Well, Casey Luskin is, of course, based in Washington state and I assumed that is what you meant when you were questioning whether any of the commenters actually lived in Washington.

ok, I grant that’s a reasonable assumption.

And it really doesn’t make much of a point to question whether the commenters actually live in DC, since Casey doesn’t either.

But I think it does, as that’s the basis of my point. Did they all just happen to be reading that article because it appeared in the local paper? I think not.

Perhaps they all, by force of habit, do a daily google search on “Casey Luskin” to see if he’s written anything interesting to which they might wish to post an intelligent counter-argument. I think not.

Actually, you’re pretty close there, at least in my case. Google News allows you to customise content, and I have chosen “Intelligent Design” as a news topic. I check Google news every day and that’s how I found the article – and I live in the South Pacific!

“It makes sense that, depending on what we think about the bible, from that will flow what we feel about the nature of God and salvation,”

Well often that is the case, but it need not be. The OT turns a lot of people off, and sometimes Christian theologies turn people away, but that need not be. A lot of people reject the Bible but continue to believe in God and remain spiritually active and aware. It is a shame when people reject God along with the Bible or church. That’s known as throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

This is (IMO) where the Holy Spirit comes in. The Holy Spirit can teach a person directly about the nature of God so that they don’t depend on the teachings of others so much.

I’m in North Carolina.

I examined my soul with brutal honesty, and the analysis was not comforting.

My soul was so black and dark.

It could not be examined, without the light.

When the light came, all darkness fled.

Now that my soul lives in the light.

My soul’s far reaches, the light illumes.

No longer my soul, doth live in dread.

Well, Casey Luskin is, of course, based in Washington state and I assumed that is what you meant when you were questioning whether any of the commenters actually lived in Washington.

ok, I grant that’s a reasonable assumption.

And it really doesn’t make much of a point to question whether the commenters actually live in DC, since Casey doesn’t either.

But I think it does, as that’s the basis of my point. Did they all just happen to be reading that article because it appeared in the local paper? I think not.

Perhaps they all, by force of habit, do a daily google search on “Casey Luskin” to see if he’s written anything interesting to which they might wish to post an intelligent counter-argument. I think not.

If anyone in the U.S. these days believed in witchcraft, Casey Luskin would stand accused, condemned, and executed, if these radicals had their way.

If rabid, frothing at the mouth, attacks were met with a bullet, well, figure it out.

Would you trust the education of your children to a bunch of raving lunatics who’s best response to a reasoned argument is “YOU STARTED IT”?

Okay, I understand what you are saying. It makes sense that, depending on what we think about the bible, from that will flow what we feel about the nature of God and salvation, and so that further explains the positions that you hold. Thank you for sharing that with me.
I am working the graveyard shift here at a radio station in SC. Where are you posting from?

I see a big divide between the Old and New Testaments. In the first five books, linguists find that there was more than one version and it was at a couple of points woven together, but they disagree on many important details because each author had a separate agenda. The disagreements are large in number. The OT God is almost entirely concerned with worldly conquest, cares little about any other people than his own, and engages in many activities which we would consider morally abhorent. I don’t find that the OT speaks with one coherent voice, and there are indeed a few good things in it as well.
But Jesus’ teachings and much of the New Testament are a radical break. Jesus teaches that God loves unconditionally, forgives without number, that his perfection is his unconditional love and that we are to achieve this ourselves. Jesus teaches specifically against sacrifice, but the OT says God demands it and unfortunately this idea has been incorporated into much of Christianity. Jesus teaches forgiveness, not payment.

I believe that Jesus taught that salvation is of the Holy Spirit and that this is a vitally necessary spiritual awakening that will set us free and teach us truth.

I believe that the New Testament, for the most part (some errors) teaches that God is absolutely good, and that this goodness is irreconcilable with the OT God and also with some Christian beliefs.

God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.

If you would be kind enough to further explain what you believe the Bible teaches about the nature of God, man’s salvation and how we obtain it, that would help me to understand better what you are saying .

“But, if the ultimate reality is the God of the bible, it doesn’t much matter what you or I may think, God makes the rules.”

Well, I will admit that is not quite the God I believe in. I don’t think the Bible as a whole presents a single, coherent God.

“But even if that is the case, where does that leave the atheist?”

I don’t know…where does it?

“It’s not a valid argument to reject Christianity based on the failings of those who claim to adhere to its laws.”

It’s not what I was saying. I am saying I don’t see that much difference. We all have a soul and a conscience and a spiritual life, whether we acknowledge it as such or not. Why should we assume God only cares about outward things and not inward things?

“But the point is, if a real God is the final judge of morality, being a “moral” atheist is not sufficient. Again, I believe that are many “moral” atheists out there, plenty in fact, but, ultimately, it is useless.”

So you are saying that God does not actually care about the substance of a person, their good conscience or good actions? If out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks, and if sins of thought (lust, anger) are more subtle forms of adultery or murder, then it would seem that a person who is kind and compassionate and honest has a good heart or soul. If the soul comes from God and behaves well, even though they do not have a dogma which tells them what to do, does that not indicate that they are sensitive to that still, small voice within? Doesn’t that deserve praise? Why would God be indifferent to that? Hasn’t their soul done well with less support to go on than the religious person?

I do too, and that is why I go to church every Sunday and am involved in music ministry.

Church is AA for recovering sinners, and I’m one of them. I’ve lived an exemplary life by secular standards. But that is not enough.

I examined my soul with brutal honesty, and the analysis was not comforting.

I would encourage others to do the same.