence to God’s ultimate good purposes.

From your point of view I gather that slavery – as is any evil – is evidence that God is either not all-powerful or all good (the classic Humean syllogism).
But one thing you need to realize is that on your basis (man’s personal morality) you cannot make sense of evil at all. To raise this objection you must presuppose the Christian God whether you admit it or not. Deny Him and the problem cannot be sustained. So evil (slavery or whatever) can only be a “problem” for the Christian worldview. On your basis you have no justification for saying slavery is an evil.

Regarding the evaluation of man’s progress it is not at all surprising that an “unchanging” book is baffling to you. You need to be careful to let the Bible speak for itself (I know the philosophy of language proponents think this cannot be done but their analysis destroys any hope of communication), as do I, of course. The Bible speaks with the authority of Almighty God because it comes from Him. There is no ultimate antithesis between being moral because God commanded it, or God commanding it because it is moral. Morality is an expression of the character of God.

It might surprise you to know that there are still many Christians who take the six days of creation as literal. This is an entirely different topic so, if you don’t mind, let’s not get sidetracked on this one for now.

But you really must demonstrate how morality on anything other than a Christian worldview can be possible. Don’t get me wrong. I know you have morals. You say you do, and I believe you. But by rejecting the God who created all things you must then either hold to some form of eternity of matter or to evolution, time, and chance. You really have tall order to explain how your “morality” can be seen for anything other than an ad hoc preference. You even admit that morality is not constant among different people. You have no ultimate reference point other than yourself, and that has never proven to be a sufficient measuring rod.

There’s an old saying, “To the jaundiced eye, all is yellow.” That comes to mind as you evaluate modern nations that claim to be irreligious yet far down the line of progress. Based upon your perspective progress is only in the eye of the beholder. Arguments in a piecemeal fashion such as this has limited value. I, too, can produce empirical evidence to support my view that these societies are not the paragons of virtue you suggest.

Regarding the Bible versus man’s own morality you raise two questions. I spoke to the second one in the paragraphs above. The first question you ask is about whether or not people were killing each other a higher rate before the Bible was written if the Bible is the basis of man’s morality. I really don’t have any way of knowing (like everyone else) but the answer doesn’t depend upon having a written Bible or not. Genesis 6 describes civilizations at the nadir of depravity, hence the flood.

The point about the centuries of law (if I am remembering correctly) was to the effect that Western society has a history of applying the principles of Scripture to advance civilization. The fact that there were problems does not negate the thesis at all. And I reject out of hand that it was man’s choice to discard parts of the Old Testament rather than God’s. Your view that Paul carries less weight than Jesus misunderstands his role as an inspired apostle.

You talk about striving to better ourselves as a species, but on your view I have no idea what that means.

As for imposing views on others, this is not the exclusive domain of religious people. I find that just as many religious folk as not are threatened by the tactics of the irreligious.

My point about the death penalty for homosexuality is simply this: who is man to say that the law of God in this regard is outdated or wrong from the start?
Is truth determined by a majority vote? Why would God erect the death penalty just for that civilization? From your point of view this is evidence that this morality is substandard because many in Western society reject it, and therefore proof that morality doesn’t come from Scripture. But again, you reject Scripture as a basis for morality – especially modern – so it is not surprising you see it that way.

My view is that state-sanctioned homosexuality is a higher expression (progression) of idolatry and rejection of the Creator creature distinction than even other expressions of rebellion from God’s law. That’s not my take on it, but the Apostle’s in Romans 1:18 and following.

Your views about who is influencing whom are interesting, and I’m not sure I would take serious issue with you except to point out that both Christians and non-Christians struggle with being consistent with their own beliefs and worldview.

Your analogy about the parent-child example doesn’t seem to me to be germane because it doesn’t take into account the distinction I have been making between what is moral and what is contingent. It also doesn’t not factor in that the Bible says that the law of God is written in man’s heart. Sin corrupts what man instinctively knows. The written word of God is the corrective lens.

Regarding your rebuttal to my assertion that Christianity actually has advanced various causes I would just observe that what you count as progress in many cases, I do not (woman’s rights, homosexuality, etc.).

Your examples in the discussion on science are severely caricatured. Don’t forget that many such as Galileo, Newton, and others were devout believers.
They may have clashed with their religious counterparts, but they didn’t reject the Christian worldview.

I realize that many consider evolution a proven fact, but it’s been my experience in talking with non-Christian scientists that they have never been so bold as to make such a claim. And once again a challenge – given your evolutionary viewpoint, how can you even meaningfully speak of right and wrong expect as expressions of the dominant views of the moment? On what possible evolutionary basis could you ever condemn Nazi Germany? Evolution is nothing but time and chance. Time is ultimate, and chance is supreme. Everything is ultimately arbitrary in an evolutionary world.

As for the stem cell debate, there are many scientists who point out that such research is being politicized and touted as promising way too much. I understand that it is the Christians who are weighing in on the “morality” of the science. And why shouldn’t they? Science cannot tell us when human life begins.

Some of the issues you raise in the field of science may be correct, but they are far from proven or settled as you seem to suggest.

I’ve been following your remarks, and you close with the matter of gays in the UK being given the same rights as the straight. 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. Christians recognize and acknowledge that even gays are made in the image of God though that image has been corrupted by their sin (as it has in those who are straight but apart from Christ). Christians oppose homosexuality as they do because it is, right now, the point at which the city of man is most opposing the city of God.
Christians as individuals have no right to harm homosexuals. The state does as a minister of God (Romans 13) and an avenger to those who do wrong.

When Christians don’t live up to the ideals of Scripture, Scripture itself explains why. Christians have the principle of the “new man in Christ” within them, but the “old man in Adam” still remains.

When non-Christians don’t live up to the ideals of their own morality (whatever that is), their “new man in Adam” is at war with their “old man in Adam” meaning they can never erase the image of God within them and the law of God written on their heart. They know the truth, but they suppress it.

Chris, you cannot but know that the God of the Bible exists. He presents Himself to you every moment of every day, but you’ve been doing a good job of suppressing what you know about Him. Yet when it suits your purposes you’ll switch over and borrow the Christian worldview (morality, truth, science, right vs. wrong, purpose, meaning, etc.) without giving Him credit. You in many ways are like the child who sits on his father’s lap and slaps him in the face. The child to do so must be supported by the father. Even in your rebellion against God you use the gifts He has given you to deny Him.

There’s no human argument that will persuade you to relinquish the axe you have to grind against God. You’ll only stop when the Spirit of God makes you alive to Christ the Lord who changed the course of human history and is bringing everything in the universe under His control.

But in the meantime, I look forward to talking with you and reasoning with a fellow human being. And please be assured that even though I don’t agree with your viewpoint, I have great regard for you because of my commitment to Christ and His Word. Whatever negative impact there may be in the world by those who call themselves Christians or by those who don’t, I would hope that this would not be one of them.

Michael

______________________

Michael,

First let me say that I do not consider our discussion to be negative, and that I respect you as a person, although for different reasons than following the teachings of a religion. We are both hoping to bring the other closer to our own understanding, in order to help each other. You wish to save me, and yourself, from eternal hellfire and I wish to do my small part in making the world a better place. For all our differences, perhaps one factor for our shared respect is one belief we both hold - we both believe we have a common ancestor.

The moral/ceremonial interpretation you give for the laws is insightful, and I am appreciative of that. I understand we will not agree completely on this matter, and so I will give my thoughts as to why this is the case.
You see Paul as inspired by God, no less relevant than Jesus in terms of his instruction to do away with some of the old law as God wished. I believe the timescale should be taken into account. If Jesus (who is also God) gave the command to keep all of the old laws at around 30 AD, and Paul changed this when he became inspired, sometime between 34 AD and 60 AD, it does seem rather strange that Jesus/God would have made such a bold statement, knowing it wouldn't last much more than a generation, again, by his choice.
Regarding rules which have not been done away with, I wish to mention the rule of honouring the sabbath. This is something Jesus did too, and the rule is still a part of the Ten Commandments Christians try to follow. While one could argue this rule is just as important as the one on homosexuality, it certainly isn't something reflected today in Christian teaching. Christians are not picketing outside Wal-Mart on a Sunday, or closing their Christian bookstores. In fact, I doubt whether anyone follows that command from God with the amount of integrity one would expect to see from someone who believes it is just and fair to kill a man for picking up sticks.
It isn't just non-Christians who see the old laws as being relevant (according to a Christian lifestyle). Mentioning how the modern church should be considered the same as God's chosen people, the Israelites, one Christian had this to say:

"Another 'clogged filter' restricting the understanding of many of God’s people is basically this- God gave the Commandments to Israel, not the modern day church. Believe it or not, I agree!! Paul says in Romans 9:4-5 that Israel is 'to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God and the promises; of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen.' As we can see from Scripture, God did give the law to Israel. However, He also gave the covenants, the promises, the adoption and the glory to Israel! So, where does that leave the so called 'Gentile' Church? Let’s take a look at the truth of the matter.

Thankfully, God has always made provision for all who would want to follow after Him, but on His terms, not ours. Even in the Great Exodus it was a mixed multitude (Exodus 13:38) that came out of Egypt. Paul tells us in Romans 11 that Gentiles are grafted into the 'Olive Tree' by faith and become one in Messiah. Paul makes it clear that by faith in Messiah we are children of the promise and are counted as the seed of Abraham. We must remember that the idea of the 'church' (ecclesia-the assembly, the called out ones) being something other than God’s chosen people is a concept completely foreign to Scripture. In Ephesians 2:8, Paul tells us an awesome thing. 'For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.' Praise the Lord for that verse, now notice verse 11. 'Therefore remember that you once Gentiles in the flesh-who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands- that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ' He then goes on to say that 'we are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,'

Consider this. Paul tells us in Galatians 3:28 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.'

Now, considering what we just learned from Scripture, let’s reexamine the question. Do we in the modern day church consider ourselves as part of the commonwealth of Israel to whom pertain the adoption, the glory, the covenants the giving of the law and so on? I believe the answer must be a resounding yes. If not, and the teachings of Moses are not meant for our instruction, which Scriptures do we use to live by? After all, in the Apostolic Scriptures we find the Book of James addressed- 'To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad.' The book of Hebrews is written to, well, the Hebrews! It becomes obvious that we as Christians must either accept the Bible in its entirety or throw it away and live each according to his own desires. It’s the same life defining choice Elijah gave to Israel years ago. 'How long will you falter between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him.' I submit to you that we are part of God’s people, Israel. Not because of any bloodline, but by the blood of Yeshua, our Messiah.
And, as His people, we are not to subtract from His Word. (Deut 4:2)"

Now on to the topic of science.
If indeed the examples such as Galileo are caricatured, as with any caricature, it is plain to see exactly the foundation I am referring to. But to say it is an oversimplification or emphasised too much would indicate I stretched the truth. I did not. I spoke of people such as Galileo being persecuted for teaching of things that went against religious doctrine. Whether he himself was Christian is irrelevant. A Christian persecuting another Christian is still persecution. Galileo himself wrote:
"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved" and "It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment."
Clearly his ideals were more with science than the religious teaching of the era, no matter what he called himself. If he made the claim the Christians' views were wrong, he was of course going against a part of the Christian worldview, until such time as the mounting scientific evidence could be ignored no more, and the teachings of Christianity changed accordingly. However it wasn't until 1992 that he was pardoned by the church.

You mention your experience in talking with non-Christian scientists who do not feel sure enough to make the claim evolution is a fact, and I feel I should point out that science covers a wide spectrum of knowledge, and within the confines of scientists who study evolution, most would agree it is fact. For the remainder, perhaps this points to the theory of Christians influencing non-Christians. There have been several peer reviewed studies to back up evolution, and the only alternative we feel fit to conceive of, creation, or 'intelligent design', has none.

The stem cell research debate is in the early stages, and so to claim ultimate success or failure one way or the other would be foolhardy at this point. Stem cells can become any tissue in the human body, this part has been proven. It could offer therapeutic breakthroughs for every human ailment, including diabetes, Parkinson's disease, severe burns, etc if research is allowed to continue. The fact it can't is due to the belief Christians have that souls inhabit the cells. What happens to a soul when the cells split to form twins is certainly food for thought. Does the soul split in two? Does God add another soul? Which person gets which soul? How about triplets? Three way soul splitting?
Here is another opinion on the matter. Quote source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15566391/site/newsweek/page/2/
'A 3-day-old human embryo is a collection of 150 cells called a blastocyst. There are, for the sake of comparison, more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly. The embryos that are destroyed in stem-cell research do not have brains, or even neurons. Consequently, there is no reason to believe they can suffer their destruction in any way at all. The truth is that President Bush's unjustified religious beliefs about the human soul are, at this very moment, prolonging the scarcely endurable misery of tens of millions of human beings.'
In a burning hospital, if you had the chance to rescue either a new born baby or 50 human embryos, each less than the size of the dot on this 'i', which would you save? The slightest hesitation in answering shows the complexity of the situation.

Regarding slavery, you make the claim that it is the result of man's sin and that God regulated it, but that it was not meant to be permanent. A closer look at the scriptures shows how God 'regulated' it.
"If a man strikes his servant or his maid with a rod, and he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he gets up after a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his property." (Ex. 21:20-21)
To clarify, the original Greek word used was slave, but changed in subsequent translations of the Bible. 'Doulos' (the Greek word for slave) is in the original Greek passage, and that word was used in other Greek literature. One example is in the play 'Agamemnon' by Aeschylus, where 'doulos' is used here-

"Yet once more I would like to speak, but not a dirge. I pray to the sun, in presence of his latest light, that my enemies may at the same time pay to my avengers a bloody penalty for slaughtering a slave, an easy prey. Alas for human fortune! When prosperous, a mere shadow can overturn it; if misfortune strikes, the dash of a wet sponge blots out the drawing. And this last I deem far more pitiable than that."

This would require some research on your part, but I feel you understand slavery is in the Bible, so it may not be neccessary. After becoming sidetracked briefly, I return to my original thought which was how God 'regulated' slavery. The scripture shows that it's acceptable to beat a slave close to death, but because they’re property, the owner is not allowed to kill them. Under these guidelines, whipping a slave every day, three times a day, would be acceptable to God. Beating a slave to unconsciousness is acceptable. Would you consider that to be a good regulation? You don't even have to put the responsibility on a God you cannot question, because I'm not asking whether God is being just. I am asking whether you, as a human, in charge of other humans, would ever follow this regulation? If you chose not to, would you wilfully stand by if you knew of someone else who was beating a human they owned? Would you in fact, make a stand against it, and try to prevent it happening again? It's a thought I'll be returning to later. What your conscience would tell you to do, when faced with a situation God had to consider.

Now the question of how permanent it was meant to be. Slavery is not something that was abolished in later books of the Bible, so according to the Bible, it would still be allowed today. Jesus' second coming may make it invalid as a practice for humans, but as we are continuing to wait for that to occur (as have many generations), according to scripture, slavery is every bit as acceptable now as it was when the Bible was written. Humans have seen fit to get rid of it, or strongly oppose the minority of people who still believe it is acceptable. They have done so through choice, not interpretation of the scriptures. If God ended slavery, you will have to explain how, and if God knew in advance we would come to the decision on our own to end it, is this not showing man's morality as a seperate thing from God?
As for slavery being a bi-product of man's sin, God did have the power to command the people not to engage in it, as he did with murder, stealing and other things which you believe to be the result of man's sin. Although I will admit 'The 11 Commandments' wouldn't have had the same ring to it.

You say that I cannot make sense of evil based on my own thoughts and conscience, which I believe to be the basis for my own morality. Where then, do you get your belief that slavery is wrong? You insisted on pointing out how Christians were leading the way when trying to abolish it, and how most Christians today do not share the same views as their historical counterparts, so it did seem to me you view slavery as 'an evil act'. To say that because I feel something is wrong, there must be a god, is presumptious and unfounded. My belief that slavery is wrong is not backed up by the Bible, and neither is equal rights for women or gay people. That is something I will be coming back to. If slavery is only a 'problem' in the Christian worldview, I would enjoy hearing your thoughts on why for the first 1800 years of Christian history, slavery was not a problem.

Your direction of allowing the Bible to speak for itself is vague and metaphorical, and I cannot see how it can be done. The Bible can only be read or narrated, and upon information entering the mind it forms meaning. This is the work of a brain, and it is used to process all information that comes in through the senses. To say that the Bible speaks with the authority of Almighty God because it comes from Him is about as convincing to me as these words would be to you- "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger." I understand you believe what you are telling me, but within the confines of a debate it holds no relevance. Claiming something to be true, does not make it true.

If morality is an expression of the character of God, you are implying that God had no choice but to incorporate the moral guidelines he did into the people of Earth. This contradicts the belief that God is omnipotent. The morality flowed from him into his creation, and what was deemed good by him, became the basis of our morality. If God is free to do as he wishes, how then can he have no choice over the kinds of morals set out for us?

You have asked me to demonstrate how morality on anything other than a Christian viewpoint can be possible, and I will be glad to do so. One needs only to look at the animal kingdom to see morality at work. Animals are not in contact with God, they have no souls and they have no holy book. Yet they will only kill for food or over territorial disputes. Within a group of the same animal, there is harmony and cohesion. A bird on its own is at more risk from predators, and so they fly in flocks. There is safety in numbers. As a family of meercats leave the burrow to find food, one will remain to look after the babies. During the winter in Antarctica, penguins will huddle together for warmth. If a penguin tries to steal the child of another, due to their own offspring dying, other penguins will not allow it to happen. There is a unity, a standard by which groups of animals live for mutual benefit. Life is easier, and there is more chance of survival. Applied to the human world, the same applies.

We all rely on each other. In order for you to sit down to your meal today, you will have needed the support of many other humans. The people who planted the seeds, the ones who helped them grow, the ones who picked the crop, the ones who made the packaging, the ones who designed the packaging, the ones who delivered the goods to the shop, the ones who built the vehicles used for transporting the goods, the ones who designed the vehicles, the ones who pumped the gasoline from under the ground to power the vehicles... I could carry on with more examples of how humans work together, for the simple yet overlooked ability to eat a meal. Even the cutlery you use, the plate it will be on, all of these things required the help of other humans. This is just one reason why we don't kill each other. It did not require a belief in a God or even a conscience from God. It is mutually beneficial to us as a species not to kill each other.

I do admit morality is not always the same person to person, but it is that difference that allows us to change and reevaluate our stance on certain things. Our lives are alot more complicated than that of animals, and there are things that do not affect our survival that need to be addressed. Slavery is not in itself a danger to our survival, but our ability to sympathise with others has made it difficult for us to continue with it. To say I have no reference point other than myself is untrue. I am also affected by the ideals of others in society. For example, I hold the belief that discriminating against someone because they are different is wrong. However, if I had been born at a time when slavery was commonplace, or when women couldn't vote, or when black people couldn't sit at the front of buses, I would most likely have thought differently. As parents raise their children, they instill in them a sense of what is right or wrong, and with each generation attitudes improve. To say that human morality is meaningless or non existent belittles the struggle certain minorities had to endure before they were treated better.

Suggesting progress is in the eye of the beholder indicates you may not agree that non religious countries have progressed. Would you not see these things as progress? Longer life expectancy, improved adult literacy, better educational attainment, gender equality, and less homicides, abortion, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. If you do not agree these things are progress, I can debate further on that point. But if you do, I see no reason to quibble over semantics. Those things indicate to me a more developed nation, as I'm sure they would to most people. As such, I believe the statistics I gave hold weight. If you have empirical evidence to show that the non religious nations are less virtuous, I would be interested in seeing it.

You ask how I can meaningfully speak of what is right or wrong as anything other than the dominant views of the moment, and I half agree this is the case. Acts such as opposition to murder would be considered wrong from an evolutionary standpoint- how could we have survived and lived as a society if we were overly fearful of another human killing us? This basic kind of morality derives from our ability to survive as a species.
Other forms of morality are indeed based on the dominant views of the moment or location we live in- condoning slavery, persecuting homosexuals, racism etc. Some morals change with the passage of time, and you could no more call it meaningless than you could take a black man as your property and feel content with your decision. Realizing there are things we believe now that could be open to change is not a negative thing. We are observing such a change with the more liberal view of homosexuality. Unfortunately you and I will not be alive in one hundred years to observe this, but I wonder how many churches will still be opposing the rights of homosexuals in 2107. Based on the pattern of change so far, I feel confident enough to make the claim the number will be alot less than it is today, with churches in opposition whittled down to the minority.

Religion is something that changes according to the dominant views of the moment, one needs only look back at when humans worshipped the mythic gods of Greece or Egypt to see this.
Saying evolution is just chance shows you need to look into this matter further. Evolution is not chance. Evolution is how species adapt to the environment in order to survive. The ones who do this the best survive, and the ones that don't will die out. It is known as natural selection, and it is anything but chance.

I cannot blame you for not knowing whether man was killing each other at a higher rate before the Bible was written, so it may be prudent to look at the murder rate after the Bible was written and see if there is a decrease as the number of people who read the Bible and became Christians grew. Unfortunately, it seems clear from my research that the number of people killing each other has not decreased. The irony is that the Bible itself has been the cause of much of the murdering. War is fought in the name of religion, I will be fair and not just blame the Christians in this matter. Women labelled 'witches' have been burnt or drowned, heretics have been killed and Christians working in Africa today have done nothing to prevent the spread of AIDS, by teaching that condoms are not allowed and that people must wait until marriage before having sex, something that goes against man's natural biological instincts.
I do not believe the flood happened, and you do. I have the backing of scientific evidence and you have the backing of a book, and if the debate starts to focus more on the science of Genesis, I will be willing to back up what I believe. But to see the example from your viewpoint, I would have to question why God drowned all the people bar eight, if only his holy words would have improved man's behaviour, and how a man God thought to be more moral than those who died ended up becoming drunk and doing more wrong than all the babies and young children who died in the flood. Surely God would have forseen this.
If you are saying the Bible was not neccessary to know what God wanted of us, why then is it the guide for all Christians and how do you suggest we learn what God wishes of us if not through the Bible? I could be wrong in thinking those were your thoughts, but it was when you said 'the answer doesn’t depend upon having a written Bible or not' that I felt I should include it.

I can agree in part when you say Western civilizations apply the principles of Scripture in order to advance. Some laws found in the ten commandments should be applied to the law of the land, but certainly not all have been. Having no God but the Christian-Judeo God of the Bible is certainly not upheld in modern law. To do so would take away the rights of other religions to worship their god of choice, and while you may disagree, I see the freedom to choose how or who to worship as the mark of an advanced civilization. In certain countries, the very real danger posed to a Muslim who leaves his faith is being executed. The act of punishing anyone who wishes to change his or her religion is not the mark of an advanced civilization, and I would apply it to any religion trying to make that the law of the land.
It's the same with the next law, not to make idols. While you may see it as wrong, I cannot see how that law would be beneficial if applied to the state. The Catholic church would have to close down for a start. I understand the long running dispute between your religion and the Catholics so perhaps you would see that law as a blessing. However to do so would show the shared ignorance most religions have of each others beliefs, hardly an advanced attitude either.
The prisons would be overrun if the next law became that of the state, making wrongful use of God's name. Every stubbed toe would be the precursor to jail time or a fine.
Remembering to leave Saturday or Sunday free of work is the next law, and finally we come to one which has been applied in part to the law of the land in the UK. When I was younger, no shop was allowed to be open on a Sunday. Now it has been allowed, but the hours are limited, 10am until 4pm. In this case the law has moved away from the Biblical commandment, and while 24 hour chains of supermarkets are missing out on business, most shops have only lost around three hours in total per week, and that is as far as this commandment applies in modern law. There are no fines for doing some gardening, cooking a meal, cleaning the house or perhaps picking up a stick, which are things most people do without thinking about it, including most Christians.
Honouring ones parents certainly is a good thing, but can you imagine a country where every child answering back was punished by the court system? It's almost as silly as being told to build a fence around ones roof. This commandment is good in that it teaches children the best way to behave, but it should (and is) being upheld by parents and not the courts. In serious cases, the police and courts can act if dishonouring ones parents turns nasty, but at the same time they hold the views of the child as being just as important in cases such as child abuse or molestation. It all depends on what has transpired, but for the law of the land to uphold this commandment fully would, in my opinion, not advance the country.
Thou shalt not murder. Absolutely, although it took until the sixth of the ten commandments, this is one I can agree should be within the nation's law.
Commiting adultery certainly isn't good in my eyes, and there are some who would not agree with me. This is an example of my opinion being personal and not shared by all, but I can back it up with the same reason I gave for considering murder as being wrong. One of our main drives is to pass on our genes and procreate, and wanting to give the child a stable family life may be a remnant in the mind from a time where family structures were better for our survival. Being able to sympathize with others too makes hurting them emotionally a difficult thing to do. This is not part of the nation's law though, so it can't be given as an example of advancing us.
I would consider stealing to be wrong, and I am glad it is within my country's law, so here are now two Biblical rules which I feel have advanced society.
Lying, for the most part, is not punishable by the law, and when it is, it is because it may have perverted the course of justice in regards to the other laws.
Desiring something of someone else's is not punishable by law unless the desire is acted upon. This could be covered by the law on stealing. It is not as damning as the Biblical law though, which forbids someone from even legally purchasing an object someone else has. Certainly trade has advanced us, and all through desiring what others have.

So far we have two Biblical laws that are upheld completely in society, and three others which are upheld in part. It doesn't seem to be a good indicator of a society advancing due to scripture, although I will admit the ten commandments are not the only laws laid out in the Bible. Others would be how women are to be viewed and treated, and how homosexuals are to be put to death.
You consider that duty should be upheld by the state, and I have a few questions on this matter. Have you contacted your Government to tell them of your desire to have them implement God's law in this matter or started a petition at all, and if not, why not? Are you able to explain how a Government made up of Christians is not upholding this law? Afterall, you have said you believe society is using scriptural law in order to back up state law. Let's not forget who is in Congress, our old friend the Scotsman.

You will no doubt be pleased to hear about a country which does in fact uphold more Biblical laws than your own- Saudi Arabia. Not only do they limit what women are allowed to do, they also punish homosexuals. In 2000 the government reported that it had sentenced nine Saudi men to extensive prison terms with lashing for engaging in cross-dressing and homosexual relations. In April 2005, the government convicted over a hundred men of homosexuality, but none were sentenced to be executed. All those men were given prison sentences with flogging because they were at a private party that was either a same-sex wedding ceremony or a birthday party. 24 Filipino guest workers were sentenced in 1996 to 200 lashes for homosexual behaviour. A year earlier, the Saudis beheaded an 18 year old gay man. As part of their New Years celebrations for 2002, three gay men were beheaded. By your definition, Saudi Arabia has progressed further than Western nations by applying the laws you wish to see applied to your own country.

These things go against my own morality, and I can call it my own morality because it certainly is not the morality of the Bible or of God. I will go out on a limb here and say that I'm sure killing someone because of their sexuality goes against your conscience too, but that it is harder for you to admit that. As with the treatment of slaves, what does your conscience tell you about this matter? Were you overjoyed when you first heard of gays being put to death, as you could see God's law being fulfilled? Where you see it as man's sin influencing your feelings, I see it as something I am proud to believe is the right way to think, and that the real sin is the killing of homosexual people.
Those feelings have crept into churches now, with many Christians using their own morality and interpreting scipture differently, in that order. We are possibly on the verge of yet another religion being added to the many on Earth with the split of the Anglican church over the issue. Clearly, Christians are moving away from long held beliefs backed by scripture, and replacing them with new beliefs, somehow backed again by scripture.

God's law being written on our hearts is as vague and metaphorical as the previous comment about the Bible speaking to us. If it means that we should all know what God wishes of us because he put it in our brains, I would of course, disagree. I see it as the result of my upbringing and the evolution of man that helps me think the way I do, and I'm glad I do not want to treat somebody poorly because they are different to me. If that is sin, label me a sinner.

You feel that my child-parent example does not fit in with what you believe about the rules changing, so I am willing to change it accordingly. If a six year old is told to kill every cat that steals food, and then is told not to when it gets older, does this in any way make the original command good? The rule to do away with thieving felines would of course be seen as bad, and the parent would be judged according to everything he commanded the child, not just on what his commands are now. Someone who has murderered is not let off the hook if he decides to give it up.
As a side note, I'm somewhat surprised you do not support women's rights because their reproductive organs are on the inside instead of the outside (and because the Bible supports this belief) when you added that to the list of all the progress religion has made possible. It doesn't seem consistent.

You mention one of the reasons Christians are opposed to gays is because they wish to eradicate AIDS. I feel a brief lesson regarding the spread of AIDS would be beneficial at this juncture.

AIDS can infect anyone. All it takes to spread the virus is the fluid from an infected individual to get inside the body of another individual. Condoms will stop this happening. Before we knew about AIDS, gay people had no reason to use condoms. There was no unwanted pregnancy to avoid. This is why AIDS became associated with gays. The virus is merely molecules and protein; it doesn't know what the human body it is infecting is doing. All it knows is that there is a human body, and it will infect it. Now that the facts about the virus are known, gay people will use condoms to avoid catching AIDS. The infection rate among gay men is declining as they have taken safe-sex advice to heart and begun to safeguard themselves. Only straight people, with the belief that it can't happen to them, are still becoming infected at a high rate.

In conclusion to my brief science lesson, I must point out that preventing homosexuals engaging in homosexual acts will not eradicate AIDS as claimed. The promotion of safe-sex will. The determination Christians have to get rid of AIDS is certainly admirable though, so if they wish to achieve that they may like to think about the promotion of condoms in Africa, and indeed everywhere else, and perhaps take a little time out of their Bible study to read a science book.

The metaphor of the old man in Adam and the new man in Christ is quaint (I'm reminded of the popular thought of a little devil on one shoulder, and a little angel on my other, helping me decide what to do). It won't surprise you to learn I do not believe these people existed, and there are many reasons. So that I do not create a book sized email, I will narrow it down to one reason for each of them. To believe Adam existed, I have to believe he was on Earth approximately 6,000 years ago. This would fit in with the family line from Adam to David to Jesus. I'm not going to bring up evolution at this point, I want to explain why I believe the Earth and universe are much older than that by using another reason, the speed of light. Scientists can measure the speed of light, they can also measure how far stars are away from the Earth. By putting two and two together we know that it has taken millions of years for the light of stars to reach the Earth. This leaves two possibilities. The universe is much older than the Bible claims, or God created the universe 6-10,000 years ago with the light from these distant stars already en route, to make us believe it left them millions of years earlier- cosmic trickery at its best.

I will now give one example why I do not believe Jesus existed.

The story goes- A star points the way to a child, who enters the world by means of a virgin birth. Upon reaching adulthood, he performs many miracles, such as changing water into wine. He preaches to the people about his father God, along with his 12 disciples, who were born-again through baptism in water. He shares a Last Supper with his disciples, and is then arrested by the leaders over his minisrty work. He is sentenced to death and crucified, at around the time we now call Easter. He raises from the grave three days after his death, and later ascends to heaven to be with his father. It is believed he will return to Earth and judge the human race, and that his death was the sacrifice required to free us from original sin.

It may surprise you to learn that I am not talking about Jesus. That is the story of Dionysus, a pagan god who was worshipped hundreds of years before Jesus was meant to have walked the Earth. And it is not the only god to have similarities to Jesus. I don't believe in Dionysus, or Mithra, or any of the other gods of the time, and neither do you. The difference is, I don't believe in Jesus for the same reasons. The story is obviously copied from earlier ones, but is the only one to have stood the test of time.

The God you chose to worship is all down to chance and timing. If you were born in the middle east, you would be here frowning upon my audacity to reject Allah. A few thousand years ago you would be showing how thunder speaks volumes about Thor's existence. And even further back, you would be very irate if I decided not to sacrifice to the Sun God incase the sun never rose again. To accept your God requires me to forget all of religious history, and come to the rather warped conclusion that this God is true, but has decided only to save westerners (and even then, only one Christian religion).
Religion has always been a way to explain what man cannot. Rainbows are seen by your religion as the covenant between God and man to show he will never flood the Earth again. Science showed they come about by light from the sun being split by raindrops in the sky. If you wish to believe God is controlling the weather, you must also take into consideration all the harm it causes too, hurricanes etc. The mark of a loving god?

Where you say God presents himself to me every day, I see a world in which God doesn't exist. With the mountains of evidence against him, the clarity to see that most of the time, we choose the religion we were raised in, and the unbiased mind to see your God as anything but loving, I cannot escape the most logical, rational conclusion. There is no god.

For all the talk of morality you claim comes from your god, the bottom line is that, according to your beliefs, none of it matters anyway. All that matters is believing in one god amongst hundreds and that is all it takes to be saved. An atheist who gives to charity, helps people, devotes precious time to saving lives, raises their children to value others and never harms another person will burn forever simply for not believing in God. A murderer, rapist, child molester, mugger, burglar and liar will end up in a blissful heaven, just as long as he repents and believes in Jesus on his deathbed. That is the justice of your god. Even people who had the misfortune to be born into a different religion to yours but who did their best to worship their god, will burn forever in hell for not picking the true one. In the same way you think that about the Catholics, they too think that will be your fate. God's rule is simple- serve me, or burn forever. The mark of a loving god? Do you keep your fingers crossed that
I will pick the Protestant god when you say God's spirit (for which there is no proof) will change my mind? One would think so. Every other religion would wish for my soul to be saved too by following what they believe. It all depends who I'm debating.

I cannot grind an axe against God if I do not believe he exists. It's akin to telling me I hate the tooth fairy, or Santa. What I dislike is the effect religion has on society. Any religion.

I look forward to hearing from you again, and I implore you to find a way to avoid having to follow the eigthth of these sins so that we may continue our exchange.
Romans 1 :29-32 "Those filled with unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hate for god, despite, proud, boasters, inventions of evil things, disobedience to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, unnatural affection, implacable or unmerciful nature: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death."

Best wishes,

Chris.