Grim,

What is implicit in the crap is, that, if all good is in heaven, then by default humanity is intrinsically bad. A position with which secular humanism would not agree. Moreover, how can good only exist in heaven or divine realm, while at the same time Christian religionists assert humans to be in the image of a loving god? At best, in the case of Christianity, it could be said, that we are evil, unless influenced by the Holy Spirit. If the last proposition is correct, then secular humanists are touched by the Holy Spirit, despite their disbelief, given not all secular humanists are evil.

The last sentence might beg one to ask of religionists; Are secular humanists evil?

I would maintain humanity, believers or not, are both good and bad. Moreover, in the OT God behaved badly and Jesus in the NT is good.

Oliver,
I will not unscramble your ramblings.

When God designed the Universe and placed man in it, he considered man very good (Genesis 1: 31), man was designed to reflect moral purity. The only being in the universe that can make moral judgments is man, he is socially responsible for his behaviour. That is part of the design of the human spirit. Because we are now by nature wayward of respect others and their property we have laws that enforce social boundaries. Obedient observance of good citizenship does not come by innate nature we have to be educated in morality. Jesus teaching is not based merely in, "Thou shalt not kill"; but if you harbour hatred in your heart against another you have violated moral purity. Wishing another dead is a social moral violation.

The Church has been the only socially organised body in the past to teach morality. However the history of the Church is a miserable failure in the teachings of Jesus. Bishop Spong is no virtue of Christ's teaching. Spong espouses his own predjudices and not the teachings of Christ, so is not an authority on true Christian theology.

No person has a monolopy on moral purity, since we all are inclined to do things we know threatens or detracts from anothers best interests - just listen to the office gossip. Even persons calling themselves Christian fail in social standards of moral purity. They must also pay the price of their injustice.

Philo wrote: "The Church has been the only socially organised body in the past to teach morality."

Dear Philo,

That statement is absolute rubbish. Morality is the stock in trade of most religions, societies and philosophies.

Philo also wrote: Spong espouses his own predjudices and not the teachings of Christ, so is not an authority on true Christian theology.

That is also rubbish. Many Christians claim that other Christians who don't see things the way they do just espouse their own prejudices. Bishop Spong is objective enough to look at his own religion and see its faults. With Christians like Bishop Spong the religion can eliminate some of its faults by admitting them and confronting them.

Philo also wrote: Even persons calling themselves Christian fail in social standards of moral purity.

That is also rubbish. Even? Christians are no more morally pure than anybody else.

Philo also wrote: Jesus teaching is not based merely in, "Thou shalt not kill";

That is true. Jesus was a Jew and got that from the Ten Commandments. He get "Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself" from Leviticus. The best part of his teaching comes from the fact that he was a Jew. People who call themselves Christians claim to follow Jesus but reject his Jewish religion.

I always knew there was a word for it, i must be secular.

Oliver, thank you for elucidating (or dumbing down).
To paraphrase the oft mentioned Voltaire, I agree with everything you say, and would fight to the death for the ah, right to um, understand it.

davidf,

As previously stated I went through this before... Atheism is a single focus issue e.g. one can logically be an almighty prick and be a true Atheist (i.e. Starlin) but not a SH. SH focus on morality etc makes that logically impossible.

I don't believe in God (supernatural as in final determinist God).
However I have no problem in leaving PNG natives(and aborigines) with their Shamanistic beliefs....(Their understanding of God aka spirits is so different as to be incomparable in any western sense.)

Their beliefs/people can't be separated into neat western thought patterns. Their culture is all encompassing and impossible for one so lacking in verbal skills like me to explain to anyone who hasn't been INTIMATELY exposed or a willingness to take a larger perspective ask Belly, Romany. Foxy may not wish to subscribe but has grasped but her posts clearly shows the the essential elements.

NB There is a difference between having been there and experiencing it.

It seems to me you have an agenda ...beyond informational.
Your semantical question on "other type" of God betrays that or a limited ability for abstract nuance, either way this is neither the time or place for a philosophic debate.

Notwithstanding I am open to real information seeking.