>However, I feel the need to respond to Glenn.
>I admit that faith puts all people in a strange place of leaving us without
>defense to force conversion. However, conversion can only come from God and
>the work of the Spirit. I would suggest reading some Barth (_Dogmatics in
>Outline_ might be a good start) if you haven't yet.
I think you misunderstand. It is not my desire to "force converstion" but
my desire to examine the rational roots of religion. If there is a God,
surely he had some impact on historical events. Thus I want to find those
points of impact. The religion which reports those events is more likely to
be correct than those that don't. It is a matter of applying the scientific
method to the class of things called religion.
If I say "I am God" and tell you to simply believe it. Why shouldn't you if
rational evidence has no place in religion? I would contend that you would
reject the contention that I am God BECAUSE of logic and empirical evidence.
>For Christians everything centers on Jesus Christ and our understanding of
>Him as expressed in the Apostolic Creed (which I would include in my use of
>the term tradition). We can go no farther. We must pray for our neighbors,
>be ready to explain the message of Christ. But it is God's place to "hound"
>them to conversion, we cannot do it no matter how close our personal
>knowledge of science conforms to Genesis. He never gave us that "right" or
My point is that for Muslims everything centers on Allah they try to convert
their neighbors in the fashion they feel is most appropriate to their
religion. If belief is all we have, then we don't have much.
>It is only Christ that counts in the end!
I believe this because I believe that the resurrection was a HISTORICAL
event. Belief is not what makes the resurrection true. And belief, by
itself, is not what makes Christ count in the end.
Foundation, Fall and Flood