Kevin Cross

[Kevin Cross]

Hello

I am a new member here and glad to join all of you. Since I have joined I have mainly been looking over the site end familiarizing myself with the site and I look forward to meeting new opponents.

To tell you a little about myself, I am a Christian, but I want to defend my faith in a way that I hope people will come to respect. It is not my job to force anyone to believe the way I do. I can only tell others what I believe, hopefully supporting my opinions, but then leaving it to others to decide for themselves whether they would like to believe in a similar way. Truth be told, I, like other Christians, do not do a good job at this task. I agree that Christians can be arrogant and that is one of our great sins.

By vocation, I am trained in mental health counseling but I do not have my license -- something I have been working on for many years. I have a difficult time fulfilling the clinical hours. Anyway, I work when I can and I am basically an author trying to finish my first book about camping and life-change.

From birth, I have had cerebral palsy and I am a quadriplegic with movement disorders and I have trouble speaking. I type with a head pointer, which is slow because I hunt and peck key by key. I'm 49 years old and live in Massachusetts.

I am looking forward to debating. My interests are in psychology (and general behavioral science) neuroscience, philosophy especially ethics and logic and philosophy of mind, disability issues, and apologetics and the integration of such subjects. I look forward to taking people on head-to-head in one-on-one matches. I am open to negotiation as far as format and subject. If I get a number interested opponents, please be patient. I will take everybody on sometimes but not all at once. I probably will not be able to start until next year but the more time in between would be desirable for the negotiation and study leading up to the debate. For those interested, please write a PM to me and we will correspond. In the meantime, I plan to make myself known in some group debates as well.

Look forward to meeting new people, having fun and engaging many opponents in civil but intense arguments while learning about new subjects. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Kevin

[Divine Insight]

Welcome to the forums Kevin, I hope you have an enjoyable and productive experience here. However, one thing I would like to comment on is your following statement.

To tell you a little about myself, I am a Christian, but I want to defend my faith in a way that I hope people will come to respect.

As far as I'm concerned there is no need for you to "defend your faith". I would even suggest that it is a very bad idea to debate Christianity from the perspective that you are "defending your faith" in the hope of earning respect for your beliefs.

I for one can fully respect your beliefs, without agreeing with them. I have my reasons why I thoroughly reject the Bible as being what I consider to be obviously false dogma.

I hold that if there is a God associated with the Bible then my conclusions about the Bible are between me and that God, and no one else.

I also hold that if Jesus and Yahweh couldn't convince me through their Bible then the idea that any moral man could convince me is absurd. After all, in order for a mortal man to convince me when both Yahweh and Jesus had failed would require that the mortal man be a far better teacher and communicator than both Yahweh and Jesus. And that itself would be a contradiction.

So the bottom line for me is that anything you are going to propose that supports that the Bible could actually be the word of any all-intelligent God must necessarily fail. Therefore I would have no choice but to point out why "your beliefs" are not compelling or convincing.

You would basically be "forcing me" to explain to you why I reject your beliefs. All the while you are hoping to "defend your beliefs" to me. It's just a wrong approach to debate, IMHO.

If you fail to convince me of your beliefs, then this will become equivalent to having failed to "win my respect" for your beliefs.

So debating a religion for the purpose of "defending your faith" in an effort to "gain respect for you beliefs" is, IMHO, a very wrong way to approach debating religion.

It's bound to fail.

When other people explain why they don't embrace your beliefs or accept them as a valid apology for this religion, they don't mean any disrespect in that. They are simply explaining why they don't find those particular explanations to be compelling or convincing. That's all.

If you find me arguing with your "beliefs" on this forum, I am simply explaining why they aren't convincing to me. I'm not in any way suggesting any level of disrespect toward your beliefs at all. You have your reasons for your beliefs. And that's good enough for you. I don't need to agree with your beliefs in order to respect them.

So I hope this helps and you recognize that when other people aren't accepting your beliefs, they are simply explaining why they personally don't find them to be compelling or convincing. It has nothing at all to do with whether or not they respect you personally for believing what you choose to believe.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Kevin Cross]

Amazing. Welcome.

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Hi DI

Thanks for responding. I see you a lot on different forums so it is an honor to receive a reply from such an active member.

The advice is well taken although don’t mistake my explanation of attempting to be civil to those who may not share my beliefs with non-believers with somehow wishy-washy approach to defending my faith. My faith is important to me and I will defend it or any topic I am debating, very vigorously and put my opponent on their heels.

My point is I try to do this as politely as I can while slamming my opponents for their inaccuracies and mistakes in logic. You will discover this if we go against each other in a forum or two. If you want to go head-to-head, we’ll arrange it after I get my Barings.

You’re right though, if the Bible or Jesus can’t convince you to believe, no one ever will be able to convince you otherwise. I will say, however, in my opinion, some people come to faith indirectly through certain situations or people. Scientifically, we can measure that. What we can’t measure is why do these particular people or experiences bring non-believers into faith because people and situations by themselves cannot bring anyone to faith. There lies the mystery. Clergy may say, it’s the power of the holy spirit. Scientists may say it is a change of energy although that is a hypothesis they may be able to study in the future. The point is nobody can make anyone believe anything unless they are open to it.

Thank you again for the reply. Think about the one-on-one debate and let me know. I think you and I would be a good match. I look forward to having more spirited conversation with you in the future.

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to post 3 by Wootah]

Wootah, Thank you for your welcome. Please write and tell me about yourself. Remember, I am looking for head-to-head opponents. If you want to go against me sometime, please let me know and we'll negotiate subject, format and start date. It would be my pleasure to argue against you. Thanks. KC

[Divine Insight]

Kevin, I think it's great that you are anxious to debate people who don't believe in your personally chosen faith-based religion. It's probably also good that you have the confidence before even entering into any such debates that you will put your opponents "on their heels". However, reality doesn't always match our hopes and dreams.

You offer the following:

Think about the one-on-one debate and let me know. I think you and I would be a good match. I look forward to having more spirited conversation with you in the future.

However, I would like to point out that a head-to-head debate requires first having a specific topic to debate. So we would need to chose a specific topic to debate and be clear before we start precisely what it is that we are disagreeing on. The idea that I don't find the Bible compelling and you claim to is hardly specific enough to qualify as a head-to-head debate topic.

I would also like to point out the following:

You say:

My point is I try to do this as politely as I can while slamming my opponents for their inaccuracies and mistakes in logic.

You will need to be able to actually do this, not merely claim that you believe you can.

Also I would like to point out a potential mistake in logic you have just offered in your previous reply to me:

You replied to my claim that if Jesus can't convince me it makes no sense that a mortal human could with the following:

You’re right though, if the Bible or Jesus can’t convince you to believe, no one ever will be able to convince you otherwise. I will say, however, in my opinion, some people come to faith indirectly through certain situations or people. Scientifically, we can measure that.

See? You are already heading down a path of faulty logic. You are pointing out that we can scientifically measure that people can be convinced to believe in this religion via means other than Jesus and Yahweh. However, this proves absolutely nothing.

You seem to have forgotten about the possibility that I'm right and there is no God behind this religion. In that case, the fact that mere mortals can convince people to believe in this false religion proves nothing.

Not only this, but if Jesus and God are real, and they have both failed to convince me of this via their Holy Book, then if any lowly mortal could end up convincing me I would be right. The mortal would have been a superior teacher/communicator than either Jesus or Yahweh.

So your logic that we can scientifically measure that people who were not convinced by Jesus or Yahweh have been convinced by mere mortal evangelists, etc, only serves to verify my point.

Either I'm right and Jesus and Yahweh were outdone by a mere mortal, or Jesus and Yahweh were never anything more than make-believe god myths in the first place. I think the latter makes far more sense, because to believe the former you would need to believe that both Jesus and Yahweh were outdone by a more human who was a superior teacher/communicator than either Jesus or Yahweh.

So your argument on this specific issue already fails.

You'll need to do a lot better that this if you expect to put me "on my heels" with superior logic.

[otseng]

[Replying to Kevin Cross]

Quite impressive for someone who is a quadriplegic. You type better than many people with 10 fingers!

Welcome to the forum and look forward to reading more of your posts.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Kevin Cross]

First of all, welcome.

Next, I would like to invite you to the discussion here on euthanasia. I would like to hear the input from someone trained in mental health counseling - does suicidal thoughts always imply mental health problem? But only if you feel comfortable in such a heavy topic.

[Kevin Cross]

[Replying to Divine Insight]

Hi DI

Another thoughtful post, but may I quote you and make some comments:

Kevin, I think it's great that you are anxious to debate people who don't believe in your personally chosen faith-based religion. It's probably also good that you have the confidence before even entering into any such debates that you will put your opponents "on their heels". However, reality doesn't always match our hopes and dreams.

Point well taken and hopefully, I will be demonstrating my ability soon.

You offer the following:

Kevin Cross wrote:

Think about the one-on-one debate and let me know. I think you and I would be a good match. I look forward to having more spirited conversation with you in the future.

However, I would like to point out that a head-to-head debate requires first having a specific topic to debate. So we would need to chose a specific topic to debate and be clear before we start precisely what it is that we are disagreeing on. The idea that I don't find the Bible compelling and you claim to is hardly specific enough to qualify as a head-to-head debate topic.

Oh yes, I agree. I did not mean to imply we should debate the general topic about disagreement about the entire Bible. It would have to take negotiation and pairing down topics. So we're on the same page I think. I head-to-head between us does not have to take place right away, if at all. Just throwing the possibility out there.

You’re right though, if the Bible or Jesus can’t convince you to believe, no one ever will be able to convince you otherwise. I will say, however, in my opinion, some people come to faith indirectly through certain situations or people. Scientifically, we can measure that.

See? You are already heading down a path of faulty logic. You are pointing out that we can scientifically measure that people can be convinced to believe in this religion via means other than Jesus and Yahweh. However, this proves absolutely nothing.

You seem to have forgotten about the possibility that I'm right and there is no God behind this religion. In that case, the fact that mere mortals can convince people to believe in this false religion proves nothing.

Not only this, but if Jesus and God are real, and they have both failed to convince me of this via their Holy Book, then if any lowly mortal could end up convincing me I would be right. The mortal would have been a superior teacher/communicator than either Jesus or Yahweh.

So your logic that we can scientifically measure that people who were not convinced by Jesus or Yahweh have been convinced by mere mortal evangelists, etc, only serves to verify my point.

Either I'm right and Jesus and Yahweh were outdone by a mere mortal, or Jesus and Yahweh were never anything more than make-believe god myths in the first place. I think the latter makes far more sense, because to believe the former you would need to believe that both Jesus and Yahweh were outdone by a more human who was a superior teacher/communicator than either Jesus or Yahweh.

So your argument on this specific issue already fails.

You'll need to do a lot better that this if you expect to put me "on my heels" with superior logic.

You and I will never even half agree on these issues and I don't have time to launch an adequate response. I'll just say, science can measure some things but not others. I did not forget you may be right that there is "no God" and I must agree, being intellectually honest, you could be right. I struggle with that often and many Christians struggle with unbelief from time to time. The reason is this world often doesn't make sense often if God of the Bible is really in charge. Christians (or theists) go by faith, which is a special form of knowing. What the focus of that faith is is a choice made by the person. Theist, and particularly Christians, put their faith in Jesus Christ. Athiests and agnostics put their faith in other things such as science.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Now, if that isn't logical, I cannot help you.

[Divine Insight]

Hi Kevin, I thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I would just like to mention here that I am never in a hurry for a response. So please never feel pressured to respond. I live in a cottage in the woods. I'm outside cutting firewood, or doing other chores most of the day. I do check the Internet when I take breaks. So it may appear that I'm sitting here at the computer at all hours, but in truth, I just bop in and out a lot.

I would like to say that I find very much agreement with your following words:

You and I will never even half agree on these issues and I don't have time to launch an adequate response. I'll just say, science can measure some things but not others. I did not forget you may be right that there is "no God" and I must agree, being intellectually honest, you could be right. I struggle with that often and many Christians struggle with unbelief from time to time. The reason is this world often doesn't make sense often if God of the Bible is really in charge. Christians (or theists) go by faith, which is a special form of knowing. What the focus of that faith is is a choice made by the person. Theist, and particularly Christians, put their faith in Jesus Christ. Athiests and agnostics put their faith in other things such as science.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Now, if that isn't logical, I cannot help you.

I totally agree that Christianity should be approached entirely from the perspective of faith.

In fact, I suggest that this may actually be a very good topic for us to debate at some future time.

The question: "Does it make sense to place faith in Christianity?"

I won't get into my reasons here, but my answer to this question is a resounding "no".

I imagine your answer would be a very passionate "Yes".

So that would definitely be a topic we would most likely take quite opposing views on.

If you would like to arrange to have a Head-to-Head debate on that topic I would be very happy to join you. No rush. I'm busy here myself. I am a very patient person and I'm in no rush to jump into a Head-to-Head debate either. But that might be a topic worth considering at some future time.

In the meantime I wish you the very best enjoyment on this forum. I'll try not to be a "heckler" to any threads you start. But at the same time, if you start any topics that I have strong views on, I'll have to drop by and share my thoughts. It's just the way things work on a debate forum. That's what it's here for.