Re: Education and ChristianitySeptember 3 2004 at 7:45 AM
No score for this post
|Mangi Nating |
Response to Education and Christianity
Defining terms is all very well, but it essentially goes round in circles. Since we can only define terms in terms of other terms
Yes true, but all language is inadequate for the expression of ideas, this is no excuse however not to be clear about what we are talking about.
so that salvation is essentially hereditary
How is this so? And as for the rest of those comments, truth is not based upon the recency of an idea. Yes, Christians take as their final authority the scriptures in all things related to faith and practice. If the Scriptures are the inspired word of God, then what is wrong with Christians following them. Or who should they defer to in these matters?
There is nothing magical about creation. Wonderful yes, but not magical. I take it you believe in evolution, yes believe in it because it takes about as much, if not more faith to accept that something comes out of nothing than that there was an intelligent designer. Perhaps you would be willing to explain to me how life proceeds from non life? I would also be interested to know how an intricate organ like the eye evolved. How did it know how to see? Creation itself shows evidence of design, there is nothing random about the design of this world.
About Christianity claiming to be the only way to God. This is the only logical conclusion anyone not blinded by political correctness can reach. If there are two mutually exclusive worldviews, then one of them must be right and the other wrong. It would be logically inconsistent to say that they are both right. So either Christianity which makes its exclusive claims is right or some other religion is.
About open-mindedness, perhaps we should make the discussion concrete. I have in my mind such perversions as homosexuality and child abuse. Now we can get all 'philosophical' and pseudo-enlightened and say that there is no such thing as wrong, only one's point of view. If this was the case then nothing at all is wrong and we have no right to condemn Child abuse, just the same as we have no right to condemn homosexuality since nothing is right or wrong. But as a society, as a pragmatic society, we must have standards from which we judge behavior. Our standards are based upon biblical precepts, and the bible condemns such perverted practices as homosexuality.
On these issues 'open-mindedness' is merely an excuse used by homosexuals and their like to silence those who condemn their behavior. Of course anyone who opposes their perverted lifestyle is considered by them to be close-minded and bigoted, an example of taking refuge in emotionally-charged words, since it is only they who can be unbiased and progressive etc...
Incidentally this most Christian country is in a moral crisis.
Perdoname seņor, but how does a country become Christian? There is no such thing as a Christian country, there are only Christian individuals. Semantics? No. Papua New Guinea is in a moral crisis because it does not have enough Christians. The Scriptures condemn murder, stealing, cheating, lying, adultery (list sin here) etc... how can a country that is filled with such things be considered Christian? The only thing Christian about the nation is the anthem that acknowledges God.
The question is not "believing the right things". "Fundamentalist" science would be locked into what one believed about science two thousand years ago, (or last week). It would have stopped. If ideas don't progress then nothing does.
The Christian teachings encourage wonder about the world. Man is not prevented from finding out about the world around him. The scriptures do not forbid scientific progress. What you have done is misrepresented Christianity, and turned into what is most convenient to you. Many of those men who have advanced thought were Christians or were considered so.
"Fundamentalist" Judaism could not accept Jesus.
What is fundamental Judaism?