> How do you know that the bank robber doesn't
> want the teller to be shot?

It's my hypothetical, so I can stipulate that he doesn't -- unless you want
to claim that bank robbers by definition want bank tellers to be shot.

The point was that even if he doesn't, his giving the teller a way to avoid
the consequences doesn't absolve him of his moral responsibility for
designing the consequences.

> You just said that because you thought it was cleaver.

It indeed cleverly makes the point I just explicitly restated above. Thanks.
:-)

> That doesn't make the characteristics of
> the Deity and a bank robber the same.

I didn't say they were. What's the same about them is just their moral
responsibility for the consequences they design.

> You are free to arrive at that conclusion if
> you wish but that doesn't make you right.
> Of course you could say the same about me
> but that just makes you a non-believer.

Ah yes, I hear this a lot from Christian apologists. The logic seems to be:
"you and I still don't agree, so our arguments must be of roughly equal
validity".

> Until you are called, you will not be able
> to know.

If a benevolent deity had effected a competent revelation, I would be able
to know it by consulting standard reference texts. I don't understand why
your deity would want me to be able to know about gravity more easily than I
can know about salvation. It would seem that salvation is a little more
important than gravity.

> Until you seek to be informed, you will continue
> to live in darkness.

If you knew anything about me, you'd know that "seeking to be informed" is
one of my primary purposes in life. But feel free to imagine that I don't so
seek if it helps you rationalize my disagreement with your theology. :-)

> Those who have a deeper understanding aren't in
> the position to be conflicted with this principal.

If you have a "deeper understanding" of divine command theory than is
covered by the article I cited, I'd love to hear about it. Better yet, write
it up for publication somewhere.

> So for your benefit, I present Dr. Michael
> Edelstein's article in it's entirely.

For your benefit, I present the Secular Web in its entirety:
http://infidels.org :-)

If you don't want to explain how Edelstein's article is relevant, then I'm
happy to let the record stand as it is.

> I find your adulation for Ronald Reagan
> and your position on the Deity inconsistent.

Adulation n. Excessive flattery or admiration.

My admiration for Reagan isn't excessive. I cited his accomplishments and
asserted that they make him the best U.S. president of the twentieth
century. If you think there was a better one, then name him and compare his
accomplishment to Reagan's.

> I have a degree in Theology and I don't believe
> that you or Ronald Reagan have any such credential.

If anything you learned while getting your Theology degree is relevant to
our discussion, feel free to use it. Don't hold back on my account. :-)

> Sorry you won't be joining the people who
> are active participants in this list in the
> activities we find so important.

One side-effect of libertarianism seems to be the conceit that one knows
best how all other advocates of liberty should direct their efforts. I hope
that you haven't fallen victim to this syndrome.

> If you chose to marginalize yourself and your ability
> to influence, that's your choice.

I'm trying to de-marginalize what I perceive as a self-marginalized
movement. I recognize that by staying in the mainstream I risk being
considered marginal by the movement itself. I love liberty and humanity
enough that I'm willing to take that risk.

> As I'm in politics to cultivate
> personal relationships as I believe that's
> the best way to influence people

We each have our own strengths, and different audiences are subject to
different methods of influence. I have a target audience in mind and my own
assessment of how I can best influence it. I'm flattered that you seek to
guide my influencing efforts, but I would hope that having my own
influencing strategy doesn't mean you think you need to ostracize me. Of
course, only you (and your deity if he exists) can know for sure why you
might try to do so.

> our goals are not compatible. Perhaps you would prefer
> to not be a part of this list and group?

I'm interested in communicating with fellow Bay Area Libertarians. I'm sorry
if you think that my doing so is inappropriate, and I would hope that most
people on lpsf-discuss would not share such an opinion. If there's evidence
that they do share it, I'll respect their wishes.