Evidence for God from Science

I don't think Noah has an axe to grind. I think he is like me, where if he percieves an apparent flaw (apparent is the crucial term) in a form of Christianity's theology, he'll ask about it without pulling punches. It's not to create conflict or hostility but to get an answer.

This is a forum for answering hard to answer questions after all. It's not all fuzzies.

I've nothing against asking questions, Seraph. Noah was simply coming off as a bit militant to me with his initial post.

I shouldn't have played up that poor assumption, however. So, I apologize, Noah.

so...do i have to modify my little list for this calvanism and protestantism(which apparantly is self-contradictory, surprise? )

adjö

Well, if you wanted your list to represent every seperate belief system that is labelled as part of "Christianity", you'd probably have to break the Christianity portion of the table into at least 30 different parts. Then again you'd have to do that to all the other religions as well.

yea and lots of different splits is meant to be a strength somehow. I think it means there is a lot of division not obvious though.

Not that it's a strength but it doesn't invalidate the whole thing.

There are many different camps on how economics should work, it doesn't mean the entire concept of currency is bunk.

Maytan wrote:I've nothing against asking questions, Seraph. Noah was simply coming off as a bit militant to me with his initial post.

I shouldn't have played up that poor assumption, however. So, I apologize, Noah.

No problem. I apologize as well, since I did not mean that come off as militant.

I will explain briefly why I am so enthusiastic about showing Christian exclusivists that their beliefs are self-incoinsistent. When I was a Christian, I was an inclusivist - precisely because of the logical problem I pointed out earlier. I've never come across anything close to a plausible rationalization. Yet, when you identify yourself as an inclusivist in Christian circles, you'll immediately be labeled a heretic, liberal, etc. You're probably aware how much drama Rob Bell's supposed universalism recently caused in evanglical circles.

Yet, I am confident that these are, aside from Calvinism, the only logically consistent positions. And despite that, there's so much hostility towards them. So that's why I might come across as militant in my efforts to demonstrate this to Christians.

Anyhow, Craig's argument does not make much sense to me, and I will explain why later.

Oh, Rob's universalism isn't 'supposed'. Its pretty gosh-darned accurate as a description.

Are you not a Christian, then? Your profile says you are.

I don't know how Jesus' statement "No one comes unto the Father except through me" can make any other sense than that Christianity is extremely exclusive. That isn't a negative thing though, when you understand the concept like a family. It isn't that Christianity is invitation only - it is that you have to accept the invitation. You don't get into the family just by being good. No one gets in that way, because no one is good enough. You have to be perfect.

I don't think Calvinism is the only logically consistent viewpoint in Christianity. I haven't read all of Calvin's works, though I'd like to someday. Have you? Have you read any of the early Jewish Christian writers (or even modern day)? There's a lot of wisdom there that might be missing in Calvin's very western approach. Ever read any of the other older Christian writers? They felt pretty logically consistent, and they didn't have Calvin to read either.

The Calvinist I know, do not tempt God.

So far, Rob Bell does… maybe he will change???

Luke 4:12, "And Jesus answered and said to him, "It has been said, 'YOU SHALL NOT TEMPT THE LORD YOUR GOD. "

Deut 5:11, 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain."

So the people mentioned here, 2 Peter 2:18, 19, 20, 21, 22c , because of love must be proved at all cost, enter heaven too?
-
-
-