|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ AIDAN MCDOWELL ” |
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 2 · Found: 31 user comments posted recently. |
|  |
|
|
 7/16/08 1:13 AM |
| Aidan McDowell | | Las Vegas, Nevada | |  |  | |  |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
In debates between Christians and atheists like this one, we usually can't get through the discussion without the atheist citing the Inquisition, the Crusades, and other blemishes on the history of Christianity. The Christian usually responds by pointing to the atrocities perpetrated by prominent atheists. "But all that had nothing to do with their atheism," the atheist will reply. "A real atheist doesn't do things like that, but rather exhibits tolerance, humanity, and compassion"--virtues which religious believers presumably lack. That both believers and non-believes do and have done bad things to people is a matter of record. My question to the atheist is this: why is it that when Christians do bad things, it's because they are Christians, but when atheists do bad things, it's in spite of the fact that they are atheists? |
|
|
| 7/14/08 4:48 PM |
| Aidan McDowell | | Las Vegas, Nevada | | | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Mikheal wrote:
Why is it that the most hatespeech is flund on supposedly christian web chats? 'Therefore brethern, whatever... is good, whatever is excellent..., think about these things!" Mikheal:
Well said; I'm certain that Oprah would be proud of you. Your definition of "hate speech" conforms to hers: "Hate-speech = any utterance which expresses a view which differs from mine, or which is critical of me."
The substance of my argument is that Oprah is not a Christian, and I've given my reasons for saying that. Have you done the same? If not, then why don't you produce a few arguments showing that she is a Christian, and that those of us who deny it are wrong. Can you do this? |
|
|
 7/14/08 10:20 AM |
| Aidan McDowell | | Las Vegas, Nevada | | | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Report abuse
|
edl: Try to think of it this way. If we reject sola scriptura, then either (1) divine revelation can be had from some other source, or (2) salvation requires more than divine revelation. If (1), then what other source? Is it reason or logic? Hardly, because logic isn't capable of giving us any substantive first principles; it only works with what it has. As for reason, it's demonstrably unreliable because, as Kant understood, it often sends us down dead-end streets. Reason is no less mischievous than emotion, and its natural tendency is to run amok. What about mystical "experience" as a source of revelation? The New Age trades heavily on this notion, but what assurance do we have that we can take any putative "experience" at face value? How do we know that it is of divine origin? To say "I know that I know . . ." implies a claim of persoanal infallibility.
If (2), then what else other than divine revelation can trump divine authority? If it can't, then it's redundant and there's no point in considering it.
As for sola fide, it's ubiquitous in the letters of Paul. The emphasis on works in James is not inconsistent with sola fide. A careful reading reveals that works are the result of faith, not the cause of it. It's the distinction between justification and sanctification. |
|
|
 7/13/08 6:50 PM |
| Aidan McDowell | | Las Vegas, Nevada | | | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
The question could have been stated better. It's not a matter of whether I agree with the teachings of a particular church, or whether the church agrees with me. Rather, the question is whether that church's beliefs and teachings agree with and are informed by Scripture. My preferences are irrelevant. Granted, there are many passages in Scripture that can be read in more than one way. Yet all that we can know about God and man's relationship with God is found in Scripture. There is no source extrinsic to the revealed Word. Moreover, God has revealed to us only what He has decided is necessary for our salvation. Scripture doesn't tell us everything there is to know about God. It follows that there may be logical gaps in Scripture which put us at an impasse in our attempt to reconcile certain teachings with each other. But that's our problem, not God's. A thoughful reading of Scripture is not supposed to be easy. The great error consists in believing that there are alternate sources of revelation, or that we can rely on some sort of "mystical experience" or intuition, or personal special revelation. In short, if we want to know whether we ought to move in a certain direction, we need only ask whether the Bible goes there. If it doesn't, then neither should we. |
|
|
| 7/13/08 6:13 PM |
| Aidan McDowell | | Las Vegas, Nevada | | | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
The Dalai Lama's PR apparatus has done a superb job of portraying him as a benign, magnanimous, and beleaguered soul, struggling against the heavy hand of Chinese hegemony over his naitive land. For this reason he also speaks with authority to the devotees of just about every brand of alternative religion.We must not forget, however, that Buddhism is atheism. There is in it no concept of a creator God in the Judaeo-Christian sense. Some Buddhist gurus teach that the Ultimate Reality is "the Nature of Mind" (Lama Sogyal Rinpoche), and that this is what theists call "God." Other contemporary hacks like Wayne Dyer substitute "the Source" or "the One" as synonyms for God's name. But this is NOT what Christians mean by "God." It is God, not we, who decides by what names He will be known. To substitute any other name is an affront to God, tantamount to blasphemy. Moreover, Scripture commands us to "seek THE LORD while He may be found . . ." (Isaiah 55: 6). The implication is that He is not just sitting around waiting until we are ready to seek Him. Seekers who are looking for a god who conforms to their image of what God should be are well-advised not waste time on charlatans who preach a religion that has nothing to offer them. Buddhist "Enlightenment" is a fantasy. |
|
|
| 7/13/08 12:50 PM |
| Aidan McDowell | | Las Vegas, Nevada | | | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
RB:You’ve asked some important questions, but I’m not sure you’ve answered them. It’s surely true that our presuppositions are critical in our attempt to understand anything. The question is this: what is the source of our presuppositions, especially those which govern our thinking and talk about God and what we can know about Him? It’s tempting to speculate about what God “must be like,” and allow our thinking to preempt Scripture, which in fact is the sole source of whatever knowledge we have of God. The kicker is that Scripture does not tell us everything there is to know about God, only what He wants us to know and what He deems necessary for our salvation. It follows, then, that Scripture may contain “gaps” in our picture of God. Nor can we assume that reason can or should close those gaps. As a result, certain passages in Scripture may ostensibly conflict with others. If we had all the “pieces” of the puzzle in place, the inconsistencies would disappear. But we don’t. And we must simply rest content with what knowledge it has pleased God to make available to us. We are not at liberty to ignore any part of Scripture. But the need to impose ORDER on God’s revealed Word is reason’s demand, not God’s. God meets our salvific needs, not our expectations. |
|
|
| 7/13/08 11:29 AM |
| Aidan McDowell | | Las Vegas, Nevada | | | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
The doctrine of election is arguably the most difficult and perplexing subject that any Christian has to deal with. It’s not only hard to sell to non-believers, but it’s also hard for any thinking person to reconcile himself to it. Contemporary Christians should, however, keep in mind that the Reformers (especially Calvin, whose name is usually associated with it) found the doctrine of election no less unsettling than they do. The gravamen of the complaint against election is that “if God is good, then He wouldn’t elect anyone to reprobation.” This is just what one hears from contemporary “seekers,” who find the God of Scripture unpalatable. “My God is a God of love . . .” It avails us little to fudge the issue by insisting that election only applies to the saved, and that everyone else is abandoned to the fate that otherwise faces him, even though God doesn’t want it that way. What makes any discussion of election so unmanageable is certain presuppositions about our knowledge of God that inform it. We want to believe that we can know more about God than Scripture tells us. And it’s this alternative source of knowledge which tells us that God just couldn’t elect anyone to reprobation. Again, “My God is a God of love . . .” What has become, then, of "sola scriptura?" |
|
|
| 7/13/08 9:53 AM |
| Aidan McDowell | | Las Vegas, Nevada | | | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
People who want to debate whether Oprah is a Christian are much ado about nothing. One doesn’t debate what is self-evident. Clearly she is not, whatever she may claim. Let’s look at the evidence.Fact: Oprah supports Barack Obama.
Fact: Obama favors partial-birth abortion. Fact: Oprah supports and promotes Eckhart Tolle.
Fact: Eckhart Tolle denies the importance of the Biblical Christ. A Christian who favors or supports Obama is in denial. Partial-birth abortion is a crime against humanity. A Christian can no more defend or advocate it than he can make a case for slavery or genocide. If a political candidate were to favor either of these, one couldn’t say “I can overlook that, because I agree with him on the issues.” Imagine anyone saying, “I know this candidate favors genocide, but I think he can fix the economy, so I’ll vote for him.” If a person’s humanity is in doubt, one’s stand “on the issues” is irrelevant. A Christian who supports and promotes a New-Age pantheist is also in denial. Tolle says: "Christ is your God- essence or the Self . . . Never personalize Christ. Don't make Christ into a form identity." Oprah cannot have it both ways. If she is a “Christian,” then the word loses all meaning. |
|
|
|
| Jump to Page : 1 [2] |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/8/07 11:56 PM
