Re: Seely's Views 2

From: <jwburgeson@juno.com>
Date: Sat Sep 11 2004 - 19:29:19 EDT

Glenn: "Yeah, I did mean 57%. I have trouble getting the shift key to
work to
my favor. To me the problem with the approach I think you were
suggesting is that it begs us to put some probability on the belief. Is
christianity 95% probable and Islam 91%? Does that make Christianity win
the contest?"

Why must there be a contest? If God wants to bring a Muslim person to God
in some other way than He does you and me, that is of no importance to
me.

The Christian God is a Trinity for good reason. The HS is the one that
convicts and persuades. Not our vaunted logical capability.

Glenn: "I will agree that we will never find absolute truth. But that
doesn't
mean, to me, that we should throw the towel in and not try for it."

It is a goal, but as Polkinghorne points out, verisimilitude is as close
as we, being finite beings, can ever hope to attain.

Glenn: "But from what I have heard of a person who met him at the Utah
foottrack site, I am not sure that Lang was interested in truth. And
that is sad. The story I was told, I was told to keep to myself until
this individual died. If that fellow outlives me, the story will go to
my grave, but if the story is true (and I wasn't there), it is quite
disturbing to me."

Stories like that are necessarily hearsay, and are better forgotten.

Glenn: "Well, I picked the 57% figure out of the air, but if the bad
communication, in which God chooses to allow the wrong message to get
out, is actually true, then I would say my confidence would plummet much
lower than 57%. Why do we want to believe something that makes our
religion so unbelievable? I simply don't understand the attitude. If I
felt that God acted like a used car salesman(whom I really don't trust
at all), why would I believe what He tells me?"

But Glenn. Believing in something outside of Christ is simply a form of
idolatry. I don't believe Noah's flood was global. So what? If I'm wrong,
so be it. I happen to believe in the virgin birth. If I'm right (or
wrong), so what?

I wrote: "Dora's example does not show anything of interest. Dora and
God must resolve it -- you and I are simply not involved."

Glenn: "We are involved to the extent that Lenin certainly is not God and
that
the claim was made by a human being in history. Was it shame? Maybe.
Was the person deluded? Maybe. But the fact that such claims are made
in all seriousness has to make us less trustful of the existential
approach."

That some people are deluded has always been a fact of the human
condition. But one has to take a position on what is real to him. For me,
the fact that God has revealed himself to me on several occasions is
fact. Could I be mistaken? Of course. But that seems so very unlikely
that I simply discount it

The Mormons claim similar experiences. But I am not asked to evaluate
them. A similar statement for the Muslims, ... .

It is my claim that when one begins to judge others, he/she is outside
the will of God. And that action is all too prevalent among Christians.
Once again -- we are WITNESSES. Not prosecuting attorneys!

I had written: "That is an illogical conclusion. Jesus did not state your

conclusion -- you inferred it, by assuming an intermediate premise --
somewhat along the line of "to come to the father through me one must be
a Christian."

Glenn: If Jesus isn't the son of God as the Muslims say, then his death
on the cross was just that, a death on the cross--nothing more. If one
can be a muslim, and be saved, then there is nothing unique about
Christianity whatsoever. The above seems to me to wipe out classical
Christianity."

You conflate a couple things here. I have to pull your writing apart:

Glenn: "If Jesus isn't the son of God as the Muslims say, then his death
on the cross was just that, a death on the cross--nothing more."

That seems to be a true statement. So if a Muslim holds this belief,
he/she is incorrect. But it does not follow that Jesus cannot save
him/her anyway. Do not presume to limit God. <G>

Glenn: "If one can be a muslim, and be saved, then there is nothing
unique about Christianity whatsoever."

That hardly follows at all.

Glenn: "The above seems to me to wipe out classical Christianity."

Insofar as "Classical Christianity" insists that all non-Christians are
necessarily doomed, yes, I guess it does. I, personally, reject that
belief. It presumes a god who plays favorites. Why are you and I favored,
and millions who lived and died without ever hearing the gospel be
rejected?

I wrote: "We are not told what plans God/Christ have for non-Christians.
To say
that we know this is fundamentalist foolishness."

Glenn: "We will disagree on this. Maybe this is another issue in which we
think
God is not communicating clearly. If it is, it illustrates the problem
with having a God who can't communicate."

You presume to know that God wants to communicate about this. I don't. If
He did, why did Christ tell us to be WITNESSES? Why did He not tell us to
be the persons to set everyone else straight? Why did He ask us not to
judge others?

So in this instance, you can't seem to get the message from God (about
non-Christians) right. And you blame God. Who I doubt has tried to
communicate on that particular subject!

Remember the parable of the people on His right hand -- and left hand.
"Getting doctrine right" was not a criteria which Jesus applied.

John
                                                                         
                www.burgy.50megs.com/evil.txt (When Religion Becomes
Evil)

________________________________________________________________
Get your name as your email address.
Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more
Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today!
Received on Sat Sep 11 19:58:31 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 11 2004 - 19:58:32 EDT