Iconoclastic Atheist Turns To Belief In God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]haney wrote:
Boscobarbell wrote:

I think you need to block out some time with your pastor, 'cause it appears that there’s a whole lot you’re missing.

Well actually no I don’t need to block anytime out with my pastor. I gave you an overview of a concept that is very Biblical. I am also studying to be in the ministry. I didn’t know you wanted to debate doctrinal issues? I think you would to better to just try and disprove God then to discuss an in house debate that really only belongs to believers.

“Actually there is a concept of once saved always saved in Christianity. So at that point we can do anything we want without fear of retribution.” What is that, like a cosmic “Get Out of Jail Free” Card? So once you reach that point, you can fill your basement with the bodies of little boys you’ve molested without fear of God’s Wrath?

Well it could be considered a get out of free jail card. You would have to understand the concept of once you get saved though you are made new in God. That He begins to change you desires from wanting to sin to wanting to be righteous, and that if you murdered people that usually shows everyone you really were not saved. you also cannot come to God if your sole motives is to turn right around and fill your basement full of bodies without fear of going to Hell.

Damn, either you’re making this shit up, or your voodoo is even stranger than I’d thought?

Well Church Doctrine should not be your concern. You would have to get past the very idea of God before you could start talking about an in house issue.

“So I try to do right not to avoid Hell, but because I try to honor God in everything I do.” Now you’re just parsing words. No matter how you choose to describe it, you’re acting “morally” in order to please God. Atheists act morally because they love their fellow man. You tell me which is more noble…one who does good to achieve another’s approval, or one who does good because he loves good?

Well you assume I think I can please God. I honor GOd out of pure Love for Him. I do good by other men because God loves them and I am no better than them. He loved me when I was at my worst. I can’t please GOd, anymore than I can please anyone else. I am merely choose to try to what is right out of Love for Him. Kind of like I listened to my Dad, and did what I was told when I was younger out of respect and Love for Him.

[/quote]

You also seemed to avoid if you live up to your own standard of good? I am guessing you don’t.

You talk about how I am arguing in Circles you are not even defending your point of view that you can’t even seem to live up too. You seem to jump into more discussions with out conceding others. You insult a different scholars point of view just because He has an apologetic ministry. You argue about Church doctrine which you obviously don’t understand, and then you want to talk about how you are going to point out the errors in my arguments? I think it might be better to atleast be informed on the errors that you are citing.

242

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Honestly, was St.Thomas Aquinas just a dumb irrational superstitious man? Their is intellectually available material for both sides of the debate. Maybe some people don’t have the sophistication to untangle the difficult problems that belief - as well as non-belief - requires but to say that there are no great arguements for belief is just not true. I think it may stem more from your ignorance and characterizations of religion rather than knowledge of your own position.

No, St. Thomas was quite intelligent, and a great philosopher, in my opinion.

His strength, however, is not that he provided great arguments (because they all fail in the end), but that he bothered to provide arguments rather than rely solely on faith.

St. Thomas himself, though, fell back on faith in the end, no?[/quote]

Faith and reason are not antithetical. Do you not follow the faith in science alone?

243

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
How do atheists explain the origin of the universe?

I’m an athiest who proudly says he doesn’t have any clue how the universe began. Shit, you’re talking about one of the most fundamentally difficult metaphysical/physical philosophical questions there is…where would I get the gaul to propose some response to this? The answer, I believe, lies in science, though – not faith.

My problem is peoples’ reluctance to admit their ignorance. The universe may very well have been “designed” and “created” by something we term “god.” However, I have no good REASON to believe this and have far better REASON to believe that the origin of the universe developed in some way that works in accord with the laws of the physical universe.

The point is, however, that the jury is and should remain out.

I’m amazed at the balls on the religous to claim they have a handle on this difficult question. And further, the balls to claim not only that their is a “designer,” but they claim to know details of him such as various attributes, intentions and desires. That’s ballsy!
[/quote]

Okay, what are your reasons for not believing?

244

[quote]haney wrote:

Well I failed to see where there were Christian Scholars. Also I would note A scholar has no business evaluating historical documents. That is best left up to Historians. Which JP Holding quotes and uses plenty of them.[/quote]

Would you be happier if I called them Scholars of Christianity?? And just what is it that you think “scholars” do??

[quote]haney wrote:
I acknowledge they have a different view point. I tell you what though you show me a document that contained saying of Jesus that came before the gospels and then I will consider your scholars. After all we do have the gospels, but no master saying document as you and your scholars propose.[/quote]

Not quite sure what you’re trying to argue here. Yes, we have the gospels, which prove nothing in terms of whether Jesus was indeed the Son of God, not to mention whether he even existed as a historical (versus mythical) figure. Indeed, we have all sorts of works of fiction composed through the ages.

[quote]haney wrote:

Actually the answer is Yes, Matthew wrote His gospel and so did John, Mark wrote what Peter said, (Peter would be an eye witness) Luke is the only one you could throw into question. On top of that if the gospels are lies the oral tradition would most certainly contradict them, and no one would accept them. Back then oral tradition was held in higher regard than written word. So If they were wrong no one would keep copying them. Also you failed to see the part where even the early Church made comments about there being a gospel of matthew which first came from the Aramaic.

[/quote]

Not to be insulting, but your ignorance regarding the authenticity of the gospels is astounding. NONE OF THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN BY MATHEW, JOHN, PETER, ETC. Indeed, we don’t even know if such people existed, or what their actual names are, because there isn’t any independent historical evidence regarding their origins, although we do know that–at best–the gospels were prepared at least 70 years after the events depicted within.

245

[quote]haney wrote:

If you are so knowledgable than why did you not know something that is a common belief among many protestants.[/quote]

I didn’t say I didn’t know it. I said it defies logic.

[quote]haney wrote:
Who is writing in circles? I am trying to explain a view point which you seem to not understand. If you want to throw out problems. Do you really do things because you love your fellow man, or do you do it because it makes you feel good? If you did things because you loved you fellow man than I would assume you would have started a proccess that would out give Mother Theresa.[/quote]

It makes me feel good to love my fellow man, which I believe is further proof that man needs no intervention from mythical super-beings in order to understand right from wrong.

I have no desire to “out give” Mother Theresa. I desire to do good for my friends and family. Oh, by the way…do you not think Mother Theresa “felt good” when she did good deeds?

246

[quote]haney wrote:

You also seemed to avoid if you live up to your own standard of good? I am guessing you don’t.

You talk about how I am arguing in Circles you are not even defending your point of view that you can’t even seem to live up too. You seem to jump into more discussions with out conceding others. You insult a different scholars point of view just because He has an apologetic ministry. You argue about Church doctrine which you obviously don’t understand, and then you want to talk about how you are going to point out the errors in my arguments? I think it might be better to atleast be informed on the errors that you are citing.
[/quote]

My apologies for catching the flu and not being timely in responding. Perhaps you’ll find forgiveness in your Christian soul??

Guess what you will about my “living up to my standard of good.” You know nothing about me, and ad hominum attacks don’t do much to bolster your arguments.

Perhaps you would care to share with me the rules regarding which discussions I’m allowed to “jump into?” Or do you simply wish to have no Atheists ever discuss religion?

I refute the very notion that anyone associated with the Apologetic Ministry is a “scholar?” He is a self-admitted Christian apologist who has never submitted his works for peer-review.

I don’t “argue about Church doctrine”…I argue that the very doctrine is unsound and, at its foundation, based upon unsupportable assertions which have nothing to do with reality.

247

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Faith and reason are not antithetical. Do you not follow the faith in science alone?[/quote]

They are, in the sense that they rely on entirely different paths in order to acquire “knowledge.” And science is not constructed upon “faith” (another typical theist straw dog argument). Indeed, the scientific method dismisses any notion of faith, and instead relies upon testable, reproducable observations.

248

[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Okay, what are your reasons for not believing?[/quote]

Believe what? ID? Maybe because it is simply a trojan horse, designed to give creationists another shot at inclusion in the classroom.

Or maybe because it it, on several fronts, both illogical and unsupportable. You find complexity amidst the natural world, and immediately posit as its explanation the presence of a SUPERNATURAL, UNSEEN, UNVERIFIABLE source? Based upon what evidence…the fact that DNA and the workings of the human eye are more complex than “expected?” How about an easier explanation, like: “Wow, this universe is a whole lot more complex than we’d imagined!”

Secondly, must not the purported “designer” be necessarily even more complex? Must “he” not have a fantastically complicated and ingenious mind, one capable of designing things like DNA and eyesight? Well, then by your logic this designer must have been designed as well, as nothing so complex could simply have occurred spontaneously.

Do you see where this leads us…an infinite regression of designers, each themselves designed by a being of even greater complexity?

And you want that crap taught in classrooms??

249

BoscoBarbell,
I am gathering from you that you question whether or not Jesus ever existed. Here is a list of historians that has Jesus documented in their works:

Cornelius Tacitus (Roman historian)

Lucian, a 2nd century Palestinian satirist (the Leno of his day)

Seutonius (Roman historian)

Plinius Secundes, Governor of Bithynia

Thallus (Samaritan historian)

Jesus is referenced in the Jewish Talmuds

Phlegon, a 1st century historian

250

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:

Would you be happier if I called them Scholars of Christianity?? And just what is it that you think “scholars” do??
[/quote]
I think they try to determine things about what a religion thinks. Nothing more. They are not Historians, they lack the ability to critically talk about if it is Historical. Also the link you posted is not from come scholar but someone who wrote articles on what the scholars said. Kind of like what apologist do when they write articles. They have references. If your guys references are good then why are JP’s not?

My point is you are willing to put faith in what these “Scholars” think about where the NT documents came from, but they have yet to find the sayings document exists. It is just a guess at this point. You can talk about how Jesus is mythical, but there is more proof of Him then there is of your alleged sayings gospel. I think you are reading too much wells and Achyra S. Who both have had it handed to them in a debate with J.P. Holding.

We have no evidence they existed? We know that all were martyred except for John. You say I have no knowledge yet you are just making bold assertions with out offering any references. You cannot say for certain that those gospels were not written by them. Also most liberal Scholars would not put the Gospel of mark much past 70 AD. As for the Aramaic gospel of Matthew it is in the church records They claim it existed. There is more proof for an Aramaic version of Matthew than there is for your sayings gospel.

Oh and it looks like you just did an ad hominem, by saying I am ignorant of the first century. Too bad you forgot about that whole martyr thing.

251

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
I didn’t say I didn’t know it. I said it defies logic.
[/quote]

Look below at what you wrote. It certainly sounds like you didn’t know. Asking me if I made it up would mean you are not familiar with it.

[quote]

It makes me feel good to love my fellow man, which I believe is further proof that man needs no intervention from mythical super-beings in order to understand right from wrong.

I have no desire to “out give” Mother Theresa. I desire to do good for my friends and family. Oh, by the way…do you not think Mother Theresa “felt good” when she did good deeds?[/quote]

Well some sadist feel good when they beat people down for sexual gratification. Or a rapist feels good after he victimizes women. I guess that means they are good? From your comment it is all about how we feel.

Christian right and wrong is not about just helping your family and friends it is about helping everyone. Even those that hate you. Not every Christian is good at following that but there are many who are.

252

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
haney wrote:

You also seemed to avoid if you live up to your own standard of good? I am guessing you don’t.

You talk about how I am arguing in Circles you are not even defending your point of view that you can’t even seem to live up too. You seem to jump into more discussions with out conceding others. You insult a different scholars point of view just because He has an apologetic ministry. You argue about Church doctrine which you obviously don’t understand, and then you want to talk about how you are going to point out the errors in my arguments? I think it might be better to atleast be informed on the errors that you are citing.

My apologies for catching the flu and not being timely in responding. Perhaps you’ll find forgiveness in your Christian soul??
[/quote]
I never thought anything about it, but if you want forgiveness than you have it 70x7.

It was not meant to be an attack, just a hope that you would see maybe you have not got it all figured out. You seem to use ad hominum alot, but you are are guilty of doing that too.

There are no rules. I just would prefer to have doctrinal discussions with those who already know what I am talking about. At this point I would have to go over many principles so we could be on equal footing. Even then you might not fully get the concepts.

He seems to get many of his peers attention. He is more qualified than Achyra S or wells, or Dougherty. Who have wrote many books on Christ being a myth.

[quote]
I don’t “argue about Church doctrine”…I argue that the very doctrine is unsound and, at its foundation, based upon unsupportable assertions which have nothing to do with reality.[/quote]

You are agruing about something that you don’t fully understand. You say it makes no sense, but you don’t even know it.

Speaking of unsupportable did you ever find that sayings document (it is called Q)?

Since you are such a fan of JP’s I will give you one more link you can over look. It is on Christ mythers

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

253

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
haney wrote:

You also seemed to avoid if you live up to your own standard of good? I am guessing you don’t.

You talk about how I am arguing in Circles you are not even defending your point of view that you can’t even seem to live up too. You seem to jump into more discussions with out conceding others. You insult a different scholars point of view just because He has an apologetic ministry. You argue about Church doctrine which you obviously don’t understand, and then you want to talk about how you are going to point out the errors in my arguments? I think it might be better to atleast be informed on the errors that you are citing.

My apologies for catching the flu and not being timely in responding. Perhaps you’ll find forgiveness in your Christian soul??

Guess what you will about my “living up to my standard of good.” You know nothing about me, and ad hominum attacks don’t do much to bolster your arguments.

Perhaps you would care to share with me the rules regarding which discussions I’m allowed to “jump into?” Or do you simply wish to have no Atheists ever discuss religion?

I refute the very notion that anyone associated with the Apologetic Ministry is a “scholar?” He is a self-admitted Christian apologist who has never submitted his works for peer-review.

I don’t “argue about Church doctrine”…I argue that the very doctrine is unsound and, at its foundation, based upon unsupportable assertions which have nothing to do with reality.[/quote]

Also as I said if JP Holding is so full of it why don’t you go let him know. He is over at theologyweb.com.

254

[quote]bamit wrote:
BoscoBarbell,
I am gathering from you that you question whether or not Jesus ever existed. Here is a list of historians that has Jesus documented in their works:

Cornelius Tacitus (Roman historian)

Lucian, a 2nd century Palestinian satirist (the Leno of his day)

Seutonius (Roman historian)

Plinius Secundes, Governor of Bithynia

Thallus (Samaritan historian)

Jesus is referenced in the Jewish Talmuds

Phlegon, a 1st century historian[/quote]

Don’t forget Josephus!

255

[quote]haney wrote:
Boscobarbell wrote:

Would you be happier if I called them Scholars of Christianity?? And just what is it that you think “scholars” do??

Well Christian scholar would lead people to think they have faith. Not all biblical scholars have faith. Not all scholars(theologians) agree on what all of it means. They are not qualified to judge a document from ancient people as correct. That is best left up to the Historians. Too bad most scholars try to determine if it is correct historically. They are not Historians, they lack the ability to critically talk about if it is Historical. They can debate about what it all means, but they cannot tell us who wrote or how old anything is. Only historians can do that.

I acknowledge they have a different view point. I tell you what though you show me a document that contained saying of Jesus that came before the gospels and then I will consider your scholars. After all we do have the gospels, but no master saying document as you and your scholars propose.

Not quite sure what you’re trying to argue here. Yes, we have the gospels, which prove nothing in terms of whether Jesus was indeed the Son of God, not to mention whether he even existed as a historical (versus mythical) figure. Indeed, we have all sorts of works of fiction composed through the ages.

My point is you are willing to put faith in what these “Scholars” think about where the NT documents came from, but they have yet to find the document exists. It is just a guess at this point. You can talk about how Jesus is mythical, but there is more proof of Him then there is of your alleged sayings gospel. I think you are reading too much wells and Achyra S. Who both have had it handed to them in a debate with J.P. Holding.

Not to be insulting, but your ignorance regarding the authenticity of the gospels is astounding. NONE OF THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN BY MATHEW, JOHN, PETER, ETC. Indeed, we don’t even know if such people existed, or what their actual names are, because there isn’t any independent historical evidence regarding their origins, although we do know that–at best–the gospels were prepared at least 70 years after the events depicted within.

We have no evidence they existed? We know that all were martyred except for John. You say I have no knowledge yet you are just making bold assertions with out offering any references. You cannot say for certain that those gospels were not written by them. Also most liberal Scholars would not put the Gospel of mark much past 70 AD.

Oh and it looks like you just did an ad hominem. Too bad you forgot about that whole martyr thing.

[/quote]

256

Here is what most historians claim.

"Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from the Hebrew ??? [Y???a?], (meaning: salvation) and Greek ??? [Christos]) (meaning “Anointed One”)). He is also called Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene. Christians believe he was a historical figure who lived from about 6?4 BC to about AD 29?33, and most (though not all) secular scholars accept that Jesus existed. Christians also believe, on the evidence of nearly 2,000 years of unbroken tradition, as well as the four Gospels, which form the first books of the New Testament of the Bible, that Jesus was the Messiah (“anointed one”), the Son of God, and God Himself.

According to the account in the Gospels, Jesus preached a religious message in Galilee and Judea in Israel, and was sentenced to death and crucified in Jerusalem by order of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate before rising from the dead on the third day. Jesus’s acts and words, as presented in the Gospels, constitute Christianity’s basic teachings. These teachings were spread by a small group of followers or disciples."

And just in case you want to know what the historians think about when the gospels were written.

“The only written sources for knowledge about Jesus’s life are the four canonical Gospels and several non-canonical gospels. Most secular historians (though not all) agree that the source documents on which the four canonical Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus’s lifetime.”

257

Hi everybody! Wow, this thread has become a monster while I was away. Over 250 posts now. Anyway, I’m sorry I haven’t been here to throw a few bunny jokes in the mix, but I’d like to address some other stuff that’s come up lately.

About the existence of evil:
Evil is relative to the person making the judgement of it. It quite simply doesn’t exist without a human being to label it to some act or entity. Can I think of a situation where brutal, cold-blooded murder is not only justifiable, but also a damn good idea? We’ve all seen this argument come up, haven’t we? Quite simply, there is no such thing as “ultimate evil” or, for that matter, “ultimate good”. I can’t see why anybody would see this any other way. When you personify something like morality, things get weird.

And speaking of morality:
I think I might have a different take on this “atheist without a foundation thing” we got going here. I’m quite obviously a heathen, if y’all recall, and I like to think that maybe my foundations for morality are perhaps a bit stronger because of my lack of faith rather than weaker for it. Let me explain, here:

I don’t need a metaphysical carrot dangled in front of me to love my fellow humans. I don’t need the threat of everlasting oblivion or hellfire to make me want to be the best person that I can be. Ask anybody around here in the hospital who would bend over backwards for a stranger, and they will point you my way. I could write a list that would probably put most of you to shame with the amounts of selfless acts I perform. And I’m not saying this to brag. I’m just saying this to point out that it is not that hard to walk the walk about this issue. What is so hard about waiting another few seconds to hold the door for somebody, or to smile at folks more often? Morality isn’t something you get from faith. I’m living proof.

258

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Hi everybody! Wow, this thread has become a monster while I was away. Over 250 posts now. Anyway, I’m sorry I haven’t been here to throw a few bunny jokes in the mix, but I’d like to address some other stuff that’s come up lately.

About the existence of evil:
Evil is relative to the person making the judgement of it. It quite simply doesn’t exist without a human being to label it to some act or entity. Can I think of a situation where brutal, cold-blooded murder is not only justifiable, but also a damn good idea? We’ve all seen this argument come up, haven’t we? Quite simply, there is no such thing as “ultimate evil” or, for that matter, “ultimate good”. I can’t see why anybody would see this any other way. When you personify something like morality, things get weird.

And speaking of morality:
I think I might have a different take on this “atheist without a foundation thing” we got going here. I’m quite obviously a heathen, if y’all recall, and I like to think that maybe my foundations for morality are perhaps a bit stronger because of my lack of faith rather than weaker for it. Let me explain, here:

I don’t need a metaphysical carrot dangled in front of me to love my fellow humans. I don’t need the threat of everlasting oblivion or hellfire to make me want to be the best person that I can be. Ask anybody around here in the hospital who would bend over backwards for a stranger, and they will point you my way. I could write a list that would probably put most of you to shame with the amounts of selfless acts I perform. And I’m not saying this to brag. I’m just saying this to point out that it is not that hard to walk the walk about this issue. What is so hard about waiting another few seconds to hold the door for somebody, or to smile at folks more often? Morality isn’t something you get from faith. I’m living proof.
[/quote]

Well I never said Atheist lacked foundation. My point is if it is so natural to do good, then why do we not even live up to our own standard? It seems to me more people are born with a nature that thinks of themself, and no one else.

259

[quote]haney wrote:
Here is what most historians claim.

"Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from the Hebrew ??? [Y???a?], (meaning: salvation) and Greek ??? [Christos]) (meaning “Anointed One”)). He is also called Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene. Christians believe he was a historical figure who lived from about 6?4 BC to about AD 29?33, and most (though not all) secular scholars accept that Jesus existed. Christians also believe, on the evidence of nearly 2,000 years of unbroken tradition, as well as the four Gospels, which form the first books of the New Testament of the Bible, that Jesus was the Messiah (“anointed one”), the Son of God, and God Himself.

According to the account in the Gospels, Jesus preached a religious message in Galilee and Judea in Israel, and was sentenced to death and crucified in Jerusalem by order of the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate before rising from the dead on the third day. Jesus’s acts and words, as presented in the Gospels, constitute Christianity’s basic teachings. These teachings were spread by a small group of followers or disciples."

And just in case you want to know what the historians think about when the gospels were written.

“The only written sources for knowledge about Jesus’s life are the four canonical Gospels and several non-canonical gospels. Most secular historians (though not all) agree that the source documents on which the four canonical Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus’s lifetime.”
[/quote]

Do you see what you just quoted: “Christians believe…” “According to the account in the Gospels…” That is what’s called self-referential.

What I’ve stressed again and again is that you need to present verifiable, peer-reviewed historical accounts of Jesus’ existant. All of your references are either apologetic Christians or since-disputed “historians.”

And, since we’re getting a bit off track here, let me point out another fundamental problem you have in “proving” anything about Jesus. Even if I grant you that the accounts of his life are accurate, you’ve still got to overcome a tremendous hurdle in convincing those without “faith” that he was anything more than a teacher and philosopher. His claims regarding the “Son of God” are extraordinary, and thus require extraordinary proof. And don’t forget that claims regarding messiah-hood and miracles (as well as “eyewitness” corroboration amongst deluded followers) have occurred throughout time and throughout cultures…we certainly aren’t to take such things at face value, are we (unless you wish to accept that there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of “messiahs” across the millenia)?

Look, unfortunately I have a job and a family and a workout schedule, and thus am going to have to recuse myself from this discussion for the time being. What I would seriously suggest–with no hint of malice or sarcasm–is that if you are TRULY interested in what the debate currently looks like regarding this subject, head over to Internet Infidels. Yes, it’s set up by atheists, but the forums represent some of the best, most informative–and CIVIL–debates regarding this and other subjects you’re likely to encounter, well represented by both theists and atheists. I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about much of this stuff, but these forums are populated by the REAL experts from both camps…guys who do this stuff (historical research, philosophy, etc.) for a living. And no, I have no affiliation there; I’m just a fan.

Hell, if you’re feeling particularly froggy, go over there and posit your beliefs regarding the historical accuracy of the gospels. Making this suggestion feels like covering a cat with bacon bits and sending it into a wolf den, but if you’re confident of your knowledge and sources then I’m sure you’ll get a good discussion brewing (and, unlike me, many of the posters over there seem to have unending amounts of time to devote to such debates).

Oh, and by the way, clear to clarify where I made an ad hominum attack on you? I’ve critiqued your philosophy, research, and knowledge as it relates to the theist/atheist debate, but never you personally.

260

[quote]haney wrote:

Well I never said Atheist lacked foundation. My point is if it is so natural to do good, then why do we not even live up to our own standard? It seems to me more people are born with a nature that thinks of themself, and no one else.
[/quote]

No, you did not, although other theists in this thread have made that claim.

I believe that man is flawed and imperfect, and thus fails to live up to this and any number of other standards. Some failure is due to laziness, some to selfishness, some to the tug of emotions. Most people know fast food and sugars will make them fat, too, yet obesity is rampant. KNOWING is often different from DOING, unfortunately.

This is no different for Christians, as well…take a walk through any penitentiary and check out all the crucifix and Jesus tattoos. I’m sure all these criminals consider themselves Christians and have at least a passing understanding of the Commandments…which doesn’t stop them from failing to live up to them.