jeffma (05/05/83)
Randall Elliott has posted an article which is apparently in part directed towards an earlier article of mine: "I also noticed Jeff Mayhew's Plunge II.....This reply is for you, too." Although it is fairly obvious which parts of the article are intended for Mr. Arens, I really don't see anything which specifically addresses the points in my article. Before I spend any time responding to remarks, I want to make sure I'm responding to the right ones. Could anybody tell me exactly which remarks (see dadla-b.437) directly address the issues I raise? I've already had some bad experiences with moving- target discussions, and I don't want to make the same mistake twice. If you're going to respond, do it clearly. I am continually seeing what appear to be very indirect, tangential attempts to approach the issues raised in "Taking the Plunge (I and II)." One attitude I seem to be sensing is that there are people who believe that, if the acceptance of a particular belief system as valid causes a perceived improvement in one's life (or the lives of others around you), this means that the belief system is "correct" (i.e. its claims are accurate). I also sense a conviction that "miracles" have been personally witnessed which speak for the existence of God, as well as personal experiences of a mystical nature: "But when God uses His power like that, it shows me that God not only exists (and is not passive) but *really does love us*." "I notice the deep emotional problems that had hung them up for years being cured and removed without any obvious means or techniques. And the changes were faster than I had ever heard of any psychological or psychiatric help providing. One person I know has been classified by doctors as mentally and emotionally incurable (the results of a genetic foul-up plus LSD) that has been healed by Jesus." "I just watched as God revealed Himself to me through other Christians. I then started asking Jesus for more proof and reason to have faith in Him and He kept on showing me more blessings, miracles, and such." "If I can see God working, I have no problem believing." The word "miracle" is indeed used, and miracles indeed seem to be put forth as "evidence" for God's existence and actions in the world. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Are these statements being used to provide rational justifications for your belief, Randall? Since you are confident of your beliefs, I would like you to state very clearly that you believe these observations represent rational foundations for Christian beliefs. Otherwise I fear I'll be jousting with windmills. If you are not willing to make this commitment, tell me why. Let's not fool around. Also, for anybody else: if you believe you have an important point which addresses these issues, please try to make your point publicly. I've spent a lot of my time responding to private mail items and, although I encourage this channel, I think that often the interchange which occurs would be enjoyed by net.religion readers in general. Obviously the content of some of this mail is not necessarily appropriate for public exposure; use your own judgement. And, contrary to the prematurely drawn conclusions of an individual on dadla-a, I do indeed answer my mail--when I get it. Jeff Mayhew Tektronix P.S.: I have gotten several private mail responses, but so far they indicate quite strongly (to me) that the motives of the writers for adopting their religious beliefs were emotional rather than rational. In other words, I have not seen any response with includes a sound rational basis for the assumption of religious beliefs. I will respond to these people privately, however. If they disagree with my conclusions, they are welcome to state their disagreements publicly.