jar - On Christianity

Archer writes: I missed the part where the other worldviews were discussed and eliminated.

In Robins case it seems they already have been eliminated. You're new so will have missed out on some discussion which will have led him to that conclusion (or at least the conclusion I suggest he occupies - he hasn't replied as yet). Also, the elimination of worldviews (as far as Robin is concerned he will have eliminated them himself) can have taken place outside the boundaries of EvC. My comment that God does the eliminating is simply a reminder of argument he has heard before from me - that if a man is saved then God will have done all the work.

You are arguing for the importance of having a belief system. You do not argue for Christianity. You assume Christianity.

Arguing any world view requires the assumption of something with which to kick of from. And I (and Faith) have argued much with Robin before so there is no need to go over basic ground again. We have, in the past, assumed objective morality and worked from there. Or assumed the uniqueness of Christianity and argued that all other religions are your-effort-counts based. We have assumed love to be the most precious thing of all for man to give or receive and have argued that Christianity is completely and utterly founded on love - God even uses his wrath on the way in order that his love might be expressed finally. Oh! we have argued alright. And with Robin (to whom the post was addressed) one doesn't have to go over things in broad brushstrokes again. He knows all the arguments. With him the devil is in the detail - his main objection at the moment seems to be that Jesus was deluded - not that he is convinced of that. Comments such as that you picked up "God eliminates alternative views" is a reminder to Robin of something he has heard before - not an argument.

You are arguing for the importance of having a belief system. You do not argue for Christianity. You assume Christianity.

I haven't argued for the importance of having a worldview - I think everyone has one. And in Robins case I don't argue for Christianity as a whole for the reasons mentioned above. Just the detail of the minute.

How many other possibilities have you really considered?

I never subjected any worldview to serious investigation (except for me-ism). Not that it matters much. The idea that you arrive at worldviews by real consideration only is a worldview. Christianity arrives at your door not you at it's. Outright me-ism is as good away for it to come knocking as any other.

Once you arrive at a destination you don't need to keep looking at the "world of possibilities" anymore.

The Bible drips at the seams with references to mans spiritual blindness. That he cannot see these things. This is not taken into account. You insist you can see and in your seeing you see the objections. But neither Faith nor myself have ever said anyone can rationalise themselves to Christianity.

Another central theme is that it is in mans nature to reject. And the way he will do so is to hold up as prime that which is rejectionable. The shift into seeing pinkines rather than surface reflection can be enabled by considering what fits rather than what doesn't. Gods existance immediately clears out a raft of central questions a man might have.

"Who am I?" You are a being created by God. Your life has meaning because simply because he gave it meaning. He has lots of purpose for you

"Why am I here" You are here in order for the possibility of a relationship with God to occur. Here is the medium in which that goal is played out s'all

"Where am I going" Heaven or Hell

"Where did the universe come from" God created it

"Where did life come from" God created it

Similarily you could look at all the holes Nihilism leaves you with instead of looking only at the fit.

Its just a shift. A turning around - that is all repentance is - turning around. Not rejecting to option of viewing it in that way. There is no reason for you not to consider things in this light - given what is on offer: eternal life. What has nihilism got to offer in comparison? Bugger all in comparison.

Holes? Well, consider the questions above for a start. Does nihilism offer any answers to any of them? I don't mean tentitive answers. I mean definitive answers.

Is its failure to do that not a 'hole' in your estimation?

Taking Eliot as an example, salvation "costs not less than everything." One suffers to be saved. One takes up one's cross.

The dove descending breaks the air With flame of incandescent terror Of which the tongues declare The one discharge from sin and error. The only hope, or else despair Lies in the choice of pyre of pyre— To be redeemed from fire by fire.

Redeemed from fire by fire. What a line! You, saved from being ever-consumed by fire (wrath) by being purifed by fire (love). All that will be left in the end is the purest you - all the sin and tendency to sin will have been destroyed. Love conceived of this, love paid for this to be able to happen (it cost everything). Yes, you have to suffer. But once the 'choice' is made then into the fire of your 'choice' you go. Christ (the one discharge on whom the dove alighted) paying all made such a purifying fire possible

The suffering of redeeming fire is not all unpleasant - given what one knows it leads too. It is the suffering under a dentists drill, it is the suffering of getting a skin graft. Worthwhile and profitable suffering. But don't just take it from me - find out for yourself...

Believing is seeing.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Or as, when an underground train, in the tube, stops too long between stations And the conversation rises and slowly fades into silence And you see behind every face the mental emptiness deepen Leaving only the growing terror of nothing to think about . .

I had just taken my seat in the departures lounge of an airport today and noticed a kerfuffle a few seating rows ahead. Parmedics arrived within seconds and I copped that a woman traveller had collapsed. I could see her arm lying on the ground under the rows of seats. I prayed a while for her over the sound of the defib machine charging up and the medics saying "clear"... then a crackly sound and some beeps.

There were various reactions from the hundreds of people gathered. Many stood and watched the proceedings as if transfixed; wives clutching husbands arms and kids, not knowing what was going on, but gathering from parents reactions that now was not the right time to pester for a McDonalds. An opportunistic pickpocket would have had a field day. The look on those faces was either the wide-eyed excited look of the voyeur or one of fear. It was about 50/50 voyeur/fear amongst those who were looking.

There were a surprisingly large amount (20%) who continued on with their lives. Reading the newspaper and glancing up occassionally to check on a paras progress or tapping away on their laptops or as the attractive (but now increasingly ugly) girl opposite me: chatting to her friend on her mobile about her weekend and glancing over occassionally at the show.

I gather the woman died. The paramedics were still pumping her chest 15 minutes later when I'd had enough of this train stuck in a tunnel and left the scene.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Edited by iano, : No reason given.

One has to be at least present on the field of play before another can start considering how far wide of the goalposts that person is shooting. I've a Buddhist mate who shoots closer to Christianity than Jar!