[randilover]

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

We've already discussed this point. I've argued in my opinion sufficiently to the contrary. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

No, I don’t think you have.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

But I'm not talking in terms of their limited self interest of good. I'm talking a universally applicable definition. Is it good for society accross societies to eradicate minorities?

You are arguing with me that there is no universally applicable definition of good. You are telling me that it is up to a society or a culture to determine if it is good to eradicate minorities. If not, what are you appealing to?

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Even if I concede the point you make in the first paragraph, the argument falls flat on the second. Every one of their beliefs they relied on were false. Therefor, their justification is non-existant.

What beliefs were false? They just lost the war.

The problem with your present world view is this: You view is that you are a good person, living with a scientific framework or a naturalistic framework, you will never be able to logically answer why you should live your way and not any other way. Atheistic philosophers have even said naturalists and atheists have no rationally compelling reason to be good. Hitler built his framework on the same worldview as yours. Nature shuns equality, why should have he looked for equality?

I’m not saying you’re not good. I think you definitely are. You think rationally and critically. You pursuing the best interest of your kids is one of the greatest things I can think of. The Christian never says you cannot be good, it only says you have no compelling reason to be good. The only reason you can really give is in some self-serving reason that it is better for humanity, but better begs the question.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

Belief and dedication to the Christian faith have given countless people hope and reason to "do good" however you want to define that. I have no problem with that. That dedication usually leads to a life that is productive and beneficial to others. That cannot be argued as a bad thing. Holding up to Christian ideals helps some people out, and it could even be said that it benefits society that live up to its ideals consistently. That, however, is not proof of its "truth." There are just as many people who have lived good lives without the need to be dedicated to Christianity. The problem arises when those who are Christian decide that everyone else must be Christian as well.

I would make an argument that it does, at least to some extent, testify to its truth. If the fruit is good, the tree must be as well. Doesn’t logic conform to reality? But see above. Again, the Christian never says you cannot be good, it only says you have no reason to be good (which then means you have no reason not to be bad). If the evidence of something is validity of it’s truth, you have to weight that into the proof of its being right, much the same way you would look at most of the choices me make every day.

The Christian never decides everyone else must be Christian. I’m not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean as it pertains to eternal life/heaven, or just that everyone has to act like a Christian no matter what? As for the first part, the exclusivity we have discussed and doesn’t really discount any of it’s claims, and I’m not sure the second part is true. Just because you sleep in the garage does not make you a car. Making someone act like a Christian is not making him or her to be Christian.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

He never told me anything. I like Ravi's story about the guy who died and met God and said something to the effect of "you never gave me enough proof you existed." That is EXACTLY how evolutionists look at IDers. How can you look at the evidence and not be convinced? It doesn't make any sense to us, just as it doesn't make any sense to you.

That was Bertrand Russell, I think. There’s two parts to this. This is why I always say it’s a moral problem, not an evidential one. If it were an evidential one, once the evidence was shown, there’d be no argument. The problem is that that evidence is never compelling enough. You may assume that one day it will be, but by doing show you have showed your hand that it doesn’t at this point, yet you desire to do just that. The problem, from the biblical perspective, is that it isn’t a lack of evidence, it’s a suppression of the truth. See, without "evidence" of God, man can do what he wants and make up his own rules. So he can determine when life begins, who’s worthy of living and dying, his own rules for his behavior, etc. There’s a vested interest in man to keep God out of the equation.

Ever hear of Anthony Flew? The world’s most prolific atheist and he recently came forward saying atheism no longer offers the answers to the questions life gives. It’s been said it would be as if Billy Graham announced he was an atheist. Now, here’s a completely rational man, who as time has gone by has debated the historicirty of Jesus and the resurrection, thought through all the issues, etc., and he comes out thinking differently. He’s not a Christian, I hear it’s more of a Deist point of view. But theistic nonetheless.

The second would be that it doesn’t work that way. Belief works on faith, which is inherently based on something that isn’t necessarily an evidence issue, although not irrational. It’s not a destination that the true Christian person seeks after, it’s not a state of mind, and it’s not a location that is important to him. It’s a relationship, of which faith is the fuel. There’s not much good in saying why is it faith based. That’s the way it is. It’d be like asking why your car has to run on gasoline. Ask all you want, you’re not going to get to work without fuel in the tank.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

I imagine people get pretty self respective when they near death. Death is probably a scary thing. I don't put a lot of stock in the near death philosophy as anyone. Why would that give you more clarity to answer life's questions? I would think that when you are free from the iminent danger of death, you would be in a better position to reasonably weigh evidence.

I would say the opposite. A man who is at the end can look back at the whole and judge it’s value better than the man in the midst of it. Its why near death experiences can be so life changing for people. It puts all the desires you encounter on a daily basis in perspective of the whole of time, not just the immediate future. If death was near, the things that are truly valuable become even more so, the things that meant little will not even be thought of. It’s why funerals are defined by eulogies that sound like, "He was a faithful husband." Or, "He was a great father," and never, "He could handle an adjustable wrench better than anyone I knew." Death is the great equalizer. Whether you believe is a life after death or not, we’d do well to mark the perspective of someone nearer to death, talking of hopes or regrets, than one in the middle of it with no pending fate.

Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers

That doesn't answer my earlier challenge to it from the non-believers point of view.

I know well enough why you follow Christ. I want to know what you think about the posibility of being wrong. I know you think there is no chance. But consider it for a minute. Assume the consequences are the same for you as they would be for, say, me who does not follow Christ. Assume the other god, whoever it is, has the same consequences for someone who does not devote his life to worshipping him in the way he wants. What then? What does Pascal's wager tell you then?

That I am still no less off than you are.