<DIV>Chas and Ralph,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Donovan's response was to make ad hominem remarks about me<BR>> personally."</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Please provide evidence of where I made an ad hominem attack in this thread.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Also please explain why you use the term "Xian", which is grossly offense to many Christians? </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><BR><B><I>Chasuk <chasuk@gmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Ralph Nielsen <NIELSEN@UIDAHO.EDU>wrote:<BR><BR>> Donovan made a religious claim, that we all deserve death, i.e.,<BR>> eternal punishment for an Original Sin in an afterlife. He wrote,<BR>> "'The wages of sin is death' (Rom. 6:23 [3:23]). This is a basic<BR>> belief of Christianity."<BR><BR>And:<BR><BR>> This
belief is based on incorrect understanding about what the Bible<BR>> actually says. Not only is the theory of Original Sin founded on a<BR>> false understanding of the Adam and Eve story, but it couldn't<BR>> possibly be true in the context of the Hebrew Bible (OT) because in<BR>> it there is no life after death (except in Daniel 12:2). And to<BR>> clinch my argument, I quoted God himself in Genesis 3:22-24. But it<BR>> seems Donovan doesn't believe God.<BR><BR>I'm in an odd position here of being a nontheist in near universal<BR>disagreement with Donovan, yet still finding it necessary to defend<BR>him in an argument with Ralph, with whom I agree almost explicitly.<BR><BR>Donovan is inarguably correct, as, arguably, is Ralph. How can this<BR>be? Because Donovan's religious claim _is_ a basic belief of<BR>Christianity. I am not a Christian, and I consider most beliefs of<BR>Christianity to be infantile hogwash, but Donovan's claim is<BR>contextually
accurate. Ralph argues that this Christian belief exists<BR>due to a misunderstanding of scripture, and he may be right.<BR>Truthfully, I suspect that he is. But that doesn't make Donovan's<BR>claim incorrect. It just demonstrates that the origins of the belief<BR>which Donovan is defending are doubtful.<BR><BR>Whew! I apologize for the convoluted syntax.<BR><BR>> Donovan's response was to make ad hominem remarks about me<BR>> personally.<BR><BR>Yes, he did. Donovan's behavior is inconsistent with his professed<BR>Christianity. If I were Jesus, I would be sad that one of my<BR>followers were setting sch a poor example. Of course, if I were<BR>Jesus, I would also understand Donovan's human frailty, and forgive<BR>him. But that doesn't mean that I wouldn't admonish him to mend hs<BR>behavior. Maybe the Holy Ghost is having this conversation with<BR>Donovan now.<BR><BR>> Donovan and other Xian believers don't KNOW that there IS life after<BR>> death,<BR><BR>Unless
one accepts that God makes known to Donovan and other believers<BR>the existence of the afterlife through divine revelation, which<BR>automatically puts the fact of the matter outside the scope of this<BR>argument.<BR><BR>> whereas I know that there is no evidence for such a claim. And<BR>> the more we learn in science, the more unrealistic such beliefs<BR>> become. I also find it fascinating that not all religions believe in<BR>> an afterlife either, as I have just demonstrated.<BR><BR>Agreed. We are probably meat machines that cease to exist when our<BR>body dies. The weight of scientific evidence certainly makes this<BR>conclusion the logical one.<BR><BR>Chas<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net
<BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p>