Snail and Econo - response out of the McConnell thread

[MajGenl.Meade]

Major General sir, I have been bothered by your tagline:

"For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-"

I sort of trans late that as 'properly understood' means 'agrees with me."

snailgate.

I think you may have missed the meaning, snail. The quote is aimed at Christians who believe that truths which contradict their assumptions should not be examined or discussed. For example (and an easy one), some believers, perhaps most, feel threatened by any suggestion that Mark chapter 16 ends at verse 8 (or even at Chapter 15)- that subsequent verses are later additions. Therefore, all discussion of historical evidence, methods of 1st century and earlier polemic writing, assumption of historical persona by later narrators and so on must be suppressed.

I am a believer yet have nothing to fear from facts. Do you think that people should fear facts? We can disagree as to whether all truth is God's truth, but that's what's being dealt with in the quote. We should all want to examine facts and truth free of bias, but of course the worldview always gets in the way.

Every categorical statement (including this one as well as yours and Econoline's) suggests that people should agree with it. I see no reason to snark at "Christians" or "every religion" as if only people like THAT demand some kind of special agreement with whatever they may say.

I hope I have explained that properly - if not, I'm sorry for it.

[Econoline]

Every categorical statement (including this one as well as yours and Econoline's) suggests that people should agree with it. I see no reason to snark at "Christians" or "every religion" as if only people like THAT demand some kind of special agreement with whatever they may say.

Now that you put it like that...yeah, I guess that should be pretty obvious. I really didn't mean to snark at Christians or adherents to any other religion; it's just that the religious among us are no different than anyone else when making such a categorical statement. (Though I do think that those who quote the Torah, or the Tanakh, or the New Testament, or the Qur'an as "proof" of anything *ARE* actually "demand[ing] some kind of special agreement with whatever they may say.")

[MajGenl.Meade]

Righto, Econo. I probably agree - presumably we both distinguish between "proof" and "evidence", as well as between "proof" and "testimony". I try to do that in my better moments. The key to the end-quote is that it is a corrective aimed at Christians - all truth, all facts are worthy of more than dismissal or ignorance. It is the Christians who need to "rightly understand" Christianity; if they do, then the glass through which we see darkly becomes that much clearer.