The Case for Christ

[jasoncran]

In a way, I agree, in a way, I don't. For those of us that don't have this gene would be acting consistent with not having that gene. Those of us that don't have that gene are pre-disposed to believing that our society is better without people randomly killing people. So, we actually are acting by our nature.

so then we are then practicing arbitrally eugenics as that gene may be natural selection's way of improving men or not.

thus we cant base morals on mother nature at all as ns doesnt care about what it does as it has no intellegence.

which one is right if your argument is better. the murderer is acting on his nature and kills and those that dont have that gene dont .

thus one is going to supress the other.

 

[Mike]

Can this discussion could get back on track? I know the OP was very general, but the intended purpose of this thread was to discuss the case built for faith. Maybe a few of these points being discussed can be done so in their own threads.

 

[Deavonreye]

I'm still wondering if the top information from these types of books could be given, preferably one at a time, so that these "cases for Christ/faith" could be looked at. I'm willing to discuss them without personally attacking anyone.

 

[Mike]

Deavonreye, I'm not opposed to that, but I know you worked through a number of issues individually in separate threads. I have the book and will see if there are points that I haven't seen brought up.