I don't think knowing scripture is a necessary part of my definition - I framed it that way to be more relevant to what you and Jibninjas were talking about.

In my view (for example) I think you have a view as to what God wants - it's your conception of morality. I can't speak for other people, of course, but I personally have done things I considered to be immoral at the time (primarily by conveniently not thinking about it as a moral question at the time I made my choice) - I don't really think in a 'rejecting God' kind of way, however if I were to use that terminology this is the situation I would label rejecting God and would consider anyone else to be doing the same if they acted contrary to what they believed to be right (which I think is possible).

EDIT: If the bible is a guide to what is moral, then there is a correlation between our god-given ability to discern good from bad and living according to how the bible says we should.

Who, me? No way.

This is quite likely true. There is a very real sense in which most of what you write seems meaningless to me.

EDIT: FWIW, That isn't intended in a negative way, despite how it reads. I don't have the words to describe what I mean, but I think language is a tool for describing reality and you seem more to focus on language as the only reality we have access to. (Apologies for no doubt mangling your actual position...).

Well, ok, if you insist, but now you know.

Ah, then I don't know if I reject God, since I'm unsure which direction to rule on "sins of omission". (E.g. I strongly believe aiding orphans is a moral good; yet I've never once actually done it. Ad infinitum.)

It can indeed be difficult to know, I agree - I certainly have no idea what the solutions to the various problems raised by sins of ommision are.

In my view, that difficulty is part of the whole thing. Again though, if you've ever been in the position of doing something you know is immoral - you're rejecting God.

As bunny points out, our interpretations will differ, therefore our idea of rejecting God may differ. A good example is going to church on Sunday. Personally I do not, nor do I feel it is necessary, but many people would disagree with me.

Ultimately it is about being truthful with yourself. As Paul points out, intention has a lot to do with it. But this does not mean that you can make up an interpretation of something to get out of doing what is right.

Hold on a second. I never said that one needs the bible necessarily. It is just necessary for conversation. God has put a moral law in the hearts of all.



Perhaps.

Well said. The idea that we all walk around not knowing what is right and wrong or that we do everything that we think is right is not realistic.

This should be evident from the fact that most atheists on this board will say that you do not need the bible (or any revealed texts) to tell you that rape is wrong, or that screwing over your coworker to get a head is wrong, etc.

So you're describing a particular kind of psychological dissonance, yes? (I feel as if I should do X; but instead I do Y and suffer guilt for it.)

This experience probably embodies both NotReady's and Jibninjas's concepts. Of course every human with non-pathological neurological architecture has felt it. But then doesn't it turn out that 'rejecting God' is a concept best placed in the domain of cognitive science, and not religion?

The problem with that is everyone has different morals and things they feel are morally right and wrong.

If i feel treating a women as subservient is morally wrong then according to you and bunny im following Gods morals. If someone feels its right to treat a women as subservient than they are following Gods morals.

I don't think they were arguing otherwise. Evidently it is much easier for someone with a highly-articulated moral conscience (e.g. Peter Singer) to 'reject God' than it is for the average person, who only has the minimal moral compass gained through basic socialization.

And people with cognitive deficits---sociopaths and the like---can't reject God at all.

We're going to get into the difference between knowing and belief here. I said:

"...if you've ever been in the position of doing something you know is immoral - you're rejecting God."

In order to know it (the way I use the word), you have to believe it and it has to be true.

Subfallen is drawing attention to the fact that it is difficult for us to know whether we know something and even more difficult for us to know whether someone else knows something. This is true, but doesnt mean it's impossible - I think people are too scared of the irrefutability of skepticism.

It is if the entirety of the human mind can be described scientifically. I dont think it can - I believe the soul is not the empty set (soul being something I've previously defined as "that part of human consciousness not explained by a complete physical description of the brain" which I may have to tighten to '...of the universe').

As I conceive it, we have no empirical methods to study the soul, pretty much by definition. We are left with rational argument (which provides no starting point, but gives us confidence in our conclusions) or intuitive leaps (which give a plethora of starting points with no confidence we're correct). I don't think "make no leaps" is any more defensible than any other starting point - I dont think adopting/constructing/choosing a religion is a rational process, though rationality can exclude some such constructions.

I get what Subfallen is saying.

OK - well according to me you're not following God's morals. It doesnt matter if you think you are or not, that's only part of knowing you are.

I lost now...

My post was directed at jib saying.

"Well said. The idea that we all walk around not knowing what is right and wrong or that we do everything that we think is right is not realistic.

This should be evident from the fact that most atheists on this board will say that you do not need the bible (or any revealed texts) to tell you that rape is wrong, or that screwing over your coworker to get a head is wrong, etc. "

If im ingrained with knowing whats morally right and wrong. Than me not wanting to make women subordinate because i think its immoral must be morally right with God regardless of what anyone says.

Ok - I was responding to the "according to you and bunny". I don't think you're following God's morals if you are making women subordinate. In my account above I explicitly acknowledged that we can want to do immoral things, even though we are all given the ability to discern right from wrong. You wanting it doesnt make it good according to my view of morality. I won't speak for Jibninjas, maybe we're saying different things.

I should of been more clear.

And im not saying i want to treat women as equals. Im saying my innate morals are telling me treating them as subservient is immoral.

OK. Then I also have no idea what we're disagreeing about. I agree with you that treating women as subservient is immoral. I also think God agrees with us (that's why our innate moral sense is the way it is). If you choose to do other than this, you're 'rejecting God' (to use the terminology of this thread, although that's not how I usually talk about such things).

I was just making the point there are others who say their innate morals say treating as subservient is morally right. So it appears someones innate morals are out of whack.

I've corresponded with Megenoita in PM's. He doesn't wish to participate in this thread, but he does have somewhat of a response to the annihilationist viewpoint on Hell="Gehenna", and he gave me permission to re-post it. Here it is:

Concerto, or anyone else care to respond to this?

Sure.

First off most of what he writes is a strawman. No one claims that Jesus what trying to say that people were going to end up in the actual dump. No there is no real issue with what he says here as he is arguing against a position that no one holds.

The point with Gehenna being an actual place need to brought up to understand that everything talking about "hell" is in at least some regards metaphorical. So even though no one thought that people where going to be thrown in the actual dump, no one would think Jesus was talking about some mythical location in which people where burned alive.

You also need to keep the metaphor in mind when any verses are being looked at. More can be said, but I will not get into that now.

As far as his verses in Revelations, well Revelations is written in the style of the typical apocalyptic literature. So we really need to take everything said with a grain of salt. The only thing in either of those two verses that speaks of duration is in 10, and "for ever and ever" can be, and is in other places, translated into "ages and ages". But either way, if you doctrine rests on one passage in Revelation, I think that you need to serious take a hard look at that doctrine.

Here's another question: this quotation basically has the devil himself being thrown into the lack of burning sulfur to be tortured forever and ever. How then does he go about being the great deceiver of humanity after that. Isn't he in the lake of fire being tormented?

Well, what is the metaphor for? What is the intended meaning that Jesus/The Bible is trying to get across?