Re: A profound disturbance found in Yak butter.

From: <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Date: Mon May 29 2006 - 10:05:08 EDT

For David Siemans, Iain Strachan and Bill Hamilton

 

DAvid Siemans wrote:

>>>DS

There is a dual approach because of differences, specifically that Islam has shari'ah law and Buddhism does not demand conformity. By your own claim, in a part of your response to David O., Buddhist scriptures may be corrected, including messages that contradict the originals. Indeed, the Hinayana and Mahayana do not agree on all points. You claim that scripture must be true throughout. So this, on your claim, excludes Buddhism.<<<<
 
I bolded part of your statement. You can't find me saying that. So, your assumption is wrong. What I do say is that the only way I can tell if a scripture (from whatever religion) is true is if it says something true about nature that otherwise it couldn't have known about.
 
And, you were not paying attention to why I used the Buddhist change. David O. claimed this: "Within the Buddhist worldview, there is room for enlightened individuals who may come on the scene from time to time, but this doesn't represent some sort of refinement of the commands or message of a sovereign God."
 
I was pointing out that that wasn't true.  Buddhism does change.  And I would add, that if God is an evolving creature rather than the same, yesterday, today and tomorrow, then Christianity is false.  To claim that I would say Buddhism is false because of something I didn't say is to go way beyond what I have said.
 
>>>Islam will be a little harder to challenge, because all but the "correct" text were destroyed, though I suspect that a few problems remain. But part of Islamic law makes conversion to any other faith a capital offense. I submit that any faith that must enforce conformity by killing the nonconformist is damnable. I recognize that this was also the situation for a while with Catholicism: heretics were burnt for a few centuries. <<<<<
 
Don't forget that the protestants also engaged in this behavior--a quick trip through the Vatican will show you many paintings of priests kills 'by protestant hatred', at least that is what the captions say. And, in northern Ireland  while I lived in Scotland, protestants were throwing molotov cocktails at 6-year-old little girls for the crime of walking through a protestant neighborhood to go to a Catholic school. (being a protestant, I am terribly ashamed of this.)
 
 
>In brief, truth demands consistency. Truth demands freedom: it cannot be legislated. These seem to me to be pretty effective tests.<<<
 
Agreed, truth demands consistency and that is why I reject both YEC and the widely accepted alternative of beliving that God accommodates his message to the culture of the day. It becomes entirely inconsistent because it means that God is allowing inconsistency into his message..  When are you going to see that? :-)
 
For Iain Strachan
 
you wrote:

>>>There seems to be an underlying assumption that poverty (even by religious choice) is a Bad Thing. (If I've misunderstood you, forgive me). I question that assumption, for a couple of reasons, from stuff I've read.<<<<

Absolutely fair comment.  You showed me something I hadn't considered and I like it when people do that.  But, I will stand by that. Poverty means that when you children get sick, you can't take them to the hospital to be cured. Poverty means that when you get cancer, you die earlier than you could have and your family suffers loss. Poverty means often a shorter lifespan on average (maybe we should strive to die at 27 like the earliest farmers did). Poverty means more deaths of mothers and infants during childbirth.  Poverty means not being able to control your life (you haven't seen poverty until you see poverty in some of the places I have seen poverty).

I would also point out that poverty by choice, which is what Sundar Singh did, is perfectly fine with me, but it is the choice of a knowing person. The people I see don't have the choice--they will live a poverty stricken life. 

Now, if the Tibetan theology is correct, then they are purchasing the pearl of great price by their life and they are doing precisely the correct thing.  If not..... well then they are doing precisely the wrong thing--having a life of poverty here and well, who knows in the next life, depending of course upon what theology is ultimately true. If atheism is true, then they get a life of suffering and poverty and nothing afterwords. If other religions are ultimately true then they get a life of suffering and poverty followed by suffering and who knows what else.

>>>The first is a poem "An I don't offer this as a complete answer to your very valid questions, but nonetheless I think it's a valuable perspective.

Be warned! Sundar Singh is VERY anti-materialistic, and is quite scathing about Western values - and would probably have arrived at much the same conclusion as the Okri poem, that there is richness even in poverty.<<<<

Lest anyone think I haven't experienced poverty, I have. My father cut me off at 18 and I lived in great poverty trying to get through college. There were times that I was so angry that I couldn't even come up with a dime to go get a coke with my friends. I lived on less than a 5 dollars a day--yeah this was years ago, but even bad salaries back then gave one more than $150/month. All my other money was saved to pay college tuition and books. While my poverty is nowhere near what I see, I knew what real anger was back then about the situation. It was very tough watching others take college so cavalierly while I was struggling to eat. And when I got married, I had the grand total of $14 in the bank. I was quite a catch. She, was very rich in my eyes. Why she chose me, I don't know.

For Bill Hamilton

>>>>I find this exchange rather interesting. Glenn, you ask for reasons why we should consider the Scriptures objective evidence of the truth of Christianity. Phil answers with what I consider to be the real proof of the truth of Christianity: that if we seek God he will be found by us. He admits that he can't offer objective proof, but based on his own experience -- when he trusts in God, God comes through, and you accept his answer -- at least you claim it's the most honest you have read on the list. I think you have to cut the rest of us some slack: when you ask questions about evidence, we respond with arguments about evidence.<<<

Bill, I disagree here. When I have asked about some observational evidence, what I read is that it isn't important and that only the theology taught is important. 

 

 

>>> Yet I expect that most participants would agree with Phil's answer (I certainly do, and I believe I have stated so on the list before -- if I haven't I should be chastised) In a way you are making the same error the YEC's do when they try to use creationism for evangelistic purposes: they seem to believe that if they present objective evidence for Christ, then the listener will automatically believe. <<<<

I have said for years that this is not an evangelistic issue.  This is a discipleship issue. We have young people who go into science and decide that nothing about Christianity is observationally true. Then they leave the faith.  What I find is that no matter how many times I say this is not an evangelistic issue, people continue to tell me that that is what I am wanting to do.  They also claim I am looking for proof, when I know no proof can be found. What I am looking for is confirmatory evidence of a nature that is not merely subjective (i.e., the Bible in not meant as a science book but merely teaches true theology--of course, how does one know that it teaches true theology without assuming it so?)

For verification that Ihave said it is a discipleship issue for years see http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199705/0069.html

"No, as I have said many many times, no origins view is useful in
evangelism. No origins view, if verified would convert many who have left
the faith and that is not the point at all of apologetics IMO. It is
useful in discipleship. " http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199805/0111.html

Here is a case where I am talking about why this area is important: http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/200003/0168.html

Unfortunately, no one listens to what I say in these regards and every time I raise the issue of the need for some form of observational verification, I get the same claim, that I am trying to use this for evangelism.  All I want to do is keep from loosing our best and brightest who conclude that there is no reality in Christianity.

>>>remember that Jesus said no one can come unto him unless the father draws him (Jn 6:44). It's not a matter of evidence, it's a matter of having a relationship with Jesus Christ. If other religions make similar claims, I can live with that -- I know what my experiuence teaches me.<<

Sorry, Bill, that isn't what I am trying to do.  I will, of course be asked this same question the next time this issue comes up because few are really is trying to understand what I am saying. And even fewer remember.  I could go do a search for when I told DAvid Siemans the very same thing I told him in my last post to him about my believing in proof (tonight he says I want to have the Bible true throughout, but I have corrected him on that numerous times and it still comes up each and every single time this issue is discussed. Memories are so short).  The word Sisyphussean comes to mind at points like this.  It is easier to simply read this through a filter of what people expect someone like me to say rather than work a bit to try to understand it.

Alternatively, I may be a perfectly awful communicator.


Received on Mon May 29 10:07:02 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 29 2006 - 10:07:02 EDT