In Reply to: Re: Yes, that'd be an interesting debate posted by Chronic on October 18, 2005 at 16:27:05:
Yes, the quote from the article is indeed interesting--even more so when logically dissected.
"We know"-the phrase connotes an us/them mentality--anything opposing its foregone conclusions is from the inferior "them" camp--most likely Spirit-filled Evangelical Christians (even if unaffiliated politically --they are also to be considered suspect beforehand in this respect).
"An absence of self-doubt"--Hmmm. How could anyone oppose this dictum? Major premise: no one (implied "no one REASONABLE") has no self-doubt at all--irrefutable!
Careful, now; though--the IMPLICATION (unspoken, of course) is that, since "WE" all believe that, the question may be easily begged that anyone who believes that any certainties, specifically OF BELIEF, are possible, is unreasonable at the outset, and can have no further cogent statements to make.
Then the inevitable inclusion of the words "believer" and "infidel"--very much the quintessential "witch words" these days. The believer is to be seen as a philosophical terrorist lording it over the "infidel", and the "infidel" is not, interestingly enough, the victim of Islamo-fascist terrorism a la Saddam and the murder-bombers; an extremely facile change-over has taken place within recent political correctness--the infidel is someone who is simply a Bible-believing Christian, and we cannot trust them, yes, ALL of them are entirely suspect, because of our own former cult membership--oops! I'm not supposed to even INTIMATE that--no one is REALLY responsible for all of his or her own philosophical and behavioral choices. Every thing that I do that's wrong is somebody ELSE'S fault. Hmmm.
Interesting response--it's called an ad hominem attack: the assumption is that other readers all buy into the dictum that "There are absolutely no absolutes", which is, of course an absurdity immediately obvious on its face.
The implication that I have any certainty at all is seen, a priori, as evidence of unmitigated arrogance. There is no carefully and/or reasonably stated proof that this so--as stated, it is to merely be assumed, and that unquestionably so.
So, how about this:
Major syllogism
-Absolute propositional truth, or C. S. Lewis' "true truth" is not only possible, it does exist; like it or not.
Minor syllogisms:
-It exists in the Person of the REAL Jesus Christ, not the variable "Other Christs" (2 Cor 11, Matt 24, and so forth).
-He can be known existentially, as in experientially, on a consistent basis over a lifetime, and is every thing the Bible claims He is.
Hey, an unexamined life is not worth living, or so the saying goes (Greek philosopher).
Just some observations; with due respect to all.
Dialogue is good, when it generates more light than just heat.
Respectfully,
OT2 (OldtimerToo)