Re: historicity (was: Socrates and Jesus)

PMJAQUA@pwinet.upj.com
Wed, 20 Mar 1996 15:40:22 -0500

Regarding what Ken Smith wrote:
>There are Buddhists and Hindus who "know" they are right because of their
>readings, meditations, feelings, the love from their religious community.
>Does the defense of *your* beliefs differ much from theirs? I argue that
>the Christian apologetic is fundamentally of a different nature than the
>apologetic of a Hindu or Buddhist.

Stephen Froehlik responded:
>No, it doesn't. Why would it? There are a few key, but very subtle
>differences: God seeks me, not I seek God/Relaity. God reveals himself
>to us, (not me) not we find out more about God. Et Cetera.
>Do you see what I'm trying to drive at? My central worry is that
>we're looking for the wrong kind of truth in all of this. Comments?

OK. Here are my comments.
The defense of Christianity differs from that other faiths because
it is not based in subjectivity (e.g.- feelings, meditations). It is based
in objectivity (e.g.- history, archeology).
As to the differences, they are not subtle and they are
multitudinous. E.g.- reincarnation, salvation by works, the existence of
hell.
My central worry is that people often base their faith on less than
the whole truth. Gene Hartquist hit it right on the head when he said,
"..the historicity of the Bible is important. Faith in and commitment to
Christ are important. And, the role of the Holy Spirit is VERY important in
affecting a belief in Christ."

Mike Jaqua
Kalamazoo, MI
pmjaqua@pwinet.upj.com

*********************************
ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT !!!!!!
*********************************