Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [biblicalapologetics] Fwd: questions

Expand Messages
  • Eric Pement
    Responding to jeep_dj5 , who posted the following to the biblical ... [... deletion ...] ... I have no idea how old you are or how much experience you have
    Message 1 of 78 , Jul 12, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Responding to "jeep_dj5", who posted the following to the biblical
      apologetics mailing list:

      > Some Questions For The Believer
      >
      >
      > 1) How would you define "God," and why are you convinced such
      > a thing exists?

      [... deletion ...]

      > 40) Why does history show that every time a fundamentalist religion
      > has gained political power, tyranny and persecutions have soon
      > followed?

      I have no idea how old you are or how much experience you have had
      with mailing lists, but I have had much experience with email lists
      for many years. I have managed two or three myself.

      I think cutting-and-pasting has its place, but often it comes
      across as impersonal and careless, even if the item posted has some
      bearing on the mailing list subject. No doubt, questions about
      theism or fundamentalism are germane to this mailing list.

      However, a cut-and-paste question shows no more sensitivity or
      personal investment than a cut-and-paste reply. Personally, I *like*
      to answer questions, provided that they come from real people. It
      gives me a sense of accomplishing something or meeting a real human
      need. But I dislike posers and hypocrites, who ask questions they
      don't really care about or who take 2 minutes to cut-and-paste and
      then expect others to take 20 minutes or 60 minutes to think out a
      reply. To me, that's just unfair and unkind.

      If you exhibit ten minutes of real thinking and human interaction,
      you'll get a much more serious response from people like me. I'll
      start off by giving you my real name. Thanks for listening.

      --
      Eric Pement - eric.pement@...
    • Eric Pement
      Replying to Robert Bassett: ... I was addressing what I thought was Jeep s more fundamental question about which religion was true. Since his question mixed in
      Message 78 of 78 , Jul 20, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Replying to Robert Bassett:

        Thanks for replying. On 19 Jul 2005 at 12:15, you said:

        > I do agree with what you say about religious hypocrisy Eric but you
        > must admit that there has to be one real “truth”.

        I was addressing what I thought was Jeep's more fundamental
        question about which religion was true. Since his question mixed in
        world religions, Christian denominations, and cults, it was my view
        that the best way to frame a response was as I did: the Christian
        religion is true, but being part of the "right church" won't save
        you. I think this is the basics for further discussion.

        > The Godhead must be either the trinity as described by RC and most
        > Protestants, God and the glorified man Christ as described by JW and
        > others or maybe 3 separate beings as described by Mormons. They cannot
        > all be right.

        True, they cannot all be right. And the Godhead might fit some
        different configuration altogether (binitarian, unitarian,
        modalistic, panentheistic, etc.). I acknowledge that on a descriptive
        level, the law of noncontradiction holds.

        My assertion, for Jeep's sake, is that even believing in the
        "right" understanding of Godhead is not enough. As I said to him in
        my last message:

        EP> In the last analysis, Bible knowledge without eternal life
        EP> is worthless.

        I think that holds for knowledge of true doctrines as well. In my
        understanding, a person could conceptually believe in the "right" or
        ultimately most correct understanding of theology, christology,
        pneumatology, soteriology, ecclesiology, and all the rest, and still
        not be "saved." Salvation is not obtained by intellectual assent even
        to correct propositions and statement. Salvation is based on a
        personal decision of the will to turn from sin and trust in Christ as
        your sin-bearer, master, and risen Lord.

        There are components of this decision that involve ideas (what is
        sin? what does "risen" mean? etc.), but there are additional
        components that require will, volition, allegiance, faith, and so on.

        > I do agree though that participation in any religion doesn’t guarantee
        > salvation, any many individuals of many different faiths will hear the
        > words of the shepherd and heed his voice.

        I think so too ... so long as those different faiths don't
        "differ" so greatly that they lose or deny the Jesus and gospel of
        Scripture. Thanks for writing.

        --
        Eric Pement
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.