[Anselm]That God truly exists

Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam and Eve did not think of reality in terms of some things being good and others evil until they ate the fruit. Remember that a popular theology in early religion was that of duality: see Zoroastrianism, a battle between Good and Evil. Genesis is a rejection of this theology, in favor of a theology of following God.

What's wrong with atheism?

Sorry, but when I see, "subject to" anything, and "not of its own will," I tend to think that free will has somehow been compromised.

Notionally, anything can exist. Therefore, regardless what notion of "God" someone believes, it exists to them.

That's not what you're looking for, though. You're looking for scientific proof. Proof that you're not going to find. But, if you're really adamant about this, I'd like you to scientifically prove these concepts first: "City", "Government", "Country".

You'll have the same trouble. Why? Because these are notions we've constructed. There is no physical "Country" that abides by the scientific method, yet you may not have the same angst towards that word. How does "Country" fit into your positivism?

I'm really curious as to why it's less valid to you.

Yes, very serious. And I'm aware of the contents of the Bible.

Theologians are not claiming that the Bible is figurative because of modernity: the exact opposite is true. Biblical literalism is a modern development; historically, theologians have read the Bible figurative - again, you could check up on Anselm for an example, or Aquinas, or any other prominent theologian. I've already explained this, remember?

I mention theologians because we are talking about interpretations of God and that's what theologians study: God. If you want examples of what people believe, you look to theologians.

Most believers and theologians believe that God is all powerful, all knowing and so forth - but most theologians do not believe that God is literally all powerful, all knowing and so forth: they take these descriptions are figurative. Your arguments take these descriptions to be literal. Thus your arguments do not address the God of many, if not most, theists.



Historically, they debated the divinity of Jesus. The stories of Jesus from the Bible are mythology, not history.

As for the Catholic Church: I already said that Catholic dogma has been, since day one, that scripture is not to be read literally. The Catholic aggression towards other faiths was not due to a literal reading of scripture.
You have essentially the same resource as I, educate yourself:
Religion News: Vatican knocks fundamental, literal reading of the Bible

Ask yourself some critical questions: the Bible never speaks of Purgatory, yet Purgatory has been Catholic dogma for centuries. How could Catholics justify Purgatory in their cosmology if it isn't in the Bible? They do not read the Bible literally.


I never said such a thing, did I?



Which authors?
Anyway, I'd recommend you study the book before you try to suggest that the authors were primitive in any way, shape, or form.



No offense taken.

Sure we have physical experiences of God, and no, we cannot prove it. To understand this claim, you would have to understand what is meant by "God". Looking at the arguments you level against God, I'm doubtful that you understand the concept at all. Not that I'm particularly adept myself, but none the less.

It's logical if Zeus corresponds to your experience of the world, and if that understanding does not contain a logical contradiction.

Your claims that theists no longer take theists beliefs literally is just false. Catholic followers no longer believe that Jesus was really historical, and performed supernatural miracles? George Bush really didn't think that he received some type of council from God? The survey that shows that many Americans believe that Jesus will return within the next 50 years and usher in the rapture? Hindus really don't believe that a little girls born with additional limbs was the reincarnation of one of their deities? Christians really don't believe that Moses parted the red sea? They really don't believe that they're going to heaven or hell when they die? Christians didn't start believing in the divinity of Jesus until recently?

The Old Testaments commands to stone homosexuals, non-believers, and adulterers sounds pretty literal to me. Can you reinterpret that for me?

"I never said such a thing, did I?"

You said that Catholics no longer take the bible myths literally, when they clearly do! If they were to claim that Jesus was not divine they would lose their authority.

A variety of Christian churches have made attempts to adapt to modern times, by reinterpreting scripture for their fitting. The best examples of this are the theological movements of Unitarianism, and Universalism. The Catholic Church, dogmatic as it is, has also tried to change its views to adapt to changing times. They do this because they know that if they don't they risk bringing about the extinction of the religion itself. When religions become too outdated many followers will leave it behind, and once it becomes an afterthought by the current generation, it will eventually be consciously, or unconsciously abandoned by the later generations.

Okay, here's another issue with this passage... if we're going to assume that it advocates free will somehow, or, at least, doesn't oppose free will... doesn't "will be set free" also suggest that whatever is happening to the creation/creature (whichever) is not something that the subject is in control of? If someone/something else (let's just say God maybe...) has both subjected the creation, and is to set it free, how then is any of this creation's fate in its own hands? Wherein do we find free will?

Great question. Setting aside questions about free will; we'll just assume that free will is short hand for man's ability to act freely.

In this case, free will comes into play because it is up to man to be set free: God gives the opportunity, by sending Jesus, but it is up to the individual to embrace Jesus.

Depends what you mean by belief. One need not believe, historically, in Jesus in order to embrace his teachings. Even more abstract, we might say that it isn't the figure Jesus, but the message of Jesus (compassion and self sacrifice) that one must embrace regardless of where we find this message.

Embracing Jesus would, naturally, require believing in Jesus, and we could get into the whole discussion about whether or not belief is actually a choice.

I was trying to answer Solace's questions about Romans in the context of the Christian tradition. Though my responses were sloppy, I wanted to keep them in context because the passage in question is specifically Christian scripture.

I'd like to see a thread concerning this, actually. Care to make one?

Depends what you mean by belief. One need not believe, historically, in Jesus in order to embrace his teachings. Even more abstract, we might say that it isn't the figure Jesus, but the message of Jesus (compassion and self sacrifice) that one must embrace regardless of where we find this message.

I'd like to see a thread concerning this, actually. Care to make one?