>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dr. Blake Nelson [mailto:bnelson301@yahoo.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:20 PM
>To: Glenn Morton; J Burgeson; asa@calvin.edu
>
>Two brief points to avoid belaboring this any further.
>
>Re: the Truth that Christ revealed being contra-the
>world's "truth" -- we can cite lots of scriptures that
>say that this is the case, by being conformed to
>Christ we reject what the world tells us to hold
>important and how to behave.
>
>You engage in the fallacy of saying isn't contra the
>natural contra Ockham's razor... there are two
>fallacies here. First Ockham's razor, the answer is
>no. Being contra to perceived reality has nothing to
>do with Ockham's razor.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying abut Ockham. Ockham's Razor is
basically the proposition (unproven) that all things being equal, the
simplest explanation is the correct explanation. To me, the way 'we are
naturally inclined to look at the world' (to use your words) is the simplest
explanation. It is taking the world as it appears. To go against that view
is contra the simplest explanation and thus contra Ockham. So, I would
contend it does have lots to do with Ockham. FYI I spent time in grad
school in philosophy years ago. What you miss is that your contra the
natural way of viewing things IS an explanation of the world, at least
metaphysically.
Second, I should have been
>more precise in saying that Christ shows a way that
>seems contra to the world. However, if you look
>deeper into reality, there are hints that Christ's is
>the deeper truth. There has been lots written about
>this, but I won't belabor the point. Simply, Christ's
>way appears contrary to common sense, until you enter
>on the path of that way, in which you see the world in
>an entirely different light. You have missed this
>point before. William James makes this point well
>(albeit generally) in the Will to Believe.
>
>The other major point that needs to be addressed is
>that you miss my point about the transforming power of
>Christianity and adopt an unwarrantedly negative and
>insulting view towards Islam generally by succumbing
>to the ecological fallacy. I am not defending Islam
>as Truth, far from it, but to ascribe to Islam broadly
>the actions of certain overzealous sects, is like
>ascribing all Christians the mindset of YECers (taken
>in the pejorative sense of that reference).
We don't communicate very well. I wasn't ascribing the actions of a few to
the broad masses of Islam. I have muslims in my family. I was merely
pointing out that the claim, made by you, that the apostles willingness to
die is not any proof of anything. I don't believe in Islam, don't think it
is true. But there are many among them who are willing to die for their
cause. That doesn't make their cause true.
>
>My point about the transforming power is how the
>tradition transforms the individual to the good. In
>Christianity, I think there is very good evidence for
>the power of the Holy Spirit in people's lives.
>Ultimately, it is the other centered love expressed by
>Christians that is a mark of their Lord, Jesus and His
>Truth. This is clearly what I meant. If Islam does
>transform people to be suicide bombers (which I would
>dispute as you have so facilely put it), it just goes
>to prove my point that the Truth of Christianity is
>evidenced in the fruit of those dedicated to taking up
>their crosses and following their Lord.
At the very least, the brand of religious belief held by the suicide bombers
DID transform them into suicide bombers. If it wasn't their religious
belief, then in your opinion, what was it? To me, to claim that they are not
acting out of their religiouis impulses, is just plain silly.
This other
>centered love and love of the enemy would be sharply
>contrasted against the pastiche of Islamic
>fundamentalism that you present of someone willing to
>die, as long as they kill infidels in the process.
>
>I am sure you can objectively see the difference
>between the outworking of the two different systems,
>as you characterize Islam and as I have characterized
>Christianity.
Once again, you miss my point. I am illustrating that the 'evidences' you
advanced for the truth of Christianity can equally be claimed about Islam. I
don't deny that there are many differences in the outworkings of both
religions.
>
>So, with those needed clarifications, I will, to
>borrow a page from your book, let you have the last
>word, since I think we have sufficiently beaten this
>long-deceased horse.
I will take the opportunity to have the last word.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 05 2002 - 11:49:22 EDT