I apologize (was A profound disturbance found in Yak butter)

--- glennmorton@entouch.net wrote:

Quoting me

>>>>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.

This is the response I don't understand. I respond to the others below.

Bill: >>> 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. <<<<

Glenn:
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?)

[examples snipped -- I'll review them later, but I accept your point and
apologize for not listening]

The discipleship issue is one that concerns me as well. I believe the answer
(in part) is better teaching in church and Sunday school (and Christian schools
and colleges). Teach kids that the foundation of Christianity is Jesus Christ,
not Genesis. Teach them about the archaeological discoveries that have been
made with the aid of the Bible, but don't teach them that the Bible is
historically accurate in every detail. Teach them that Hebrew means of
narration and use of numbers make literal translation highly problematic. I
could go on, but David and George and others can tackle this better than I can.

Glenn:
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.

Bill:
However, I can still respond that for the Christian (remember, we are talking
about Christians remaining in the faith, not evangelism) a relationship with
Jesus Christ _is_ the evidence he needs. A Christian should not be looking for
external (be it Biblical or otherwise) evidence to bolster or sustain his
faith. Christians will see such evidence and that's OK. It's just not what
sustains Christian faith. A relationship with Jesus Christ is what sustains it.

>>>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.<<

Glenn:
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.

Maybe, but maybe the readers need to clean theeir glasses.

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
248.652.4148 (home) 248.821.8156 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Mon May 29 19:39:06 2006