Archive for December, 2013

The classical definition of tolerance means putting up with people you disagree with, not accepting all views as equally valid and true.

Today people assume tolerance means “accepting all views as true.” And because genuine Christians don’t do this, they are charged with being intolerant. Whenever you hear Christians criticized as intolerant, ask, “What do you mean by ‘intolerance’?” True tolerance doesn’t mean accepting all beliefs—the good and the goofy—as legitimate. After all, one who disagrees with Christians doesn’t accept Christianity; he thinks Christians are wrong! Historically, tolerance has meant putting up with what you find disagreeable or false. You put up with strangers on a plane who snore or slurp their coffee. Similarly, you put up with another person’s beliefs without criminalizing him.

— Paul Copan

via Isn’t Christianity Intolerant? – The Gospel Project.

simul iustus et peccator,

Me

Advertisements
Symbol of the major religions of the world: Ju...

Symbol of the major religions of the world: Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“When religious pluralism claims that there are many ways to God, it is not humble. It actually carries an air of arrogance about it. How? Religious pluralism insists that its view—all ways lead to God—is true while all other religions are false in their exclusive teachings. Religious pluralism dogmatically insists on its exclusive claim, namely that all roads lead to God. The problem, as we have seen, is that this claim directly contradicts many religions like Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and Christianity. The claim of the religious pluralist is arrogant because it enforces its own belief on others. It says to other religions: “You must believe what I believe, not what you believe. Your way isn’t right, in fact all of your ways are wrong and my way is right. There isn’t just one way to God (insert your religion); there are many ways. You are wrong and I am right.” This can be incredibly arrogant, particularly if the person saying this hasn’t studied all the world religions in depth and makes a blind assertion. Upon what basis can the religious pluralist make this exclusive claim? Where is the proof that this is true? To what ancient Scriptures, traditions, and careful reasoning can they point? The lack of historical and rational support for religious pluralism makes it a highly untenable view of the world and its religions.

— Jonathon Dodson, M.Div., Th.M., Gordon-Cornwell Theological Seminary, Lead Pastor of Austin City Life Church

via What Is Unique About Christianity Among The World Religions? – The Gospel Project.

Religious pluralism can be extremely arrogant. Remember this when you are accused of being arrogant for the exclusivity of Christian truth claims.

simul iustus et peccator,

Erock

It’s important to have a thoroughly thought out and comprehensive Christian worldview.

“James Orr, in The Christian View of God and the World, maintains that there is a definite Christian view of things, which has a character, coherence, and unity of its own, and stands in sharp contrast with counter theories and speculations. A Christian worldview has the stamp of reason and reality and can stand the test of history and experience. A Christian view of the world cannot be infringed upon, accepted or rejected piecemeal, but stands or falls on its integrity. Such a holistic approach offers a stability of thought, a unity of comprehensive insight that bears not only on the religious sphere but also on the whole of thought. A Christian worldview is not built on two types of truth (religious and philosophical or scientific) but on a universal principle and all-embracing system that shapes religion, natural and social sciences, law, history, health care, the arts, the humanities, and all disciplines of study with application for all of life.

— David Dockery, President of Union University in Jackson, TN

via The Importance of a Christian Worldview – The Gospel Project.

simul iustus et peccator,  

Eric Adams 

Rossville, GA 

godsguy12@comcast.net 

christianreasons@gmail.com 

https://twitter.com/xianreasons 

http://christianreasons.com/

 

Gutenberg Bible of the New York Public Library...

Gutenberg Bible of the New York Public Library. Bought by Lenox in 1847, it was the first to come to the USA. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It’s easy to forget the sacrifices of so many people in preserving the Bible we currently possess.

“Getting the Bible was a painstaking process of copying. Long before the printing press of the 15th century not to mention computers, copies of Scripture had to be preserved by painstaking copying, one letter at a time. Some copies were made individually. Others were made in scriptoriums where someone read the text. In these locations, many copies were made at once as several scribes listened and wrote. I often tell people the Bible they hold in their hands is possible because many people faithfully over several centuries copied the text to replace worn out copies. Those copies were not perfect, but the fact we have many manuscripts of these texts allows us to reproduce the text with a high level of certainty. Where we are not sure, we do know what the likely options are. Good Bible translations signal the options to you by having a note int eh margin that reads “or” with the variant noted. We have over 5800 Greek manuscripts. The best ancient texts of other works have 100-200 copies. In most cases we are confident what the text should read. In no case do these differences impact the overall teaching of the faith. What they impact is which verses teach and idea and so how many relate to a specific theme.”

— Darrell Bock, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies, DTS

via How Did We Get the Bible and Can We Trust It? – The Gospel Project.

 

simul iustus et peccator,  

Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

 

Leona's bumper sticker.

Leona’s bumper sticker. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Tolerance, redefined to mean the acceptance of all beliefs as equally valid and true, is the smiley-fist of political correctness. It is also horribly intolerant.

“Tolerance is not a one-way street. If you cannot show tolerance to those you disagree with, then you are in no position to demand tolerance from those who disagree with you. It’s not a religious thing. It’s not even a moral thing. It’s a common sense thing and a respect thing — those two — and you either have them, or you don’t.

I defy any person of any “orientation” who deigns to demand respect and tolerance from others, regardless of their religious convictions, if they cannot themselves show equal respect and tolerance.

Many, many Christians have succumbed to the peer pressure. They’ve allowed themselves to be bullied, filled with guilt and media-brainwashed into silence to the point that they actually have developed a form of Stockholm Syndrome with popular opinion. They identify with it now, even condemning those who aren’t afraid to stand by the Word of God on matters of morality.”

via Defending. Contending. | Defending truth and contending for the Faith while carrying the Light of the Gospel into a world shrouded in darkness..

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com 

 

SeatedBuddhaGandhara2ndCentury

SeatedBuddhaGandhara2ndCentury (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Some historical humility from skeptics would be nice.

 

“Well, in any case, it’s an interesting parallel to the questions and controversies over the “historical Jesus.”  There are, it would seem “historical Buddha” inquiries as well.  But the story also offers a reason and basis for gaining some perspective.  In the case of Jesus, we’re not entirely sure what year he was born (arguments typically ranging between ca. 4-7 BCE), or what year precisely to date his execution (between 28-34 CE; see Helen Bond’s brief discussion of the matter on the CSCO blog site here).  In the case of Gautama, it appears that scholars dispute which century in which to place him.  Neither left writings, and around each one a massive trans-local religious movement developed.  In the case of Jesus, our earliest known accounts were written ca. 40+ years after his death (the four familiar Gospels).  In the case of Gautama, the oldest biographical source is a poem,  Buddhacarita, dated to the 2nd century CE (i.e., approximately 600 years after the time when most scholars think Gautama died).”

via On Getting Some Perspective: The “Historical Buddha” | Larry Hurtado’s Blog.

 

 

 

simul iustus et peccator, 

 

 

 

Eric Adams 

 

Rossville, GA 

 

godsguy12@comcast.net 

 

christianreasons@gmail.com 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is it the Gospel writers are historically suspect? It’s because of preexisting bias against them.
St Luke's Infancy Narratives

St Luke’s Infancy Narratives (Photo credit: Lawrence OP)

“The gist of the problem is that Luke claims that the first tax when Quirinius was governor of Syria was at the time of Jesus’ birth – around 4-2 B.C. The Jewish historian Josephus, however, records that the first tax under Quirinius’ administration was in 6 A.D., after Jesus’ birth. There’s no reconciling these reports, unless we actually look back at what Luke wrote and at some historical data.

First let me make the point Greg made to the caller. Luke itself is a historical account that we should take just as seriously as Josephus. The posture that the Bible is the questionable source behind other historical sources is just plain prejudice before examining the accounts. The Gospels, just like Josephus, claim to be ancient historical records, and they should be taken as such until proven to be untrustworthy. So far, they have not been dismissed based on the facts, only by assumption. Josephus’ accuracy can be questioned in light of Luke’s account just as much as the other way around.”

via Stand to Reason | What Luke Actually Wrote.

 

simul iustus et peccator, 

 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 
godsguy12@comcast.net 
christianreasons@gmail.com