>>>And, I might add, the burden of proof rests on those who are trying to
>>>prove that such a standard exists. And they must do it WITHOUT presupposing
>>>that which they are trying to prove.
>>
Me
>>Our paradigms are showing :-). I do want to reiterate the suggestion made
>>by others, that you look at C. S. Lewis' little book, "mere Christianity".
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.
>>
I wrote
>>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?
>
Russell
>I know (and you do too) that I could dig up this information with some
>research.
Agreed. But the trail may not be as clear as you envision it (it seldom
is). I submit that if you spent the same amount of time and effort looking
for objective standards in the Bible (and looking for the consistency you
rightly value), you might find the objective standard we're discussing.
This is somewhat of a minor point, and I don't see any value in dwelling
overmuch on it.
>
>>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?
Fair enough. I can't prove the truth -- or lack of it -- of other
rnligious writings. And the authority I claim for the Christian Scriptures
is based on the Holy Spirit, Whom you don't acknowledge. I think we're at
our perpetual impasse again. BTW your spelling of Bhagavad Gita is correct.
>
>>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.
The point is that the Christian Scriptures make a sufficient number of
claims that would be outrageous if not true, that it would be puzzling (to
me at least) why people would pay any heed at all if they didn't consider
it substantially correct. I'm not about to claim it's all true without
defining what is meant by "all true". (I probably wouldn't discuss it even
if we could for a moment agree on a definition of "all true" :-) 1 Tim
3:16 says all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching,
correction, reproof and training in righteousness. That's not the same as
literally 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.
I've never said it has. I'm relating how the world looks from my point of
view -- that of a convinced Christian.
>
>>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. ;-)
Careful! Many years ago I wasn't a Christian, and my girlfriend was. I
went to church with her and the upshot of everything -- a process that
played out over a number of months -- is that now I'm a Christian and she's
my wife. No regrets, either. I'm glad you were willing to go.
Bill Hamilton
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Hamilton, Jr, Ph.D. | Staff Research Engineer
Chassis and Vehicle Systems | General Motors R&D Center | Warren, MI
William_E._Hamilton@notes.gmr.com
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX) | whamilto@mich.com (home email)