I can’t tell you what is essentially right or wrong or virtuous. To each their own. I also do not believe there NEEDS to be consistency. Because there never has been, nor will there ever will be.

Like all squares are rectangles, all humans are animals. This part of our discussion is quickly getting us no where.

I don’t think belief and faith are entirely the same. To me belief is 100% confident. Faith leaves space for uncertainty. This may not very well be the same definitions that all people use. But it is my own personal thought.

I believe in God, because it is logical. Those who don’t tend to put their faith in an exploding rock that has always existed within nothing.
It is kind of hard to discuss with an infant, yet would anyone question their intentions not pure?

“virtues” – Need a standard to determine what is virtuous and what is not.

“we are animals” – “…, he (Kant) developed a theory that we as humans …” I’m taking it that you do not agree with Kant that we are humans, as opposed to animals.

“Making right decisions?” – Once again, there needs to be a standard to determine what is a right decision as opposed to a wrong decision.

“Who decides what is Good and what is Bad?” – Excellent question! Whether a “who” or a “what”, there needs to be a standard!

“as long as the intention to be good is pure, then we have done a good thing.” I disagree. I can intend to help someone that is about to jump from a tenth story building ledge, and in so doing nock them off of the ledge. My intention might be good, but that doesn’t mean I’ve done a good thing. Once again, there needs to be a standard to determine what is/is not good.

“This could very well be the reasoning of why animals and humans are separated …..” – As mentioned in the second sentence of your comment, “we are animals”. Also, as mentioned in previous discussions relative to man being an animal. We need to be consistent.

“Animals always have the purest intentions when they do something.” – How can man know the “intentions” of an animal which we are not able to converse (conversation) with, when we can’t know (as an absolute) the intentions of a human with whom we can converse? In reference to my last sentence: I propose that a human can not know as an absolute the motivation from which they take an action. I might tell myself that I’m doing whatever for a good reason, and be the recipient of my own self delusionment.

“Religion is to me some form of fallacy” – As in my previous comments, I propose that all humans walk by faith and that the philosophy in which they have placed their faith is in fact, their religion.

“Does God enforce what is right because it is right? or rather because He says it is right?” – In order to address these questions we need some standard to determine which of these two questions is correct.

“Yes I firmly believe there is a God.” – Why?

“I believe in faith,” – I propose they’re the same, i.e. belief & faith.

“…, some unexplainable feeling compels me to.” – I believe you’re created in the “image of God” (Gen 1:26ff.). This is very multi-faceted, one facet being an inherent moral code of wrongs & rights.

“… we all have the ability to be good people regardless of our deity.” – As Socrates once said, “What is good?” There MUST be a standard to determine what is good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral/amoral, etceteras.

Unfortunately, it sounds to me as though you’ve been hurt deeply. First: One calling themselves a Christian does not make them to be a Christian, if in fact they are not a Christian. One that calls themselves a Christian that IS a Christian, is simply a saved sinner. On this side of Jesus Christians sin (1 John 1:8-10). On God’s side of Jesus, a Christian is without sin (Ephesians, 1:3-9)

Again Andrew, I apologize for taking so long to respond. I do appreciate your honesty.

I apologize for lack of clarity, I didn't speak from a perspective based on lots of reason or logic (to do so in entirety would make me a nihilist) but with mostly emotional cues from my life and my faith. Mostly there is no argument, nor is there really any concerns for changing my mind. These are views based on years of living, years of experience, granted some things may change as I am still young, however, as true Christians divulge themselves within their faith, I do as well in mine. I am right, for if I even considered fault, I would lack faith. I am full of empathy to other views, and accept much from others as I would wish them to accept from me. I am capable of approaching most topics with an open mind, and metaphorically even a an open heart. However also within my experience there has been an underlying agreement between all of the beliefs I have encountered. I wish I had the vocabulary to put it into words if those words even exist.. but alas, I do not, and am unaware. Thank you, for helping me do this. "As iron sharpens iron, so one man another". (a useful book)

Just depends on the person and where they live and the sociology of the aspect. Simple.” – Sooooooo, if a person lives in a culture where taking to head of what is viewed as as enemy is right and a person that lives in a culture where it is deemed to be wrong, are both equally right? Just to add a little. The person in the culture that teaches taking the head of another human is wrong is the one targeted by the society that teaches it is right. Again, are both right? Are both wrong? Is one right and the other wrong? We continually end up back at the point that man (a non-omniscient being) need some standard to determine whether a behavior is moral, immoral, or amoral.

“Man is still an animal.” – Past discussion on this topic.

“We don’t get the key till after we take the test.” – There must be a “key”. This is the point. There must be a key, i.e. a standard to determine whether something is right or wrong.

“…a study guide would be a better analogy….” – I like this analogy better. I personally believe that such a study guide is in existence, i.e. the Bible (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth – BIBLE)

“…incredible jumble of fairy tales….” – At one time, B.C. (Before I became a Christian) the Bible met nothing to me. I still remember a young man leaving my home each week with pages of my question, e.g. The Bible speaks of a global flood, is there anything in the sciences to support the factuality of such an event? If there is a god, where did he come from? Jonah and the great fish sounds a little fishy to me, is there any event or events in recorded history to support the possibility that this could actually happen? Etceteras. Etceteras.

“Catholic church” – I not saying that all Catholics are not Christians, but I am saying (at the risk of being overly redundant) going to church no more makes one to be a Christian that going to McDonald’s makes one to be a Chicken McNugget.

“Jesus to accomplish such feats?” – The miracles of Jesus gave credibility to His claims to be the Son of God. When Nicodemus (John, Ch. 3) came to Jesus by night, he said, “We know you’ve come from God, for no one can do these signs (miracles) unless God is with him.” (my paraphrase).

“Too many people separating themselves from each other, arguing endlessly. Too much focus on what is different, instead of what is the same.” – I agree.

Please tell Gabe “Hi” for me. I very much enjoyed having him in class. He has a good mind and is a lot of fun (encouraging) to be around. I miss the college very much, especially the discussions of the classroom. “As iron sharpens iron, so one man another.” (Proverbs 27:17) : )

You are totally right, what is kind, (back to our what is right or wrong). Just depends on the person and where they live and the sociology of the aspect. Simple. Even if God gave a standard to the human race. Many lived without it, many chose not to follow it, many chose to follow for different reasons. As far as society goes, just take sociology, customs are different from everyone. From immediate family, to extended, to work, to with friends, to church, we all act different depending on who we are with.

Man is still an animal… Yes we have developed minds and therefor ability to reason, but we then lack what other animals are born with. We have a far more developed brain but most animals have far developed muscles and all sorts of fierce or specialized tools that allow them to survive.

We don’t get the key till after we take the test.. Maybe a study guide would be a better analogy but, even then a test is all-inclusive. I don’t know. To be quiet honest. I am driven by logic here. The universe without a God is just depressing, but God having a son? And the metaphoric induced jargon littered through out the bible just feels like an incredible jumble of fairy tales used to keep people in line. Looking back on the history of the Catholic church, and the way it wanted to control the people, I am sure you are far more educated in this subject, but how can something as good and pure and genuine come out of a church like that? Why would God need a Jesus to accomplish such feats? There are too many questions with far too little appropriate answers. Answers ultimately answered with faith. Faith. Faith. Even if Jesus was in fact a man. Who knows who is right? The Jews? The Mormans? Catholics, Lutherens, Baptist….etc etc. Too many people separating themselves from each other, arguing endlessly. Too much focus on what is different, instead of what is the same. But overall I just don’t know. Very agnostic of myself. (even though I don’t like such labels). Too much to think about.

It wasn’t irony that brought me to this site, it was one of your students who happens to be a good friend of mine. Gabe B.

“kind” – There needs to be a standard (canon) in order to determine what is or is not kind. E.g., to one it might be kind to abort a child in the womb that would appear to have physical challenges. To another it might be anything but kind; some would even call it premeditated murder. One might think they’re kind with their comments to one of the opposite sex. Another might view it as unkind and perhaps even sexual harassment.

Please note that I did not say, “Is a person really just, or ‘good’ because they fear the consequences of the actions….” I said, “I believe that is a good thing.” I did not say that the individual was “good”, but that the “action” was good. Scripturally there is a big difference. “There is none good, no not one.” (Romans 3:10, my paraphrase). Like “kind”, “good” must have a standard to determine whether it is good or not good. Good in the context of the standard of the Bible and the standard of the immediate context of the verse I’m referring to is relative to one without sin. Scripturally, one can only be “good” or justified through Christ, i.e., just- as if-I’d-never-sinned. Justified. This is not in reference to a child that has not come to a point of accountability (as determined by God), or a person that God does not hold to be accountable for actions because of being severally handicapped mentally.

“Isn’t there somewhere in the Bible that states the thought of performing an action is just as bad as doing so?” – You may be thinking of Matthew 5:27-28, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (NIV) The context of this passage is not speaking of a glance, it is speaking of going through the adultery process in one’s mind, i.e. not taking one’s thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ. Fortunately, 1 John 1:9 reads, “If we (Christian in context) confess our sins He’s both faithful and righteous to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (my paraphrase). Scripturally (standard), temptation is not a sin. “Jesus was tempted in like manner (all basic sins), and yet was without sin.” (Hebrews 4:15, paraphrase) The important thing is what one does with the temptation, i.e. yield (sin) or not.

“… in all entirety I think God put us on this earth with a developed brain and logic above all other beings….” – I’m beginning to pick up that man is NOT just another animal.

“I chose to treat people based on what I know when it comes to society.” – It appears that your standard (canon) for kind or unkind is the society. My question is, “Which society?” And, which part or portion of that society? In the society of the United States there are diametrically opposed views relative to what is kind or unkind (previous examples). There must be a standard and, if possible, from an omniscient source.

“Earth to me is a test ….” – In all my years of teaching at a college I never gave a test or examination. I gave “Proficiency Opportunities” : ) But even with my proficiency opportunities I needed to have a standard to determine whether the answers were correct or not. My students needed to pass their finals in order to graduate and move on. A little ironically (1,000′s of colleges), the college where I taught had a co-op program with the college you are now attending. Well, without a “test key”, how does one determine how they did with their test?

I suggest that many in our culture are good (relative to laws of the land), not because they have a strong moral obligation to be good, but because they have a fear of the consequences of their actions.

Please take a cursory look at my previous post relative to fear of damnation.