I would like to do that and continue this discussion with you, Bill.
>I believe Francis Schaeffer makes some similar points, but it's been a
>while and I don't remember which of his books makes it. From my point of
>view, the standard exists but is not consistently observed.
And that's fine; I respect your beliefs. I respect Jim's beliefs, too.
All I am pointing out is that those beliefs are just that -- beliefs.
>Why? because
>people are people. They are capable of obeying a standard, but they are
>also capable of setting it aside or even twisting it for personal gain.
And the same thing happens with humanist moral standards, too. But
that doesn't mean that the humanist standard is inconsistent or
ineffective.
>(BTW Christianity recognizes that tendency in people and offers forgiveness
>for those who confess and repent of the instances hwere selfishness has led
>them to violate the standard). Your moral code -- based on empathy -- is
>also not universaly observed. You yourself have probably not observed it
>to your own satisfaction on occasion.
Yes, that's true. Like any human, I am not perfect, and I have made
mistakes too.
>Yet you have confidence in it.
>Applying your style of discussion, I ought to be justified in asking you
>why you believe there's any value in your empathy-based standard when it's
>not universally observed.
And that's a perfectly valid question. The answer is that I believe
there's value in my standard because I have seen it to work; not only
in my own life, but in others as well. And I'm sure that's why you
believe there's value in your system.
>I wrote
>>>...Let me propose
>>>an analogy. Most of us recognize that safety belts in cars have saved many
>>>lives and therefore are good. Russell's and Pim's argument seems to me
>>>analogous to claiming that because a few motorists have gone berserk and
>>>used the safety belts in their cars to strngle someone, that safety belts
>>>are not valuable safety equipment in cars.
>>
>Russell responded
>>It's not at all analogous to that. A seatbelt is something that was designed
>>to save lives. Any other use for it is not what it was intended for. We know
>>that, because we know who designed seatbelts and why.
>
>Can you document the name(s) of the developer(s) and the date(s). Do you
>have their publications, explaining exactly what seatbelts are intended for
>and their limitations?
I know (and you do too) that I could dig up this information with some
research.
>The Christian belief
>>system, OTOH, does not come with such pre-packaged information.
>
>And of course I disagree. If the Christian standard of morality, which is
>documented in the Bible, is so shaky, then it's a mystery to me why people
>-- many who are not even believers in either Judaism or Christianity --
>have preserved and read the Bible for nearly 2000 years for the New
>Testament and much longer than that for the Jewish Bible.
People have preserved the Bhagavad Gita (spelling?) for thousands of
years as well. Not to mention Native American religious stories, and
a variety of other religious stories or texts. Are they all true?
>Again, if Scripture really is not "the power of God for salvation to
>everyone who believes" then why do so many people read it?
Because people see value in it. But that doesn't mean that it's *all*
true.
>>Also, I should add that, even if everything you and Jim say is true, then
>>Jim's main assertion (that being loyal to God is more logical than being
>>loyal to one's own empathy) still hasn't been proven.
>>
>If God is omniscient, good and loving (all of which are taught in
>Scripture), then Jim's view seems very reasonable to me.
But that "if" has never been logically proven.
>One point that is important here is that people are not argued into the
>Kingdom of God by logic.
A point that I fully agree with. And again, there's nothing wrong
with that; I just want Jim to acknowledge it.
>I enjoy these discussions, but not for one
>nanosecond do I believe that any line of argument is likely to convince
>Russell. God is a Person who wants to have a loving relationship with
>people. Scripture also teaches that God takes the initiative in
>establishing such a relationship. So my prayer for Russell -- someone I
>have come to respect a great deal -- is that the Lord _will_ make His
>presence evident to Russell.
Well, He may be trying. My girlfriend took me to church last
Sunday. But I haven't changed my mind yet. ;-)
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.