Lay Down Your Sword?
Imagine witnessing a battle.
In this battle you observe various smaller fights...soldier against soldier.
Now imagine that in one of these fights you watch as the two soldiers approach one another, swords held out in front.
As they begin battling the one soldier tells the other that for the fight to be fair they should lay down their swords.
The other soldier shrugs his shoulders...and then procedes to lay down this sword.
The first soldier begins taking huge swings at the weaponless soldier.
The soldier without a sword yells at the top of his lungs, "hey we are to lay down our swords!"
To the the other says "this isn't a sword."
This is what happens when the unbeliever tells the believer that he shouldn't presuppose the Bible...just be neutral...lay down your sword.
It becomes apparent very quickly that the unbeliever doesn't intend to lay down his presuppositions.
He likes the way his naturalism and unbelief feel and isn't about to lay them down.
So Christian hang on to your sword...even if the unbeliever taunts to lay it down.
Its always easier to bring down your opponent when he has no weapon.
posted by Dale Callahan at 4:13 PM
8 Comments:
Got a mirror, Dale? When you ask me to forget about reason and logic and accept your presuppositions about the Bible, what is that other than attempting to disarm your opponent so you can defeat him with your weapon?
The problem here is that the battle is not between soldiers facing one another with swords, it is between opponents whose weapons do not acknowledge the existence of the other soldier's weapon. They are then both ineffective in achieving victory. The solution is to propose a commonly agreed basis on which to do battle -- something of course, which you cannot do because your presuppositions are absolutely essential to your fight.
Besides, this is not a battle between the "believers" and the "unbelievers", there are plenty of believers who accept science and history and literary criticism. There are no doubt many "unbelievers" who join you in irrational and illogical world views that reject science and history.
I am not asking to forget about reason and logic.
I am asking you to justify your naturalistic use of reason and logic.
I am saying the only reason why your sword works is because you stole it from my Kings storehouse...but you just don't want to admit it.
When you don't answer my challenge DL, I don't look at this as you and I remaining in our two separate circles...a tie...no one wins.
You have failed to justify your ultimate beliefs...you lose.
The Christian role in apologetics isn't to change the unbelievers heart...only the Holy Spirit can do that...but when the Christian can close the mouth of the unbeliever he has succeeded.
As long as you don't answer why you use logic and reason, give a real justified answer, then your mouth is closed.
You may call names and just assume your naturalism but that is not an answer...and its not being rational.
You are like a man who uses a ladder to get on to your roof...then once you are on the roof you kick away the ladder and tell everyone that you didn't need any help getting where you are.
You make judgments of what is logical and what isn't but you don't have a worldview that can even make sense of universals, absolutes, unchanging "things".
My world view isn't illogical you are just saying it is. Prove to me that I am saying "A" and not "A"...don't just say it, show it.
I do believe that there are both believers and unbelievers who are illogical...and immoral...but I just don't say so...I actually have a world view that accounts for why I can say anything is absolutely this or absolutely that.
You have even admitted in our past talks that you don't need absolutes and yet you continue to contradict yourself.
Your actions cannot agree with your words. Which leads me to one of my first premises.
The unbeliever has two worldviews, one professed [that he speaks about] and the other surpressed [the one he knows is true, Romans 1, God's world].
I am not asking to forget about reason and logic.
I am asking you to justify your naturalistic use of reason and logic.
I am saying the only reason why your sword works is because you stole it from my Kings storehouse...but you just don't want to admit it.
When you don't answer my challenge DL, I don't look at this as you and I remaining in our two separate circles...a tie...no one wins.
You have failed to justify your ultimate beliefs...you lose.
The Christian role in apologetics isn't to change the unbelievers heart...only the Holy Spirit can do that...but when the Christian can close the mouth of the unbeliever he has succeeded.
As long as you don't answer why you use logic and reason, give a real justified answer, then your mouth is closed.
You may call names and just assume your naturalism but that is not an answer...and its not being rational.
You are like a man who uses a ladder to get on to your roof...then once you are on the roof you kick away the ladder and tell everyone that you didn't need any help getting where you are.
You make judgments of what is logical and what isn't but you don't have a worldview that can even make sense of universals, absolutes, unchanging "things".
My world view isn't illogical you are just saying it is. Prove to me that I am saying "A" and not "A"...don't just say it, show it.
I do believe that there are both believers and unbelievers who are illogical...and immoral...but I just don't say so...I actually have a world view that accounts for why I can say anything is absolutely this or absolutely that.
You have even admitted in our past talks that you don't need absolutes and yet you continue to contradict yourself.
Your actions cannot agree with your words. Which leads me to one of my first premises.
The unbeliever has two worldviews, one professed [that he speaks about] and the other surpressed [the one he knows is true, Romans 1, God's world].
"I am saying the only reason why your sword works is because you stole it from my Kings storehouse." There's a classic statement - it alleges facts not in evidence. You ascribe natural law to God and then continue to insist that God can and does choose to suspend those laws when it suits his mood. Since there is absolutely no historical evidence of such a suspension, the claim is baseless.
This is part of the rather silly twisted logic of a lot of dominionist apologetics. You raise a false claim, ascribe it to your opponent, then refute it (albeit poorly). The whole premise is hollow.
I don't have two worldviews or contradictory ideas - you find them contradictory perhaps because they don't fit the patterns you allow yourself to examine. That's a problem of perception on your part, not contradiction on mine.
Did I say I believed in "natural law"?
I believe that God has a certain order in which he runs things...but He isn't bound to these laws.
Explain to me how you know the future is going to be like the past.
Why do you hold to the uniformity of nature [do some reading about what this really means so you can give a real answer].
How do mutations [evolution] work in with your view of the uniformity of nature?
Again, you call names [silly twisted logic/...a very immature way of argument...and you don't ever really answer the questions. asked of you.
Throughout history there have actually been unbelievers who haven't just assumed things...they have tried to give philosophical answers to the questions of life.
You should give it a try sometime.
Gee, and what makes you think the future (speaking of course of scientific laws) will not be like the past? You allege that God is not bound by nature's law, but of course, there are no records (short of religious myths) in which those laws have been abrogated by God or anyone else. This is another example of circular logic.
I'm sure I should read several articles by dominionists about "uniformity of nature" and try to defend my position against their twisted logic - no thanks. "Uniformity of nature" is your concept, not mine - you defend it. I think it's hokum. As for mutation, a quick read of the science of evolutionary biology should produce an answer for you. If it conflicts with your assumption about my philosophical position, that's a good reason to throw out your assumption.
Throughout history there have been religious believers who have assumed things... they have tried to give supernatural, religious answers to questions that have natural, scientific, rational answers. That has been the downfall of every society that has fallen prey to it.
It explains why the West accomplished nothing between the fall of Rome and the Enlightenment - the society and the state were under the control of the church and any science that contradicted religious myth was outlawed. Without reason and with only myth to guide them, the West accomplished nothing other than killing thousands of people in battles over religion.
You have no need to defend it, yet your naturalism has no answer for it. Keep walking in the dark DL.
I am not going to give long replies to you. You have come to the door and to you it has become a wall.
You have put up a wall and insist it's a door.
Post a Comment
<< Home