glenn morton wrote:
> He too lost his faith because he couldn't see any
> reason to believe the Bible especially given the apologetical choices.
> Now, my question to this group is, who is at fault? Is it those who lose
> faith, or those who failed to supply reasonable answers?
Both.
But what is a "reasonable answer"? The fundamental claim of Christianity -
that the key to the deepest understanding fo a person's life & of the world is revealed
in a man getting nailed to a cross - is not "reasonable" by the standards of either
commonsense theism or up & down the street naturalism. All attempts to make it
reasonable in terms of those standards distorts it. It is necessary instead to point
out that neither scientific nor theological claims are to be assessed in terms of a
priori plausibility (which the cross does not have) but in terms of their ability to
make sense of the largest body of experience.
I realize by now that this sort of statement will draw only puzzled looks from
most people on this list, bewitched as we seem to be by the notion that the flood & the
garden of Eden are the articles by which the church stands & falls. & no, the fact that
skeptics want to talk about those issues doesn't mean that Christians have to get their
priorities messed up & fail to begin at the beginning.
BTW, has anyone noticed that very little that's discussed on this list makes any
reference to Christ?
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 08 2000 - 22:14:57 EST