No choice for faith.

[Will]

Yes, from what I understand of my faith, God decides who believes in him. For me, it’s fairly hard to ignore when Scripture spends so much time referring to believers as the elect and/or chosen. The mechanics of faith itself is explicitly laid out in Scripture and ignored by those who claim scripture as their authority.

Let's say, hypothetically, I win a luxary cruise to Hawaii. The tickets are for me "and a friend". I now have a choice to make, as I have three casual girlfriends. Do I choose Christine, the aggressive, dark haired one, Jenny the brunette librarian, or Jessica the blonde busybody?

In making this decision, I'm not going to choose based on hair color. I'm going to choose based on personality, which is something each of these women has developed on her own over her lifetime. I'm not choosing them based on stuff they can't control, I'm basing it on stuff they can.

Similarly, the equally hypothetical god creature could determine to save someone because he has brown hair, or because he chooses to believe. What you are saying is god chooses people to save, therefore he chooses whether they believe. You're missing a step there, and by my understanding, that step doesn't exist in scripture. I'm no authority, and frankly, I'd question anyone who said he or she was, but I think I'd remember reading somewhere if we didn't have free will about the whole faith thing. Yes, the "holy spirit" inspires faith in people, but there is a marked difference in semantics between inspiring something and bestowing or engraining something. The idea is that the holy spirit opens up the opportunity to choose faith.

In my mind that makes the holy spirit the escence of denial and the begining of a disconnect with reality, but that's for you to decide.

Only after accepting the fact that I had no say in my faith, did everything change for me and I came to see what an absolute mess, most of my brethren had made from their unwillingness to control their egos.  Doctrines long held by Christians as “truths” fall away. No hell. No eternal punishments. No “choice” to be made in an environment in which God cannot be intellectually proved. No worries for those who have not heard the gospel. Perhaps most importantly, an understanding of what the “gospel” really is. The understanding that Christians have no place imposing their beliefs upon government. Among many other things.
Disconcerting? Not from where I stand.

The idea I found disconcerting was that "believers" are slaves to god's imposition of a supernatural belief. Can yuo imagine if someone were to use some power over you to convince you that trees were sentient, and deerved your protection and worship? That'd be more of a mean trick than a divine inspiration.

I agree that ego has and always will find it's way into spirituality. It's another mechanism of the human psychi that helps to rationalize faith. It's another blanket hiding the truth.

To which the current believer in me would respond, “The teachings of Jesus Christ demands that one strive to understand the workings of their faith and to produce the good works that can only come from that understanding. To understand that God is sovereign in all things for God’s purpose.”

Sounds like a fair representation of what the bible asks.

Sure you could toss scripture at me. But Scripture is the very thing that would lay waste to your position. This is not a personal boast, as I feel all I’m doing is repeating Scripture. I didn’t write it, I just choose to actually believe it.

If only it were that simple. The fact of the matter is that the bible was written over a long period of time by a lot of different people. This results in a few things, the most relevant of which is the iposition of different perspectives on the supposed word of god or Jesus. The most noteable of these would be the different take on god before and after the birth of Jesus. Is god a wrathful, vengeful being that constantly tests humanity, or is god a kind, forgiving, and welcoming creature that loves everyone so much he sent his son to die just to show us how serious he was? Those are two fundamentally opposed personas, and it serves to confuse people about the true nature of god.

Not only that, but the bible is vague. It's open to interpretation, which is why we have 28 sects of evangelicals in Texas alone. The biggest consequence of this is the question, "Who's interpretation is right?" That is by far my favorite question for Christians because I either get the "Oh I agree, the spereation of the chuch is bad, blah blah" or "I'm right, everyone else is wrong." Both answers are dumb. Answer one is agreeing that the church they attend religiously (hehe) is wrong, and answer two is the ultimate expression of vanity and ego. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Perhaps you want to give it a go. Good. I encourage it. It’s what I do and I’ve been doing it for a very long time.

It would be hypocritical of me to quote scripture to a believer. I don't believe, you do. Even as an acedemic exercise, it just feels wrong.
Interesting things happen and I find it endlessly fascinating. Such as;

To me it seems fitting and correct that every and any sentient being, who has the ability to ponder their own existence, has a right to ask, "Why am I here? What's it all for"?
If an intellect can form the question, then the question is valid in my opinion.

Have you ever watched Entertainment Tonight? No questions asked on that show about anything are valid.

At the end of things we may find the question moot and pointless after all.
Until then however....the question has a right to stand.

The meaning of life, is a pursuit that should never be taken from one, and an answer that should never be imposed upon another.

I have no problem with someone persuing meaning. It's when that search leads to what I can only conclude is a delusion, and that delusion leads to the spreading of fear and misinformation that I start questioning whether someone should intervien. I'm not going to call the men with white coats if you choose to believe in god or shiva or the flying spaghetti monster, but when that grows into an organization where your answer is accepted by unquestioning people as their answer, and when the belief causes others harm or discomfort, there must be a deconstruction of what's really going on.

Good post, good points and good speaking with you.

Cheers.

Likewise. Have a good one.

[Kestrel]

Willravel, your post went along way in showing me where you stand. Thank you.

OK, let’s see here…

I never stated thing one, in regard to one being “saved” or that being a believer holds an advantage over those who do not. In fact my position is almost opposite of that. In your making of that assumption, the common contemporary understanding of Christianity is reflected. The same understanding that perhaps played a part in repulsing you from the faith. To me, that’s a good thing. I don’t fault you for it. But your assumption as well as your analogy as applied to me is wrong.

As for scripture, you opened that door, here:

Willravel; The former believer in me would say, "The teachings of Jesus Christ suggest, in so many words,… <snipped> … Then I'd mention a ton of bible verses like the entire books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and some of the letters.

I chose to walk through that door, which you then slam shut by declaring it would be hypocritical of you to quote scripture to a believer. Yet, much of your post speaks to Christian doctrinal issues, as you understand them to be.  Well…OK, it’s certainly your choice to do things that way, but I don’t have that luxury. The understanding of my faith is inexorably bound with the book. It’s the same bond that prohibits me from criticizing anyone, in the context of faith, except fellow believers in Christ.

What?! The bible was written by different people?! Over a long period of time?!!
(Just havin’ some fun, mate)
Seriously, if I’m going to believe in a resurrected 3 day old dead guy, walking on water, talking burning bushes, then it’s not a stretch for me to figure that a god can keep his followers instruction manual intact enough to be useable.
Understand that I do not consider the bible proof of anything, other than to another believer.

Willravel; The idea I found disconcerting was that "believers" are slaves to god's imposition of a supernatural belief. Can yuo imagine if someone were to use some power over you to convince you that trees were sentient, and deerved your protection and worship? That'd be more of a mean trick than a divine inspiration.

This doesn’t apply in my theology.
While I feel that faith comes from God, how a person chooses to express that faith is up to that person.

So. That doesn’t leave us too much….wait!

Willravel;… and when the belief causes others harm or discomfort, there must be a deconstruction of what's really going on.

I agree.
Now we have some solid common ground. Deconstruction is what I’m all about.

Excellent.  

[Will]

I never stated thing one, in regard to one being “saved” or that being a believer holds an advantage over those who do not. In fact my position is almost opposite of that. In your making of that assumption, the common contemporary understanding of Christianity is reflected. The same understanding that perhaps played a part in repulsing you from the faith. To me, that’s a good thing. I don’t fault you for it. But your assumption as well as your analogy as applied to me is wrong.

You have an opposite view? Do yo mean to suggest that non-believers are saved and faithful are not?

As for scripture, you opened that door, here:
I chose to walk through that door, which you then slam shut by declaring it would be hypocritical of you to quote scripture to a believer. Yet, much of your post speaks to Christian doctrinal issues, as you understand them to be.  Well…OK, it’s certainly your choice to do things that way, but I don’t have that luxury. The understanding of my faith is inexorably bound with the book. It’s the same bond that prohibits me from criticizing anyone, in the context of faith, except fellow believers in Christ.

Fair enough. My intent was never to offend, and I can imagine an athiest quoting scripture to a believer to be somewhat disrepsectful. I picture in my mind Jesus and Nietzsche arguing over biblical morality.

Okay, so speaking to the idea that God makes people believe instead of allowing people to have free will:
In Genesis, God gives man free will and dominion over all animals. Man is favored and is thus given the gift of free will. Ironically, that free will was part of what lead to the fall. When the fruit was eaten, knowledge of the nature of good and evil was added to the list. Free will + understanding of good and evil = people. (From the Council of Trent) "When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight." There is a mutual collaboration and cooperation between two powers: god's grace, and man's freedom.
1 Peter 2:16 "Live as free men, but do not use your cover-up for evil..."
2 Cor 3:17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Peter's and John's letters are a good source of info on the subject.

What?! The bible was written by different people?! Over a long period of time?!!
(Just havin’ some fun, mate)

[/quote]
Common ground is quite a good first step.

[Kestrel]

Willravel;
You have an opposite view? Do yo mean to suggest that non-believers are saved and faithful are not?

No.
My view is that everyone is saved.
Needless to say, my view is as popular to my fellow believers, as if I dropped trou and took a dump on the altar during mass. Because my view strips them of the feeling that they chose God, robbing them of that quiet air of superiority that drives them to think that those who do not choose as they, are somehow…ignorant, or to be pitied or just less.
I feel scripture bears me out.

Willravel; My intent was never to offend…

Understood and appreciated.

Willravel; If that's the case, then do you eat shellfish? Do you ever make physical contact with a woman when she is menstrating? There is a lot of archaic law that has a lot mroe to do with socioty at the time than greace and faith, espically in Deut.

The Law and all it entailed was meant for the Hebrew alone as God’s chosen people. It never applied to the gentile. As an aside; The law is actually locked into an ethnicity and ethnicity is not a choice.

Willravel; What you mean to say is that a believer doesn't choose to believe, but they are free to do with their faith as they see fit?

That’s correct.
One line of reasoning that I use to come to this understanding is the fact that I find any scripture at all.
Allow me to expound on that;
If God chooses who has faith, then what’s the need for the big heavy book? The book itself tells me that God bestows faith. The books existence tells me that while God bestows faith, He does not bestow some sort of instant understanding. Scriptures existence is evidence of that, to me.

Willravel; Okay, so speaking to the idea that God makes people believe instead of allowing people to have free will:
In Genesis, God gives man free will and dominion over all animals. Man is favored and is thus given the gift of free will. Ironically, that free will was part of what lead to the fall. When the fruit was eaten, knowledge of the nature of good and evil was added to the list. Free will + understanding of good and evil = people. (From the Council of Trent) "When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight." There is a mutual collaboration and cooperation between two powers: god's grace, and man's freedom.
1 Peter 2:16 "Live as free men, but do not use your cover-up for evil..."
2 Cor 3:17 "Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."
Peter's and John's letters are a good source of info on the subject.

There’s a lot to cover. It deserves a thoughtful reply.
I’ll work on it tonight, and hopefully post it in the morning.

[Will]

No.
My view is that everyone is saved.
Needless to say, my view is as popular to my fellow believers, as if I dropped trou and took a dump on the altar during mass. Because my view strips them of the feeling that they chose God, robbing them of that quiet air of superiority that drives them to think that those who do not choose as they, are somehow…ignorant, or to be pitied or just less.
I feel scripture bears me out.

Well, it seems fair, and anything that robs someone else of a sense of superiority is something I can get behind....but I'm not sure if it's supported by scripture. I have had more than a few discussions with door to door mormans about the existence of hell in the bible (as well as the existence of the triune god and angels that rape people). Doesn't the existence of the typical Christian hell stand in stark opposition to the idea that everyone gets into heaven?  

The Law and all it entailed was meant for the Hebrew alone as God’s chosen people. It never applied to the gentile. As an aside; The law is actually locked into an ethnicity and ethnicity is not a choice.

I don't remember where it said that Deutoronomy only applies to the Jews.

That’s correct.

Owned!

One line of reasoning that I use to come to this understanding is the fact that I find any scripture at all.
Allow me to expound on that;
If God chooses who has faith, then what’s the need for the big heavy book? The book itself tells me that God bestows faith. The books existence tells me that while God bestows faith, He does not bestow some sort of instant understanding. Scriptures existence is evidence of that, to me.

But why bother if everyone's invited to the big party upstairs?

I’ll work on it tonight, and hopefully post it in the morning.

NP, I appreciate the thought and effort going into your responses.

[Kestrel]

Willravel; Okay, so speaking to the idea that God makes people believe instead of allowing people to have free will:
In Genesis, God gives man free will and dominion over all animals. Man is favored and is thus given the gift of free will. Ironically, that free will was part of what lead to the fall.

Whoa! All this “free will” stuff.
First, Scripture dictates that man was created and formed by God. So right out of the box, free will in its broadest and most absolute sense is void. Adam had no say whatsoever in his creation. Personally I can relate to that because I had no say in my gender, ethnicity, or even if I wanted to exist at all. (and I’m not confident that I’d have picked the nutty family I was to be part of.)

Second, God puts the man into a garden. Doesn’t say the man chose it, or even asked for it. Just plunked him down there. No free will as to where the man called his hood.

 There’s other stuff like, God creating woman from man, (adam was never consulted, no free will, there) Even mans position of dominion was appointed. We can say that man had parameters in which he could willingly move. If not, then Gods command not to partake of the tree would have been unnecessary.

But for the sake of our discussion, here’s the kicker; Adam, the man, through no choice of his own, was a believer. What he did with that faith was his choice. Obviously his choice was not to believe God.
What was true then of believers is still true now. A bunch of people endowed with belief by God, who still refuse to believe God means what He says.

It’s the exact …..same…..thing.

 

Willravel];When the fruit was eaten, knowledge of the nature of good and evil was added to the list. Free will + understanding of good and evil = people.

You make a very common and very forgivable error, here. IMHO.
It’s not the tree of understanding of good and evil, it’s the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The difference being, the knowing of a thing does not equate to the understanding of that same thing.

WARNING: IN ORDER TO ILLUSTRATE MY FOLLOWING POINT, GRAPHIC IMAGERY AS WELL AS SEEMINGLY BLASPHEMOUS WORDING WILL BE UTILIZED. IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED GO DO SOMETHING ELSE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS.

Alright.
Before man acquired the knowledge, or more accurately, the awareness of good and evil, it stands to reason that the rule of the day was pretty much anything goes. Ignorance truly being bliss.
In other words perhaps there were days when God was strolling through the garden and came across Adam puttin’ it to a sheep while Eve smacked his ass with a switch. To which God would maybe chuckle, shake his head and say, “You nutty kids, you!”, and keep on going. Why? Because there is no way that a just God would hold one responsible for that which they do not know, or are not aware of.
(Interestingly enough, it is the same sense of justice which makes the man made doctrine of “Hell”, void and unjust.)

I can apply what I glean from scripture on this subject to what I witness around me. Because no ones definition of right and wrong, or good and evil, is truly in line with another. The awareness is there, but the understanding is not, and remains the fodder for philosophers. Experiences in my life have shown that when I do not understand a thing, I cannot properly apply it.
Now, when my brethren hear these things they start foaming like Mentos in a jug of Diet Pepsi. They leap up and down screaming, “Do God’s will! God’s will is good! Your will is bad! God doesn’t do evil!” Yet when seemingly biblical atrocities are pointed out to them, the believer starts with the mental gymnastics. At first it’s fun to watch, then it gets boring and finally just stupid.
Many believers reach into the Hebraic Law and pick and choose what they perceive as God’s desire for goodness. They think that just because they believe, that they know how to apply right and wrong, good and evil.
Jesus, as well as other great teachers in history, were clear on what the default position should be for a believer who lives in a world where good and evil are perceived but not understood. That is to be counter-instinctual.
Turn the other cheek.
If someone steals from you, offer them more.
The Golden Rule
Etc.
Why? Because Jesus recognized that people don’t know what they’re doing.
I try to tell my fellow believers that when Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them. For they know not what they do”, Jesus wasn’t critiquing the crucifixion techniques. He was commenting on the fact, that they did not know the difference between right and wrong, voicing the fact of their ignorance. (This just doesn’t apply to good/evil. It applies to the whole shebang.)

All that being said, when an unbeliever waves scripture at me and says “Your God is an evil murdering bastard”, I’ll say, “Yeah, I see why you say that.” If pushed further, my reply becomes, “As a believer, I am willing to give God the benefit of the doubt that He knows how to apply good and evil to the eventual benefit of all”. On the whole, a most unsatisfactory answer for the unbeliever. But it’s honest.

[micro-rant]When I see one of my brethren, in the face of a nonbeliever waving their bibles, doing that stupid witnessing thing, using their stupid catchphrases like, “You could have a personal relationship with Jesus!”, with their stupid fish stickers, and their stupid twisted gospel of malice, all I think of is how within scripture, it’s the believers that fuck things up, and believers who make things right under God’s supervision.
Of course trying to make them see this is like trying to teach my cat to whistle.[/micro-rant]

[ImpaledSkier]

Well, it seems fair, and anything that robs someone else of a sense of superiority is something I can get behind....but I'm not sure if it's supported by scripture.

because we can trust scripture?

Frankly, I think every argument that cites scripture is immediately void. I just feel it's like arguing with a brick wall. It ain't gonna budge.

[Will]

Whoa! All this “free will” stuff.
First, Scripture dictates that man was created and formed by God. So right out of the box, free will in its broadest and most absolute sense is void. Adam had no say whatsoever in his creation. Personally I can relate to that because I had no say in my gender, ethnicity, or even if I wanted to exist at all. (and I’m not confident that I’d have picked the nutty family I was to be part of.)

Second, God puts the man into a garden. Doesn’t say the man chose it, or even asked for it. Just plunked him down there. No free will as to where the man called his hood.

 There’s other stuff like, God creating woman from man, (adam was never consulted, no free will, there) Even mans position of dominion was appointed. We can say that man had parameters in which he could willingly move. If not, then Gods command not to partake of the tree would have been unnecessary.

But for the sake of our discussion, here’s the kicker; Adam, the man, through no choice of his own, was a believer. What he did with that faith was his choice. Obviously his choice was not to believe God.
What was true then of believers is still true now. A bunch of people endowed with belief by God, who still refuse to believe God means what He says.

Well that's not really fair. Adam and Eve took evening stroles with god who appeared physically. They spoke directly to him and were aware of god's nature as creater and ruler. They'd be stupid not to believe in him. It'd be like me not believing in bread. I've never met god. He's never come down and explained to me why he ultimately decided on the green/blue color scheme on Earth. He never explained to me why Madonna thinks she's british. It would be easy to believe in a present god who you could experience with your senses and even engage in conversation.

I recognize that the god from the OT was controling and such, taking ribs and making women, but god never asked the fish if it was okay to make them and such, so I figure that just might be the nature of creationism. We leave the creating to him.

You make a very common and very forgivable error, here. IMHO.

You're jus about as forgiving as the big guy!

It’s not the tree of understanding of good and evil, it’s the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The difference being, the knowing of a thing does not equate to the understanding of that same thing.

I miswrote. I still don't think people have a full understanding of the nature of good or evil. I meant to say knowledge. I'm used to using the word understanding at work. Adam and Eve were made aware of good and evil after ingesting the fruit.

WARNING: IN ORDER TO ILLUSTRATE MY FOLLOWING POINT, GRAPHIC IMAGERY AS WELL AS SEEMINGLY BLASPHEMOUS WORDING WILL BE UTILIZED. IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED GO DO SOMETHING ELSE FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF PARAGRAPHS.

AAHH!!! You scared me.

Alright.
Before man acquired the knowledge, or more accurately, the awareness of good and evil, it stands to reason that the rule of the day was pretty much anything goes. Ignorance truly being bliss.

Right, they were Republicans....go on....

/snip *right and wrong*

You're preaching to the choir. I do understand that.

Now, when my brethren hear these things they start foaming like Mentos in a jug of Diet Pepsi. They leap up and down screaming, “Do God’s will! God’s will is good! Your will is bad! God doesn’t do evil!” Yet when seemingly biblical atrocities are pointed out to them, the believer starts with the mental gymnastics. At first it’s fun to watch, then it gets boring and finally just stupid.

I do love the whole "God works in mysterious ways..." thing. Talk about a dead end argument.

Turn the other cheek.
If someone steals from you, offer them more.
The Golden Rule
Etc.

That's the meat of the bible. Even though I don't believe in the proven existence of a god creature, I do recognize the moral lessons hidden in the bible (and the qu'ran, and thousands of other religious texts).

All that being said, when an unbeliever waves scripture at me and says “Your God is an evil murdering bastard”, I’ll say, “Yeah, I see why you say that.” If pushed further, my reply becomes, “As a believer, I am willing to give God the benefit of the doubt that He knows how to apply good and evil to the eventual benefit of all”. On the whole, a most unsatisfactory answer for the unbeliever. But it’s honest.

At least he didn't turn into a cow and try to seduce women like my favotire god, zeus. I'm wondering why an uneliever would try to suggest someone they know to be fictional is evil. It seems like a moot point from their perspective.

I would have to suggest that mass murder in the bible raises real questions about the lessons we are supposed to learn from the bible. When 70,000 people ere killed because David ordered a census of the people in 1 Chronicals, and even moreso when god flooded the planet only allowing one family to survive (theoretically causing the deaths of millions of people), the god creature sends a clear message that he is free to move outside the confines of morality and reason. That's pretty scary.

[micro-rant]When I see one of my brethren, in the face of a nonbeliever waving their bibles, doing that stupid witnessing thing, using their stupid catchphrases like, “You could have a personal relationship with Jesus!”, with their stupid fish stickers, and their stupid twisted gospel of malice, all I think of is how within scripture, it’s the believers that fuck things up, and believers who make things right under God’s supervision.
Of course trying to make them see this is like trying to teach my cat to whistle.[/micro-rant]

Agreed, and it's that that allows more people to become disillusioned with the faith and find the strength to leave than anything else. When planned parenthood is targeted by religious extreemists, when insane televangilist Pat Robertson that calls for poltiical assasinations and blames no prayer in schools for the 9/11 attacks, when homosexuality isn't accepted, when people say and do evil in the name of god or jesus, and when people live in constant fear of god....that drives a wedge between regular, reasonable people and power hungry delusional people.

I was able to find the strength to question because of things like this. If Christianity was perfect. a lot more people would find themselves stuck in it.

[Kestrel]

Well, it seems fair, and anything that robs someone else of a sense of superiority is something I can get behind....but I'm not sure if it's supported by scripture.

because we can trust scripture?

No. What Willravel is saying is that on an intellectual level, confidence is iffy from his point of view, whether what I'm declaring is supported. It actually has nothing to do with sprituality. It's more along the lines of, lets say...an instruction manual on building a bike.
For instance, I'm saying bolt "A" fits into hole "C", Willravel, is saying he's not so sure that bolt "A" goes there at all.
Do you take my meaning?

Frankly, I think every argument that cites scripture is immediately void. I just feel it's like arguing with a brick wall. It ain't gonna budge.

Fair enough. Just the way it should be from my POV.

[Will]

The argument is fully hypothetical from my point of view and partially hypothetical in Kastrel's point of view.

Imagine a conversation about the role of Jim the slave in Huckeberry Finn by Mark Twain. Obviosuly, the occourances in that book were works of fiction, but the debate (while possibly only an effort in accedemic concerns) would be just as debateable. I could still make points and cite evidence from the book, and likewise my adversary could make counter points citing evidence from the book.

Let it be known that I do not begrudge people for their faith. If it can help them, I'm all for it. It just doesn't work for me.

[Kestrel]

Willravel; Well that's not really fair. Adam and Eve took evening stroles with god who appeared physically. They spoke directly to him and were aware of god's nature as creater and ruler.

No where in scripture does it claim that God had a physical presence, with Adam. Certainly God was vocal, but that's it.
Personally, I'd be hard pressed to believe that hearing a non-corporeal voice, would convince a non-believer of God.

Willravel; You're jus about as forgiving as the big guy!  //  
I miswrote. I still don't think people have a full understanding of the nature of good or evil. I meant to say knowledge. I'm used to using the word understanding at work.

I know what you meant. That's why I declared your misspeak a very forgivable error.
One of the main thrusts of my post was to illustrate how we are all left responsible for our own "understanding" of good/evil. More importantly that God is aware of the fact that all we have is whatever moral individual guidelines we impose upon ourselves lacking that full understanding.

Willravel;  I'm wondering why an uneliever would try to suggest someone they know to be fictional is evil. It seems like a moot point from their perspective.

On the surface, yes, I would agree.
But as a believer, I can take the premise of your quote farther and to places that my fellow believers have locked themselves out of.
Like this;
Just because a person doesn't believe in scripture does not remove their right to compare God's actions within that scripture to their own understanding of good and evil. Especially, if they have someone in their face waving scripture at them declaring that this same God is "love" and that God's will is good and right.
Believers think that just because they believe, that they have a superior morality, or at least the inside track to morality, than those who do not. Intellectually, I've shown that scripture does not bear them out on this. Further  I can show this is ironclad throughout scripture. And what God's will for the believer is at this point in time, is to have a steaming cup of STFU.
My whole point is, that I have shown, without mental contortions, how a believer has no right to claim what is good or evil.
What does all this mean to the unbeliever? Absolutely nothing.

I write this stuff in the hopes that perhaps a believer will read it and come to a better understanding of their faith. My position illustrates how unscriptural it is to impose laws upon people as a whole. Abortion issues (One line of scripture takes the abortion issue out of the hands of the believer), stem cell issues, anti gay marriage, whatever else they wish to impose upon society is wrong. Because their own book, tells them that they don't know what they're doing.
No one knows better than I, how futile my efforts are. Still I'm compelled by conscience to try.

Willravel; When planned parenthood is targeted by religious extreemists, when insane televangilist Pat Robertson that calls for poltiical assasinations and blames no prayer in schools for the 9/11 attacks, when homosexuality isn't accepted, when people say and do evil in the name of god or jesus, and when people live in constant fear of god....that drives a wedge between regular, reasonable people and power hungry delusional people.

You see?
In this matter you and I are in perfect agreement. For the sake of our discussion, the only thing we differ on, is you do not believe in god and I do. Because of my stance that faith is not a choice, there is no harm, no foul. For my part, anyway.

Willravel; I was able to find the strength to question because of things like this.

So was I.

[Will]

No where in scripture does it claim that God had a physical presence, with Adam. Certainly God was vocal, but that’s it.
Personally, I’d be hard pressed to believe that hearing a non-corporeal voice, would convince a non-believer of God.

I exaggerated a bit. I'm afraid I have a quirky and inconsistant sense of humor. In a world of honesty and free of deception, what use is skepticism? Adam knew no reality of doubt. God existed and questioning the existence of god was still generations away.

One of the main thrusts of my post was to illustrate how we are all left responsible for our own “understanding” of good/evil. More importantly that God is aware of the fact that all we have is whatever moral individual guidelines we impose upon ourselves lacking that full understanding.

Which is why you think we call get in to heaven, including non-believers?

On the surface, yes, I would agree.
But as a believer, I can take the premise of your quote farther and to places that my fellow believers have locked themselves out of.
Like this;
Just because a person doesn’t believe in scripture does not remove their right to compare God’s actions within that scripture to their own understanding of good and evil. Especially, if they have someone in their face waving scripture at them declaring that this same God is “love” and that God’s will is good and right.
Believers think that just because they believe, that they have a superior morality, or at least the inside track to morality, than those who do not. Intellectually, I’ve shown that scripture does not bear them out on this. Further  I can show this is ironclad throughout scripture. And what God’s will for the believer is at this point in time, is to have a steaming cup of STFU.
My whole point is, that I have shown, without mental contortions, how a believer has no right to claim what is good or evil.
What does all this mean to the unbeliever? Absolutely nothing.

It would be meaningless to a non-believer if we lived in a world where believers and non-believers lived in perfect harmony. That fact of the matter is we don't. A lot of my world is shaped by jesus christ. Leaving alone the fact my father is a Lutheran pastor, many places in the world, espically the US, are really Christian places. I see laws being passed and politics hinging on Judeo-Christian morality. As an example, I have gay friends that can't get married because of no reason outside of ancient law that really isn't relevant now.

I write this stuff in the hopes that perhaps a believer will read it and come to a better understanding of their faith. My position illustrates how unscriptural it is to impose laws upon people as a whole. Abortion issues (One line of scripture takes the abortion issue out of the hands of the believer), stem cell issues, anti gay marriage, whatever else they wish to impose upon society is wrong. Because their own book, tells them that they don’t know what they’re doing.
No one knows better than I, how futile my efforts are. Still I’m compelled by conscience to try.

That's fair, so long as you don't into the role of "unquestionable leader" in someone's mind. As someone who tends to have everyone's attention when I speak (not to boast, just stating fact), I do have a responsibility to those who listen to make sure that they think for themselves.

You see?
In this matter you and I are in perfect agreement. For the sake of our discussion, the only thing we differ on, is you do not believe in god and I do. Because of my stance that faith is not a choice, there is no harm, no foul. For my part, anyway.

I wish more Christian leadership was able to take that rersponsible stance.

So was I.

And I worry about those who can't question their faith because of the fear that is, from an early age, associated with questioning the faith. Hell is a powerful motivater, powerful enough to keep some people in the dark or their entire life. I pity them, and sympathize with them.

[Kestrel]

Willravel; Adam knew no reality of doubt. God existed and questioning the existence of god was still generations away.

I disagree.
Adams doubt in regard to Gods commandment, judgement, is reflected in Adams choice to disobey God. Also, God never tells Adam that He is[/b] God. To think otherwise is to add to scripture.
If you like, we can agree to disagree and put it on the shelf.

Willravel; Which is why you think we call get in to heaven, including non-believers?

Before I can even begin to tackle that one, I must state my case why there is no hell. I’m sure we’ll get to it, in the near future.

Willravel; That's fair, so long as you don't into the role of "unquestionable leader" in someone's mind.

Believers willingness to accept, “Because I say so.”, Is partially why the faith is in the mess it’s in. Let’s just say that I am of the Berean mindset, and encourage my fellow believers to search the scriptures, to see if these things are so. At the end of the day it is a believers responsibility as an individual to agree or not.

Willravel; I wish more Christian leadership was able to take that rersponsible stance.

They won’t.
Contemporary Christians tsk tsk the Pharisees in scripture. All the while not seeing that they are the same. One was wrapped in the robes of the law of moses, the other in the robes of the cross of Christ. Ever has it been the blind leading the blind.

Willravel; And I worry about those who can't question their faith because of the fear that is, from an early age, associated with questioning the faith. Hell is a powerful motivater, powerful enough to keep some people in the dark or their entire life. I pity them, and sympathize with them.

Agreed.

[McQ]

Just wanted to interject that this is a fascinating discussion. And it's being done in a really civilized manner. Thanks!

[Kestrel]

Thank you. Though I can only take 51% of the credit.