RE: Seely's Views 2

From: Glenn Morton <>
Date: Sat Sep 11 2004 - 21:51:27 EDT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []
> Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2004 6:29 PM
> To:
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Seely's Views 2
> 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.

It isn't a contest. It is a matter of what is God's will. If everyone
can be saved regardless of what they believe, great by me. But that
then would be clear evidence that the communication which is supposedly
from God, at least believed by the Christians to be from God, is not
very reliable. It says different things. One can't have good
communication which says there is only one way, and then find out that
any ole way will do. Somewhere the communication broke down. And then
that would raise the point of 'what's the point of paying attention to
anything religious?'

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

I don't think the Muslims believe there is a HS. Who is right? Who is
wrong? We can't hardly have one and not have one at the same time,
unless the HS is quantum-mechanical.

> 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.

But that too often appears to me to be like beauty. It is in the eye of
the beholder, which means that there are a multitude of truths all of
which contradict each other which isn't very logical. I am always
amazed that otherwise logical scientists find this approach so

> 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.

No, that one was the personal report of that individual. He was involved
in the conversation. Things like this are best NOT forgotten, unless one
doesn't care about truth.

> 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.

Why? I thought it was no problem for God to bring Muslims to himself
without bothering with Christianity, which is what I read you saying

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?

This all seems inconsistent with your statement above about Muslims

> 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!

If we are unable to make any discernment about the state of the world,
why would we judge people as being sinners? What right do we have to
judge? It seems to me that you require a lack of standards in order not
to judge.

> 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."

John 14:6, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto
the Father, but by me.

I fail to see where it says you can hold to a religion which believes
that one comes to the father through Mohammed and still get to the
father in Christianity. The two claims--the one above--and the muslim
claim that Mohammed is Allah's prophet seems contradictory.

> 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>

Well, sure, God can do what he wants, but if God has no standards for
salvation, why should we listen to Chrristianity.

> Glenn: "If one can be a muslim, and be saved, then there is
> nothing unique about Christianity whatsoever."
> That hardly follows at all.

Can God save a muslim who turns to Christ? Yes. Will God save a muslim
who doesn't? I doubt it.

You can have the last word. I am going to take a break to learn a new
programming language and do some programming I need to do.
Received on Sat Sep 11 22:14:52 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Sep 11 2004 - 22:14:53 EDT