Just to weigh in on PSac approach.
I obviously don't agree with PSac's beliefs per se. On the other hand, I can easily respect it, as others here have brought out. And it is a lot closer to what I would believe were I a Christian. PSac at least acknowledges the problems of suffering, he has his own conclusion on it, and most refreshingly for me, this conclusion is for himself. It's personal. To me, thats how it should be. In addition, PSac doesn't begrudge anyone their own beliefs. To me, it would be grand if Christianity evolved to PSac's views instead of stay stagnant.
When I debate theism in the abstract, I personally believe that we all need to be careful in what we are deconstructing, as well as why. Superpunk, I really enjoy your posts always, just very logical and respectful. I agree with most of your premises.
To me, there is a BIG difference between debating group faith and personal faith. To that, Perry and PSac both speak from their personal faith. The difference to me is that PSac is respectful and non dogmatic. Perry's views are not. PSac allows for my own path, and everyone else here. Perry believes in a god that will destroy us all eventually, since we are born sinners and thus merit the suffering that we are experiencing right now, unless of course, we accept Jesus.
I won't debate much with a sincere theist who has their own personal faith and that means a lot to them. Why would I want to take that away from someone?
PSac, as long as you don't shove your god down my throat, you and I are good bro. Thanks for not condemning me as part of your belief system.
Having said that, AKJeff's and SuperPunk have made great points that I don't think are easily answered by anyone's version of theism. It's tough, wish God would do something about it, you know?
