Jonathan H. B. Lobl

What? Are you saying that my conclusions lack logic? Please. Be specific.

Point taken. American women got the vote in 1920. Not exactly ancient history.

Maybe you heard about the man who took his gold with him to the afterlife? He's dragging two heavy suit cases and St. Peter wants to know what he's doing. He explained. "God gave me special permission to bring my gold with me." St. Peter said, "It's alright with me, but we have enough pavement."

My Agnostic reasoning tells me that when death comes, there are two possibilities. Either something happens, or nothing happens. If it's nothing, I won't even find out. If it's something, there are two possibilities. Either it's conscious or it's not conscious. If it's not conscious, I won't even find out. If it is conscious -- it will be a once in a life time experience. Either way, life is short. I'll know soon enough. Or not.

No need. The light in your heart shines brightly. There is nothing scary about you. Seriously, I don't need my friends to agree with me. Our disagreements don't bother me at all. Of course you're going to proclaim your truth. This is the place for it.

There is much to be said for being flexible. In the winds of change, grass bends. Trees break. The truth of evolution is a disaster for fundamentalists. Without a literal, historic Adam and Eve, there is no "Fall". No Original Sin. Nothing to be saved from. No need for redemption or redeemer. No need for the Lamb of God to be sacrificed -- because there was no fall. The core theology turns to dust. Of course you (plural) don't shout as loud. You're not afraid. They are.

Then why are most church leadership positions filled by men? Even in churches that allow women into all positions -- most church leaders are men. What ever the answer is, it's more complicated than spiritual passion. Or "relationship".

My discussions with meredog have been going on for some time. Long term, I am finding that his insistence on intellectual purity is extreme and unreasonable. To your comment -- some things are subjective. External reality is objective. IMO

It means that your understanding is not mainstream. It's not a problem for me. I doubt that it's a problem for you.

I've met women who are hard line, hard core anti-theists. We are all individuals. Even now, with all the changes that have come to society; women still do the bulk of domestic chores and child rearing. If women do the bulk of church work -- it's not because they're more spiritual. It's because they're more responsible. Somebody has to step up or it doesn't get done.

Silly man. You're a friend who is also a preacher. Not the same thing at all. I don't need my friends to agree with me.

You make unreasonable demands. I do not need to have a deep understanding -- of every nuance of every aspect -- of philosophy, theology, physics and metaphysics -- and semantics -- before concluding that an idea is false.

This is good.

Aside from the historic Jesus -- Christianity also recognizes the Eternal Christ, who was present from the beginning. Courtesy of Biblegateway.com Bible search results John 1:1 [ The Eternal Word ] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. In Context | Full Chapter | Other Translations

I think you're being overly ambitious. We can generally agree on how we define fish. On the most basic level, there is objective, verifiable, evidence that fish exist. Defining God -- and gods -- is more difficult. Certainly, there is less agreement.

I know. Part of philosophy is dealing with bad ideas. I can help if you get stuck. First, give it a shot. Hint #1 Beware of invisible assumptions. You will be lead down the garden path and over the cliff -- and you will have no idea how you got there. Trap #1 Never agree, when your opponent says, -- "Surely you will agree that ............" Or -- "For the sake of argument, let us suppose that ........" No. No. No. Do not put your own head into the noose. No matter how nicely you are asked. I suggest you put your thinking cap on now. Finally -- Have fun. You're not fighting for your life. You're learning how to argue. Remember: The man who does not make mistakes, doesn't make anything else, either.

Don't forget the Gods of Deism and Pantheism. All quite different. When ever I ask for a definition of God on this board -- I can almost feel all the eyes rolling up. Thank you for being the one to ask.

Are you talking about evidence for God? That would actually be a good topic. I want to be clear about what we are discussing.

Then you're not done with God. You will be told, by some, that you can't be good without God. That God is the foundation of morality. That without God, nothing is objectively wrong. The challenge is coming. Start thinking.

When a black swan shows up, I will reevaluate.

Von, I don't think you need help with prep. If you want it, I'm here for you.

When the prime requisite to be tight with God is to "believe" without evidence -- what kind of world does that set us up for? God wants us to be victim to every con artist and huckster? No place for evidence or common sense? Is this really what God wants for us? Eternal victimhood to every sly predator with a story and a con?

The ability to think clearly and coherently, is a good thing.

True believers have been preaching at me all my life. If they had actual, verifiable, facts, instead of mere assertions -- I am confident that it would have been brought to my attention. For the rest -- Important information? About God? Just for an experiment, try telling Christians, that you have important information about the ancient gods and goddesses. They will laugh in your face. Why? Because it's not their god that they are laughing at. An Atheist is someone who has one less god than a Monotheist.