>>Sometimes Russell and Pim have claimed that the fact that Christians have
>>not always observed an absolute moral standard shows that such a standard
>>does not exist.
>
>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.
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 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. 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.
(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. 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.
>
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?
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. If I am correct
that the Bible is God's written word, I'm curious what sort of prefatory
information you would require to authenticate that the Bible really is
God's written word.
Your analogy
>assumes beforehand that which you are trying to prove.
Only if you don't accept the available documentation.
By comparing Christian
>morality to a seatbelt (that sounds like a great one-liner, BTW ;-),
It wasn't intentional, and it's not the kind of one-liner I like, but
you're right :-)
you are
>assuming that Christianity, like the seatbelt, was designed to do good (as you
>define it).
One of a number of passages of Scripture which disagrees with your
statement above is
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for
salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the
Greek." Romans 1:16
Again, if Scripture really is not "the power of God for salvation to
everyone who believes" then why do so many people read it? It's so shot
through with these kinds of references, it would seem to me that if they're
not correct, most people would decide to relegate it to library stacks
where researchers could study it, but the average individual would not be
confused by it.
>
>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.
One point that is important here is that people are not argued into the
Kingdom of God by logic. 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.
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)