Steve

I was a little leary of following Lance's suggestion to list your name first to identify authorship at the writing's onset. I figured that y'all would see it and say, "Oh, it's from Steve. Let's see what else is on the Blog." (From now on I may use a psuedonym like Heather or Bambi or something like that.)

Obviously, the chief purpose of my 'existence of Lincoln' question was to ask each of you what type of evidence will be accepted as valid in our discussions. Often I have found that many discount points and assertions coming from a Christian perspective just because it is considered faith-based or religious-- discounted by use of a magic wand without doing the work to actually consider and answer the points. That is unacceptable. (Especially since this Blog is devoted to fairness.)

The subsequent corollary expects a consistent use of examination techniques in acceptance or repudiation of statements. In other words, I would expect one to use similar critiquing methods concerning your own assertions as well as those of another. (What's good for the goose is good for the gander.)

My assumptions here are twofold and may sound contradictory. First, faith not only underlies Christianity, it is also the substructure of logic, science, atheism, politics, post modernism, etc. Second, however, I also aver that there is truth and that it can be known. (Not exhaustively, but truly)

Further, I assert that Christianity, as a philosophy, explains the nature of things, people, and societies. It bridges the gap between the particulars and the universals; phenomena and noumena. The otherwise mentioned philosophies/anti-philosophies (logic, science,...), by themselves or mixed and matched as they usually are, when disrobed of their adorning rhetoric by distillation in life's crucible expose the 'might makes right' and 'whatever is, is right' foundations regardless of their originally stated intentions. This is not intended as a proof, but that, as a philosophy, Christianity is even more rational than the others. Science is wonderful for observing, gathering data, and prediction, but is as dead as a hammer in explaining the love I have for my brother and nephews, as well as so many other aspects of life that we all know exist. (You all know each other so logic could never explain why I love...)

For a more practical example, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America were both written within Christian philosophy. The framers presumed that that there were God-given rights and that unlimited power grasped by a single man (or several) would trample these rights. (Yes, they knew that Christians would also abuse that much power.) By contrast the French Revolution was based upon another thought form. Its adorning rhetoric tolled a high sounding ring, but its actual implementation...

Unfortunately, although the Constitution remains essentially the same, the surrounding culture has to a great extent moved out of the penumbra of its original philosophy and nearly twisted it into dead-letterdom. (It all depends on what the meaning of is is.)

This Constitution does not prohibit greed. The Declaration would seem to legitimize it. Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (private property- Smith) are all issues of self-interest and the betterment of one's condition. Greed that provides a desirable service seems to be beneficial to many more than its originator. In this definition greed not only betters one's own condition, but also betters the condition of others. That appears good.

In a stricter definition, however, the internal condition of greed is toxic. Its manifestation can be controlled by external forces-- competition, law, social disapproval-- but if fully allowed to express itself it will cause harm. It can express in a manner as benign as Alka-Seltzer inventing a condition called 'The Blahs' for which it is the cure (back in our day) up to greedy assumption of power 'to serve the greater good' that swallows up life and liberty (examples found in all times and places).

Nonetheless, the law cannot (or should not) prosecute an internal state, but only certain defined outward expressions of it.

If hate in some way produced a desired service for some, would it also be good? It could be argued that Hitler's inward motivations not only brought on Germany's prosperity, but also ours. After all, WWII also brought us out of our economic depression (moreso than F.D.R.'s social policies) to enjoy the prosperity and benefits that we indulge in today.

However, if I were required to choose between the greed of a robber baron and the greed of a 'Power to Washington, D.C., Berlin, or U.N.' politician, I'd opt for the former. At least the robber baron produces something-- the politician only takes what others have produced (whether that be for Constitutionally legitimate purposes or other).

Todd (or Hodo as I have nicknamed you since viewing some of your early artwork posted on the Cribbage Wall on Chatham St.), you may be surprised to know that we are generally in agreement about the assumption of belief. John Calvin would say the same. The bulk of American Christianity superficially skims the ubiquitous John 3:16-- 'whosoever believes on Him...'-- and takes it to mean something other than it does. Elsewhere it says, 'speak with your mouth and believe with your heart.' But, what does 'believe' mean and how do you do that? Many would say that if you say it you believe it, but talk is cheap. You are correct in that it is not something you consider and decide on. I differentiate between an intellectual assent and an actual belief. Most American Christians would also say that he offers this belief to everyone (like holding a $20 bill in front of someone within their reach) and they consider and choose to accept it or not. Again, we agree that this is not the case. 'All have sinned' and are 'dead' through that sin. Dead men don't accept anything. However, if they are to get it, God must implant it. That is the only way we may receive this belief. He choses to whom he gives it and there is not anyone who deserves it by acting or thinking according to certain standards. (No one need apply, no one meets the required standard of perfection) Jesus voluntarily set aside his divinity and lived as a human fulfilling the required perfection and was crucified, shedding the blood that is the only atonement for us. (Here he became the conduit through which the universal/particulars gap is bridged.) Going to church, reading the Bible, saying prayers, taking communion, and being baptized do not make one a Christian. Sleeping in a garage does not make one a car. The belief that is actually spoken of in John 3:16 makes one a Christian only through an unmerited gift-- a transplant.

By the way, the watchmaker hypothesis is not intended to be a proof, but as a wrench in the works of 'popularly known facts' such as evolutionary theory. The same is true for the 'you can't logically prove that logic reigns supreme'. These are only tools through which one may be persuaded to reconsider a thought pattern and seek others, but, again, as you say, belief is not earned by consideration and choice. So it goes with much of what I write. Even in the economic/social/politcal sphere I do not believe my faith should be forced out of the debate in favor of other 'secular' religions that use the claim that my faith is out of bounds (unconstitutional) while their faith is legitimate.