Posted: 8/22/2005 2:41:34 PM EDT
[#14]
Dino: Actually its not anti-Christian at all. . .
Mr-H: From excerpt: "God, once again in his Christian form . . ."
|
Dino: How is that derogatory to Christianity?
| Read the implications of the underlined words below. I said the book took the view that God had allowed many paths to salvation, although it concentrates on the Christian aspect.
| Now, to a Christian with even basic knowledge, that boldly implies that Christianity is utterly false. It says the God of the Bible is a liar and that Christ's death wasn't so much an atonement after all. That idea is the basis for a few different belief systems (the Bahai faith for one) so its not as if its not a valid concept.
| It's true that the idea is precedented, but that doesn't mean it's valid. As someone who believes in the laws of logic, and that truth is real and knowable, I see the concept as being preposterous. ETA: you edited after I posted.
| Yeah. Figured I'd try and be a little less ambiguous. Yes it would be viewed as heretical by orthodox Christianity.
| That's my point. You might be surprised how many self-confessed Christians hold to a similar view though.
| Actually, I wouldn't. We have quite a dilemma these days. Many Christians can't think their way out of a wet paper bag, hardly know a fraction of the Scriptures, and aren't really at all concerned about things of theology, philosophy, or sound doctrine. At first, the life of the mind was considered of prime importance and the Church could out-think her critics; but for some reason the Church has just sort of backed off from intellectual pursuits for the past 150-200 years or so. It retreated into Bible colleges and small groups instead of fighting in the halls of academia where our future leaders are trained. Many chose to disregard the intellect and rely on emotions (which cannot be easily falsified, but can be easily manipulated). This led to a preference for "heart experiences" over a true change of mind (which is what "repentance" literally means). Discipleship was replaced by "revival. " Careful study was replaced by "feeling led." Spirituality became private and had little to do with scholarship.
Heck, even atheists and non-Christians (who like to argue against Christianity) are really slacking these days. It's hard to even get into a debate without having to explain Theology 101 to your "opponent" along the way. It's almost like being challenged to a race by a guy, and then having to tie his shoes before the race! Logical fallacies in every statement are generally the norm, and there is almost a fire hazard created from all the dead straw men laying around. Even professional atheist philosophers seem to be in a slump. Their modern arguments and rebuttals are largely emotion or ignorance-based (just as the aforementioned modern Church practices) and are rather unsophisticated (I guess the best one they've got now is from the problem of evil, but even it is quite solvable). But I guess I shouldn't complain about their problems. I would posit that heresy is not definitively anti-Christian.
| That's actually a very good point. Heresy can be either an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth, to generally accepted beliefs or standards, or both. Unlike the two examples below, the heresy in question is not just a dissent from some minor secondary doctrine--it's actually calling the God off the Bible a liar and, ultimately, nullifies Christ's purpose for dying on the cross. It was heresy for Martin Luther to start the reformation. It was at one time heresy to proclaim the earth orbitted the sun.
| ETA: Sorry 'bout the mini rant.
|
|