Geoff,

Who are you addressing? Atheists, David Palmer or me? I’m confused because point 3 of David’s post is the very point I just address in my last post on the previous page.

Angela

Sorry Angela for not being more specific. It is incredibly off topic too.

I was addressing anyone who can answer I guess. Are Christians morally better than others because of the Holy Spirit? Or am I misenterpreting David’s (and yours) view of what ‘morally better’ is? I also want to know what David means by Christians being morally worse.

Before we know Christ we are no different from anyone else, powerless in our sin, but having been rescued into new life and called to repentance (which we can do because of the Holy Spirit), does that not make us morrally better than non-christians? I would say I live a more moral life now because I am a Christian.

What do you think Angela?

Geoff Chambers - 18 February 2008 10:28 AM

David Palmer - 25 January 2008 11:52 AM

3. Christians are not morally better than anyone else, actually worse.

Really?

So when we receive the Holy Spirit through Christ we remain morally the same, or in fact we get worse? Maybe I misunderstand ‘morally better’.

I was summarising points arising in atheist books.

Thanks for the clarification, David. That is how I understood your earlier post.

*blushes*....whoops

Geoff Chambers - 18 February 2008 11:45 AM

Sorry Angela for not being more specific. It is incredibly off topic too.

I was addressing anyone who can answer I guess. Are Christians morally better than others because of the Holy Spirit? Or am I misenterpreting David’s (and yours) view of what ‘morally better’ is? I also want to know what David means by Christians being morally worse.

Before we know Christ we are no different from anyone else, powerless in our sin, but having been rescued into new life and called to repentance (which we can do because of the Holy Spirit), does that not make us morrally better than non-christians? I would say I live a more moral life now because I am a Christian.

What do you think Angela?

Off topic? Me? Oh dear, you’ve caught me out!

I thought I stated my position in my post on the previous page. But I’ll try and be brief and clear, which ain’t easy for me.

As a Christian I do not claim moral superiority over anyone because I know who I once was (dead, lost in the futility of my thinking, disobedient, a follower of the prince of the air etc) and it is only because of Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as you so rightly pointed out, that I am now righteous before God and am able to pursue a life of moral purity. This is a work of the Spirit in me. I can take credit for what exactly?

I agree with you that the Christian life is one of true and perfect morality as summed up by Jesus in the 2 great commandments. No other belief system or moral code comes even close. But is not my creation and it does not depend on me. So I never take credit for it as I know it would lead to pride and our good God keeps showing me that I have enough to last me the rest of my earthly life.

How’s that?

cheers
Angela

Geoff,

You’ve finally scored a whoops moment on these forums. Welcome to my world!  I’ve lost count of the number of embarrassing contributions I’ve made over the years including one or 2 on old thread to do with Californication. 

:)
Angela

Hi all

On 702 am ABC from about 7.30 pm (after the quiz) they will be looking at the new lot of books on Atheism etc that are agressibely atheist.

David Palmer said:

Well, you’ll just have to wait and see, but don’t get too cocky - there are things even a token atheist can’t not know.

Never David, in fact I’m not sure that I ‘know’ anything at all - I certainly dont know that God does not exist - just that the propositon appears unlikely.

Notice that the main purpose of scientific models is to describe rather than explain. That is, they are deemed successful when they agree with all observations, especially those that would have falsified the model had those observations turned out otherwise.

Victor J. Stegner - ‘God: The Failed Hypothesis’

(one more to add to your list)

And please understand that the ‘token’ is a self-descriptor of my position on these forums - my lack of a religious faith is much more than merely symbolic.

From Rob

You see, you aren’t able to burn us at the stake anymore (Dont you wish you were?)

And Geoff’s reply

*sigh*........yes

Geoff

Be assured that whenever I see your posts from now on my feet will tingle.

And Ange, I’m disappointed.

Should the burning of blasphemers, witches and general ‘nare-do-wells’ return, and were one to find one’s self on the wrong side of the authorities -

You at least expect that it might be carried out by your friends.

One would only hope to show a modicum of the courage as that demonstrated by the esteemed Thomas Cranmer.

Rob

From David Ashton:

On 702 am ABC from about 7.30 pm (after the quiz) they will be looking at the new lot of books on Atheism etc that are agressibely atheist.

And miss ‘Top Gear’?

Blasphemy!

Rob said:

I certainly dont know that God does not exist - just that the proposition appears unlikely.

Why?

It was exactly this sort of statement that made Dawkin’s book so dissappointing.

I noticed earlier you said that the onus was on believers to prove that God exists.
Again ‘Why?’.

I’m not sure I agree with this.

The framing of the discussion tends to betray our starting assumptions.

Angela Crittle - 18 February 2008 06:52 PM

Geoff,

You’ve finally scored a whoops moment on these forums. Welcome to my world!  I’ve lost count of the number of embarrassing contributions I’ve made over the years including one or 2 on old thread to do with Californication. 

:)
Angela

Finally? Oh dear me I do it all the time! But that one was the least excusable, and would have been avoided if I just read all of David’s thread.

And I was refferring to myself as the one who was taking things off topic, not you ang :)

From David Ashton:

On 702 am ABC from about 7.30 pm (after the quiz) they will be looking at the new lot of books on Atheism etc that are agressibely atheist.

And miss ‘Top Gear’?

Blasphemy!

I think the word you are looking for is “sacrilege”.

And I was looking for the word “aggressively”. Der....

Rob,

Regarding Jeremy’s comment: The fact that most cultures throughout history have a belief in some god, persuades me that the onus is on the new kid in the block, ie, atheists to prove there is no god.

Angela who disappointments herself with boring regularity

Yeah but Angela, everyone knows that we modern athiests are the smartest and wisest people have ever been…

Ahh, Danni,

Spoken like a true biblical literalist.

And Ange: New kids?

So Socrates being forced to drink Hemlock some two and a half thousand years ago for denying the existence of the Gods was…

We’ve always been around; it’s just that, until recently it hasn’t been safe to publicly state one’s position (burning stakes, stoning, racks and all that jazz)

And Ange,

The fact that most cultures throughout history have a belief in some god, persuades me that the onus is on the new kid in the block, ie, atheists to prove there is no god.

From Jean Piaget onwards, those who have made an intensive study of children and their development, have discovered that much of our learning is achieved through projecting our own characteristics and understanding, onto the world around us.

That doesn’t mean there IS a god of the volcano who is ‘angry’ or ‘satiated’. Simply that the people in the vicinity projected there own experiences onto the most prominent features around them.

Jeremy,

I’m a little confused.

Surely you dont want me to simply accept that the Angel Gabriel did indeed dictate the Qur’an to Muhammad; or the Angel Moroni actually provided Joseph Smith with Golden Tablets.

Remember, as an adolescant I did try to be a Christian.

Perhaps I’m just naturally skeptical.

Angela who disappointments herself with boring regularity

Then that is an audience of one.

The rest of us find you illuminating, frustrating, engaging, creative, dogged, caring…

but never, ever disappointing.

Rob