Originally posted by Hornet
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Christianity 201 Guidelines
orthodox Christians only.
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
Discussion on matters of general mainstream evangelical Christian theology that do not fit within Theology 201. Have some spiritual gifts ceased today? Is the KJV the only viable translation for the church today? In what sense are the books of the bible inspired and what are those books? Church government? Modern day prophets and apostles?
This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and Christians. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” or "orthodox" for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Additionally and rarely, there may be some topics or lines of discussion that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine (in general Christian circles or in the TheologyWeb community) or that deny certain core values that are the Christian convictions of forum leadership that may be more appropriately placed within Unorthodox Theology 201. NO personal offense should be taken by such discretionary decision for none is intended. While inerrancy is NOT considered a requirement for posting in this section, a general respect for the Bible text and a respect for the inerrantist position of others is requested.
The Tweb rules apply here like they do everywhere at Tweb, if you haven't read them, now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Answering Street Epistemology
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Hornet View PostI agree with your idea of challenging them on whether there is a reliable method for knowing anything. Someone can say that he or she definitely knows something because he or she experienced it with one of their five senses, but one can ask, "How do you know that your senses are reliable?" Someone else could claim that they know things because he or she figured something out with their reasoning skills, but someone could ask about how their reasoning is reliable. A person can ask "How do you know that?" every time he hears a knowledge claim. In order to avoid the infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims, there must be some belief that does not require a justification or a belief that is impossible to deny its truth.
What do you think of the presuppositionalist's claim that without the Christian God, one cannot justify their belief that their senses and reasoning are reliable?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostI would ask the Atheist since there cannot be evidence for a lack of a God, how can they be sure there isn't one?
Comment
-
Originally posted by David Hayward View PostTaking a step backwards to get an overview, why bother?
Presumably your post asks (in effect) how to "win" such an exchange. That's unlikely: your Street Epistemologist is going to be a super-atheist; what you see in the videos is them picking the low-hanging fruit, the people easily swayed, the over-willing to please -- for a start, they stopped for a stranger; they themselves will be hardened in their attitudes, lost causes not open to much if any doubt, they'll have an atheist support group, and in a week they'll be unchanged and you forgotten -- so were you to "win" you've still lost; and you haven't "won" in the eyes of onlookers because the modus operandi of the, er, interview is to be one-on-one, there normally aren't any onlookers. So how do you suppose you might win, in any worthwhile sense?
I suppose you can chalk up wasting fifteen minutes of their time, but they have also wasted fifteen minutes of yours, I'd call that a loss. Walk by, why even bother with them!
Comment
-
Originally posted by mikewhitney View PostIt may help for churches to have some basic answers to issues raised by these extremists.
1. Christianity isn't an intellectual exercise but a relationship with God.
2. But people have come via intellectual study of scripture and even when trying to oppose Christianity. C.S. Lewis came through study of scripture.
3. The scriptures document history and are reliable as other historical accounts. To deny scriptures is similar to denying all other historical accounts.
4. "I" may not be able to deal with questions of trustworthiness of knowledge. But people who have studied questions of 'knowledge' can deal with your atheist questions
5. The interviewer only has maybe 30 years of experience ... and now wishes to overturn two thousand years of understanding?
I saw parts of the video with Tia. The atheist was disingenuous in his line of questioning -- he was not just wanting to hear people's ideas. His goal was of one-upmanship rather than saving people.
This may not be the best list of ideas but it is a start.
Suppose someone is talking with a street epistemologist and he says that he believes in Christianity because there is good evidence outside of the Bible that Christianity is true. What do you think of the claim made by certain apologists that if you believe in Christianity because of some evidence outside of the Bible that you are standing as a judge over the Bible?
Comment
-
I have only dabbled in apologetics.
The external evidence would serve as a bridge to accepting the gospel. It would be like crossing a brook via a felled tree. When you are on the right side of the brook, it is okay if the tree is washed away.
The change that a person has toward the Bible is spiritual and transcends the understanding gained through logic. Would this be agreeable to such apologists?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hornet View PostSome atheists say, "I'm not claiming that God does not exist. I just lack a belief in God."
"I just lack a belief in God" is just an excuse cowards use in order to avoid having to defend their position.Last edited by JonathanL; 07-16-2019, 04:59 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostJust "lacking a belief in God" without at the same time believing God does not exist is not possible unless you have no knowledge of the concept of God in the first place. If you "lack a belief in God" while being aware of the concept of God and what it means then you automatically believe God does not exist. Either that, or you're an agnostic (in the original "whether God exists is unknowable" sense, and not the newish "I don't believe God exists, but I'm not sure" sense, i.e weak atheism).
"I just lack a belief in God" is just an excuse cowards use in order to avoid having to defend their position.
Same with UFOs being aliens visiting us. I personally don't believe the various reports and evidence, but I can't say positively they are not real. I have to remain agnostic on the matter, if I want to be honest about it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYep. As I said earlier, while the evidence for God might not be convincing to them, they have to admit that there IS evidence, and that there is no positive evidence for there not being a God, so the only logical stance they could have is agnosticism. If they claim atheist, then they are not only lacking a belief in God, they are making the affirmative statement that there IS no God.
Same with UFOs being aliens visiting us. I personally don't believe the various reports and evidence, but I can't say positively they are not real. I have to remain agnostic on the matter, if I want to be honest about it.
download.jpgAtheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hornet View PostI agree with your idea of challenging them on whether there is a reliable method for knowing anything. Someone can say that he or she definitely knows something because he or she experienced it with one of their five senses, but one can ask, "How do you know that your senses are reliable?" Someone else could claim that they know things because he or she figured something out with their reasoning skills, but someone could ask about how their reasoning is reliable. A person can ask "How do you know that?" every time he hears a knowledge claim. In order to avoid the infinite regress of justifying one's truth claims, there must be some belief that does not require a justification or a belief that is impossible to deny its truth.
What do you think of the presuppositionalist's claim that without the Christian God, one cannot justify their belief that their senses and reasoning are reliable?
Most Street Epistemologists are atheists, it's part of the ethos, part of the DNA, it's part of Peter Boghossian's 'deconvert a million' strategy of using a target 10,000 Street Epistemologists to deconvert a ball-park 100 each. While I am sure it is no offence against TheologyWeb rules to be a Street Epistemologist, it is against the rules to claim to be a Christian when you are not and post where you may not.
Comment
-
My usual response to the typical atheist epistemological trainwreck is to say that I'm not looking for absolute certainty, only reasonable certainty.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostMy usual response to the typical atheist epistemological trainwreck is to say that I'm not looking for absolute certainty, only reasonable certainty."I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Thoughtful Monk, 03-15-2024, 06:19 PM
|
35 responses
166 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 08:28 AM
|
||
Started by KingsGambit, 03-15-2024, 02:12 PM
|
4 responses
49 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 04:26 PM | ||
Started by Chaotic Void, 03-08-2024, 07:36 AM
|
10 responses
119 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by mikewhitney
03-13-2024, 06:38 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 02-29-2024, 07:55 AM
|
14 responses
71 views
3 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-01-2024, 09:15 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 02-28-2024, 11:56 AM
|
13 responses
59 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
03-01-2024, 07:26 AM
|
Comment