Originally posted by ColettiThe Qur'an says enough about Jesus to inform Christians of the errors of their doctrines. That's all you need to know. If you don't know that, then quite clearly your apologetics rests upon culture more than knowledge. Therefore, any claim you make affirming that your beliefs are the Truth is pure arrogance.
I don't know much about the Qur'an - but the I don't think it says enough about Jesus for a Christan to consider it as a reliable source for checking against false Messiahs. Would Muslims believe it if someone claimed to be Jesus?
Originally posted by WulebgrI'd say it is clear that my apologetics rests on the knowledge that comes from Scripture. The Qur'an is false at any point it contradicts the Bible. The errors in my doctrine are found wherever my doctrine does not conform to Scripture.
The Qur'an says enough about Jesus to inform Christians of the errors of their doctrines. That's all you need to know. If you don't know that, then quite clearly your apologetics rests upon culture more than knowledge. Therefore, any claim you make affirming that your beliefs are the Truth is pure arrogance.
Originally posted by ColettiBut what rationale supports your faith in the veracity of the Bible?
I'd say it is clear that my apologetics rests on the knowledge that comes from Scripture. The Qur'an is false at any point it contradicts the Bible. The errors in my doctrine are found wherever my doctrine does not conform to Scripture.
Originally posted by WulebgrBecause the axiom of the Bible as the true revelation of God to man leads to a worldview that is comprehensive and non-contradictory - explaining all things I observe regarding the nature of man, about knowledge, and my relationship to God - and as far as I can tell, no other worldview can say the same.
But what rationale supports your faith in the veracity of the Bible?
1 edit
Originally posted by ColettiSo you are a pragmatist, which supports my contention that you practice an apologetics of accident of culture rather than one rooted in rigorous study. Pragmatism is a distinctly American philosophy, just as Xtian Fundamentalism is a distinctly American religion. I had long suspected that one was being employed to prop up the other, even though William James was a bit more open minded on matters of theology. I wonder what he would think now, were he still living among us.
Because the axiom of the Bible as the true revelation of God to man leads to a worldview that is comprehensive and non-contradictory - explaining all things I observe regarding the nature of man, about knowledge, and my relationship to God - and as far as I can tell, no other worldview can say the same.
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrI looked up pragmatist and found:
So you are a pragmatist, which supports my contention that you practice an apologetics of accident of culture rather than one rooted in rigorous study. Pragmatism is a distinctly American philosophy, just as Xtian Fundamentalism is a distin ...[text shortened]... . I wonder what he would think now, were he still living among us.
2. philosophy way of evaluating theories: a philosophical view that a theory or concept should be evaluated in terms of how it works and its consequences as the standard for action and thought. See also instrumentalism
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Which I can say does not bothers me - but it also does not support your contention that I "practice an apologetics of accident of culture." I could not determine if any worldview were comprehensive and cohesive if I did not give it rigorous study. It is rigorous study that helps me find and eliminate flaws in my worldview. If that makes me a pragmatist, I'm all for it.
Originally posted by ColettiYou agree that say, a Muslim, would say the same about his religion?
Because the axiom of the Bible as the true revelation of God to man leads to a worldview that is comprehensive and non-contradictory - explaining all things I observe regarding the nature of man, about knowledge, and my relationship to God - and as far as I can tell, no other worldview can say the same.
Originally posted by ColettiCalling your apologetics an accident of culture stems from my observations after reading hundreds of your posts that your field(s) of knowledge seem terribly limited to the narrow confines of the American Bible Belt. You never considered with any seriousness any religion other than Christianity, yet you affirm the Bible not only as true for you, but true for all. This claim of the universality of the Bible is thus more an unexamined assumption than a rational position. I don't mean to challenge your faith, just your proselytizing of that faith.
I looked up pragmatist and found: [quote]2. philosophy way of evaluating theories: a philosophical view that a theory or concept should be evaluated in terms of how it works and its consequences as the standard for action and thought. See also instrumentalism
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserve ...[text shortened]... ps me find and eliminate flaws in my worldview. If that makes me a pragmatist, I'm all for it.
Am I correct that you're in Tennessee? After all, it was called Franklin briefly prior to statehood, and many old stock Tennesseans still think of it that way (my mother-in-law, for example).
Originally posted by ColettiI'm not saying they are the same in detail, but both claim to be the ultimate truth?
He might, but I think he'd be wrong. The Koran describes a god that is not one the can be known of comprehended.
Let me rephrase that: Followers of Islam and Christianity (and many others) make the claim that theirs is the (ultimate) truth and that all the others are wrong?
Originally posted by Wulebgryour field(s) of knowledge seem terribly limited to the narrow confines of the American Bible Belt.
Calling your apologetics an accident of culture stems from my observations after reading hundreds of your posts that your field(s) of knowledge seem terribly limited to the narrow confines of the American Bible Belt. You never considered with any seriousness any religion other than Christianity, yet you affirm the Bible not only as true for you, but true for ...[text shortened]... hood, and many old stock Tennesseans still think of it that way (my mother-in-law, for example).
I expect you can support this assertion with some examples of Bible Belt theologians that support my beliefs?
You never considered with any seriousness any religion other than Christianity, yet you affirm the Bible not only as true for you, but true for all.
I am pretty well satisfied that Christianity conveys the most correct philosophical worldview. Would my expressing doubts or uncertainty make my views more correct? My view epistemological view of the nature of knowledge has it that truth is not a relative quantity - so if it is true for one, it is true for all.
This claim of the universality of the Bible is thus more an unexamined assumption than a rational position.
That a totally false and unfounded claim - really an ab hominem against my views by claiming I have not examined them rationally.
Am I correct that you're in Tennessee? After all, it was called Franklin briefly prior to statehood, and many old stock Tennesseans still think of it that way (my mother-in-law, for example).
I believe there was a movement to divide Tennessee into two separate states - renaming one as Franklin - but I don't recall what the motive behind the name was. I think there's a similar movement in California.
I don't mean to challenge your faith, just your proselytizing of that faith.
Are you saying I should keep my philosophy to myself? Or that I should not defend my beliefs against challenges? Or I should preface my posts with IMHO? I suppose I could be more humble. Proselytizing seems to be a dirty word these days - when all it means is to make arguments for your worldview, politics, religion. That's not only my right, it is also good and healthy for society. Suppressing free expression is evil.
Originally posted by KneverKnightAs do Darwinist, and Socialist, and Democrats, and Republicans. If a person did not believe what they believe was true, they would not believe it.
I'm not saying they are the same in detail, but both claim to be the ultimate truth?
Let me rephrase that: Followers of Islam and Christianity (and many others) make the claim that theirs is the (ultimate) truth and that all the others are wrong?