Peter wrote: "Specifically, they are dependent upon God's nature"

And since Peter nowhere proves the existence of this mythic god, he is essentially saying that rights are dependent on nothing. I think we can do better than this. 

Peter wrote: (God does not arbitrarily decree whatever morality He wants to"

How do you know this? You simply assert it.

Peter wrote: "--He decrees based upon His nature, which is good)."

Did God create his nature? If he did not create it, then it is random.

I wrote: <<<This simply means that rights are a matter of whim, not of reason, since biblegod could revoke someone's rights simply because he got pissed off. >>>

Peter responded: "Not at all. You would recognize that a criminal revokes his right to liberty in America, right? He who breaks the law is under the judgment of the law."

Only under due process. There is no due process when the authority is identical to a dictator who holds absolute control. You cannot reason with someone who thinks he's always right.

I asked: <<<Peter mentions "the image of God." What exactly is this referring to? >>>

Peter responded: "There has been a discussion of this for some time in Christian circles. The Bible isn't clear on what specificially the image of God is."

If "The Bible isn't clear on what [specifically] the image of God is," then those who think that individual rights are based on "the image of God" have no clarity on what these rights are supposedly based on. Peter mentions that there's "been a discussion of this for some time in Christian circles," but since the Bible isn't at all clear on this matter, this discussion will no doubt never find unanimous consensus among believers (as is the case with other Christian doctrines). So much for a biblical basis for individual rights!

Peter wrote: "Of course you should recognize that this does not make it an invalid principle (we do not have to have comprehensive knowledge to have sufficient knowledge)."

Peter wants this idea, "the image of God," to be a valid principle. But nowhere does he validate it. It seems he thinks it is valid simply because it is a phrase taken from the Bible. And even he admits that he is unclear exactly what it refers to. Thus, it is a referenceless (i.e., meaningless) phrase.

Peter wrote: "I think a strong case can be made for the image of God being those attributes that man has that separates him from animals, such as artistic abilities and the like."

Sorry, we already have Aristotle: Man is the rational animal. Now, don't try to hijack this in service of your god-beliefs. It would never work!

I asked: <<<So any supposed "image of God" could not be an image of a physical form, could it? >>>

Peter responded: "No, it isn't refering to a physical form at all (in fact, making images in a physical form is condemned by the Bible precisly because God is not physical, He is spiritual)."

Actually, making images of "any thing… that is in the earth" is condemned by the Bible. There goes your family photo album.

I asked: <<<Is "image of God" supposed to be a reflection of God's intellect? How could it be? God is supposed to be both omniscient and infallible, but man is neither of these. >>>

Peter responded: "Of course man is neither of those. Put it this way: God is self-existent, we are dependent upon His existence to exist; God is omnipotent, we are dependent upon His power for our own; God has a sovereign will, we have a dependent will (it is dependent upon whether or not God allows us to carry out what we desire); God is all knowing, we are not. Everything that we are is dependent upon God."

So, it would seem that we agree: "image of God" does not refer to God's intellect.

I wrote: <<<I don't see how that could be, since Christians hold that God cannot sin while claiming that man cannot avoid sinning apart from the intervention of God through salvation (and some even dispute this).>>>

Peter responded: "Of course this doesn't take into account the fact that Adam was created morally upright and it was only after he fell that sin came upon mankind."

Actually, I don't think that this position ("that Adam was created morally upright") is supported by the Genesis myth. For it wasn't until he ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that he had knowledge of good and evil. Before this, he was nothing more than a clueless robot.

Peter wrote: "In any case, God cannot sin not because He lacks the ability to do so, but because it is agianst His nature to do so (and nothing can against its own nature)."

You say on the one hand that "God cannot sin not because He lacks the ability to do so," but then on the other hand you say that "it is [against] His nature to do so (and nothing can against its own nature)." These two statements are in flat contradiction to each other. Pick one or the other, and live with it.

I had written: <<<only way I could see that "image of God" could apply is if this is taken to mean the emotional nature of God, for throughout the Bible God is portrayed as very emotional, usually in degrees of anger and rage. >>>

Peter responded: "I disagree that anger and rage are the most common portrayal of God, but even given that, are anger and rage always (or even usually) wrong?"

I would think that anger and rage are inappropriate for a supposedly omnipotent, omniscient being. Anger and rage, like all emotions, are automatic reactions to new knowledge as measured against one's values. There can be no new knowledge for a being which is supposed to be omniscient, and an omnipotent being would be driven by any negative emotions to improve a situation, not simply sit there and fester. Indeed, since Christians hold that their god does not change, this god must be eternally angry and miserable. Too bad for him. Perhaps he should try prune juice.

Peter wrote: "When I look at God,"

You can look at god?

Peter wrote "I see a patient God"

You can see god? What does god look like? Does he have a beard? Are you certain he's a he?

Peter wrote: "who restrains His just anger and grants mercy."

Sure, that's what you're supposed to say. This is all rehearsed.

Peter wrote: "The simple fact that you are alive right now is because of His mercy. That is truely His most 'common' attribute--grace."

The simple fact is that this is a myth; you believe it (or claim to believe it). Nothing you've stated or pointed to has brought this simple fact into question or doubt.

CertainVerdict