Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Howard Brazee" <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Now, prove me wrong. Just honestly go on record right here that, if you could
see real and unquestionable proof that the Bible is absolutely true and reliable,
you would be willing to accept Jesus and submit your life to God.

What kind of proof would you demand before accepting Hinduism as your
religion? Is that the same level of proof you are asking Pete
about?

Howard, you cleverly left out Pete's comment that I was responding to, which
would have made clear you missed my point. I had claimed non believers like
Pete did have faith in their secular belief system. Pete objected, saying he
had no faith, and that his beliefs were entirely based on evidence.

If you are going to attribute words to me, please have the courtesy to quote them. I do not recall stating that I don't have
faith, although I certainly do rely on evidence to form conclusions.

Okay, let's look at it another way, which I actually prefer. What I'm trying
to establish here is that athiests believe what they do because they want to
believe it, not because there is no evidence for God. At the bottom line,
having faith in something is being willing to cling to that belief, even in
the face of what may appear to be contradictory evidence or experience. It
would be impossible to do such a thing, unless you actually want to believe.
No one would continue to believe in something they did not want to believe,
in such a situation. Thus, the underlying principle of faith is that the
person exhibiting faith does so because they want to have that faith. This
is one popular premise upon which athiests denigrate faith in God, because
it is "based on faith," implying it is not also based on evidence. The
immediate statement you made that I was responding to is this:

Pete Dashwood:
How about those of us with open minds? We don't particularly WANT to
believe anything...but we have to recognize evidence whether we like it
or not...

I accept that you probably believe that statement, but I do not accept it as
true for a moment. My contention is that you (along with all athiests and
non-believers), plain and simply, do not want to believe or accept the existence
of God. You can't accept the idea that there just might be a God out there to
Whom you may have to give account and be responsible, and you are unwilling to
submit your will and life to that God, even if the proof of His existence is
undeniable. In order to clearly establish that, I offered you a challenge to
easily and quickly prove you you really do not "WANT" (as you say above) the
outcome to be one way or another. Here is my challenge:

Judson McClendon:
Now, prove me wrong. Just honestly go on record right here that, if you could
see real and unquestionable proof that the Bible is absolutely true and reliable,
you would be willing to accept Jesus and submit your life to God.

So, open minded or not? I'm betting you will obfuscate, change the subject or
otherwise avoid the issue. :-)

Am I right? Let's take a look at your responses below:

I have publicly stated here what I believe and why.

Obfuscation, does not respond to the challenge. I was not questioning
your beliefs. I was asking you to verify your statement that you did
not "WANT" to believe one way or another.

I never claimed "complete objectivity" EXCEPT when I was researching the subject over 30 years. During that time I was agnostic.
Now I'm not.

Still unresponsive. It's very simple, do you "WANT" to believe
one way or another, or not?

You have no more right to require me to change my current belief, than I have to require you to convert to Hinduism, as Howard
quite correctly pointed out.

I'n not requiring anything of you! I'm simply asking you to verify
your statement that you don't "WANT" to believe one way or another,
and they you are simply basing your opinion on evidence.


Either he is completely objective without faith,

Nope. You missed the boat... that was a long time ago.

in which case he will make such an
admission, or he is not objective and does have faith, in which case he
won't, thus proving my point.

Nope. There are any number of reasons why I won't play your silly game and not just the ones you postulate.

More obfuscation and mis-direction. :-)

I COULD be non-objective and rely on faith, as you suggest, but I could also be objective and still have faith. It is certainly
true that I have "faith" in the conclusions I have arrived at, but this doesn't stop me re-evaluating what I believe from time to
time. New evidence comes in all the time.

Great! If your "faith" is based on evidence, not "WANT", then you should have
no problem responding to my challenge, where you get to specify the quality of
the new evidence presented to you. If you're still "re-evaluating", then here
is a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate that fact. :-)

(Can you claim truthfully that YOU do that?)

I claim that I have evidence for the truth of the Bible and the existence of
God (some of which which I've summarized here on occasion), and that I have
faith in that. I never claimed, as you did, that I do not "WANT" to believe
one way or another. I want to believe in God. And I believe you "WANT" to
believe there is no God. But you can easily prove me wrong, which is what my
challenge is all about. :-)

Some tme ago I posted here the percentages I currently have against the questions to which I want answers. Your "challenge"
requires a black and white answer which is anathema to the processes I follow, and what is even worse, it would require me to
adhere to one strict and narrow cult which abnegates all responsibility and hangs it on a man tortured to death 2000 years ago. I
already explained why that is unacceptable to me.

Not so; I'm not "requiring" anything of you. I'm simply asking you to
verify the truch of your statement by answering a simple challenge. If you
were presented with evidence that you yourself deemed absolutely and
uncategorically undeniable that the Bible is absolutely true, and that the
God of the Bible exists, would you accept that evidence and be willing to
accept Jesus and submit your life to God? I say that you would not, because
you do not want to submit to God, regardless of the evidence, and that is
why you invest your faith in athiesm. I.e. the evidence doesn't matter to
you. I even gave you a very easy and simple way to prove me wrong. So,
going to prove me wrong? :-)

I'm still betting you will continue to obfuscate, change the subject and
otherwise avoid giving a direct answer, because you are determined not to
submit your life to God, no matter what. But if you admit that, then you
show your position to be based entirely on what you want, not on evidence
*to any extent whatever*. :-)
--
Judson McClendon judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


.

Relevant Pages