Faith and communication

Feb 26, 2011 12:46

Unless you take it AS A FACT, and act upon it, that the Christian doctrine is factually true, you are not a Christian. However, when addressing a member of another faith, it is not only legitimate but proper to use, as the basis of your approach, this proposition: "This is the theory upon which I act, and which I take to explain life and the ( Read more... )

beatific vision, debate, understanding, god

Leave a comment

Comments 8

fishlivejournal February 26 2011, 13:37:49 UTC
This all makes sense - but frankly, after many long arguments with angry athiests, I've come to the conclusion that most of them *do* believe that Christ is true, and that's why they're so angry. (Not adherents of other religions of course. Laid back athiests, not so much. But definitely the angry athiests).
Especially given how many times athiests will unthinkingly use an argument that requires a religious belief. Consider this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg

Here Dawkins says in multiple variants: "If you'd beeen brought up in another time and place" - sorry? How? Who? If I don't have a soul, *what* is being brought up another time and place? My current genetics? I won't have that if I'm a Dane or Indian. My upbringing? His argument is that this will be different. He could not have said anything in this clip unless he at some level believed that we have an existence that does not depend on our body/environment - a soul.

Reply

fishlivejournal February 26 2011, 13:53:38 UTC
(oh, you've misspelt 'understaNDing' in the tags)

Reply

fpb February 26 2011, 14:10:44 UTC
thanks

Reply

fpb February 26 2011, 14:11:46 UTC
corrected, and thanks again.

Reply


cheyinka February 28 2011, 01:02:40 UTC
I read a book a few months ago entitled _God Is Not One_, about how it actually causes more problems than it solves to assume that all religions want the same things, much less think the same things deep down. It was really the first time I'd sat down and thought about that idea! I guess I'd absorbed through cultural osmosis the idea that anyone who says that religions are fundamentally different must be a bigot. (It's by Stephen Prothero, who generally provokes eyerolling from me if he's talking about Catholicism, but I think the book's still worth it.)

Reply


Leave a comment

Up