Another clarification, plus one not-so-brief response

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

The not-so-brief response:


> ROHM

> Good, Matt!  Now you just have to "make assertions" based on facts,

> evidence, and sense - none of these things come into touch with your

> religion at any point whatsoever.


STOLTZFUS
As I understand it, this is called "begging the question."  Please
support your claim that no doctrine, belief, principle, account, or
historical datum regarding Christianity contains any element of truth;
and that there is absolutely no evidence in support of Christianity. 
Please remember that in doing so, you are effectively claiming that 2000
years of human thought and society are worthless, irrational, and
ignorant.  Further, you would be engaging in a peculiar conceit that has
plagued modern man since the Enlightenment:  namely, that since he is
"modern" and every society, culture, system of thought, etc., is
barbaric and primitive, the society, culture, belief system, etc., of
his time is inherently superior and is the pinnacle of human
achievement.  I do hope that none of us here feel that way -- if any of
you do, please record it for posterity so that 100 years from now you
can be politely laughed at and held up as an example of primitive,
barbaric thought.  Of course, if you do hold such an opinion of modern
man, you won't believe that this will occur.  Well, don't say I didn't
warn you!


The clarification:

Okay, moving on.  I want to address this whole "burden of proof" thing
with which I keep getting rebuked.  I guess I still haven't adequately
explained just what it is that I'm arguing for.  To put it plainly, I'm
defending the claim that the Bible is internally consistent in its
teachings; particularly those regarding man, God, and the relationship
between man and God.  I am not arguing the existence of God, nor that of
sin, nor anything else you'd like me to prove.  I feel no burden of
proof regarding God's actual nature, only that what the Bible says about
God's nature is consistent.  I don't feel obligated (or, for that
matter, qualified) to argue technicalities of logic with you.  I hope
that you can affirm my value as a person, even if my ability to reason
and use logic is not up to your standards.  Of course, who knows,
perhaps your belief system doesn't require you to recognize the value of
every human?  That would explain some of the remarks I've read.

This being said, I leave it up to you as to whether this is an issue you
want to discuss.  If the answer is no, I won't bother you anymore.  If
the answer is yes, I'll continue explaining the biblical definitions and
the means by which I can, for example, believe that Yahweh is good even
though He authorizes the deaths of children.  Perhaps if only a few
people want to discuss these issues, we can go private and not bother
the rest of you.  I certainly don't want to be a bore with my
sermonettes and ignorance of the principles of logic.  

Respectfully yours,

Jacob

• Previous message: Defining sin
• Next message: Simple question to Inerrantists
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]