Here's what I don't understand. kosta comes on the RF and tries to debate religion and morality and whatever else, but he does not share the common ground upon which the posters on this forum can debate or discuss the issues and come to logical deductions regarding the religious issues at hand. The common ground that is essential to a religious debate are:
1) The existence of God
2) The fact that God has revealed himself to man
3) That this God expects something from his creation
4) That God has given us scripture in order that we may learn of him and
5) That given the evidence of scripture and creation that we can come to a more complete knowledge and love of the God who created us.
Well kosta does not seem to believe in any of the foundational principles for a reasoned religious debate. God does not need to prove his existence. By our very existence he has proven it sufficiently to any who would care to use the powers of reason that God has given to us. God did not begin his scriptures by postulating his own existence. He expects when we pick up the scriptures that we must acknowledge his existence.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God....
He exsists. Period. What follows Genesis 1:1 is what God has chosen to reveal to us about himself. If you can't get past Genesis 1:1, then you can't really debate religious topics. If you can't get past Genesis 1:1, then you shouldn't even bother to put your two cents worth in here on the Religion forum. It is impossible to debate theology with a person who denies the very existence of the Theos.
INDEED.
This is what kosta refuses to accept "in principle" — i.e., without "proof" satisfactory to himself. Sigh....
And thus you are so right, P-Marlowe: "It is impossible to debate theology with a person who denies the very existence of the Theos."
Thank you so much for your beautiful essay/post!