Wednesday, June 25, 2008
One of the reasons I blog is because of the almost-endless amazement I'm provided from the various interlocutors who stop by. They are appreciated, but sometimes their brainless assertions get a little on my nerves, I have to admit.
Take this most recent example. Multiple atheists have been insisting that they get to identify that which is Christianity, that which I believe, those who are Christians, and that which makes a person a Christian. And somehow, they get to be the ultimate arbiter of what counts as a satisfying definition of Christianity and Christians.
They would probably do well to remember where they are and to whom they're talking. Is this LiberalMilquetoastChristianity.com or EmergentsLoveAllThatStuff.com? Are they debating ecumenists here? Haha, anyone who knows me will know that doesn't really describe me very well, for better or for worse. Which strategy leads to the question - are these interlocutors unable or afraid to engage the actual issues at hand? For what reason do they refuse to engage ME rather than calling upon me to explain the conduct of people with whom I claim no common cause? Do I ask them to make agnostics make up their mind about which side they want to take? Do I tell them that their positions are no good unless they are on record specifically and explicitly naming every single deity ever imagined by the mind of man as well as the One that actually lives and then stating "No, I don't believe in that one", up to however many thousands that would be?
Or do I tell them that they're actually not atheists? Yes, they may say they disbelieve in any deity. But all of a sudden, b/c I say so, they DON'T actually believe that. Neither do any atheists. Rather, I attribute to them all of the beliefs of Phred Felps and deal with them that way. When they argue, "There's no evidence that God exists", do I respond with, "But you're a freaky quasi-Christian cult who does NOT speak the truth in love as the Bible says you should do"?
Paul C is the most recently guilty of such:
The difference being that you're defining Christian as "anybody who agrees with my specific theology"
Quote me doing so.
But "Christian" does have a specific meaning. Biblically, which is the only standard I care to use (b/c it's the only one that makes sense), "Christian" is someone who believes a specific set of propositions AND who has been born again by the Spirit of God.
A good list of those propositions includes:
-The Trinity of God
-The Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ
-His Blood Atonement
-His Bodily Resurrection
-Personal and Imminent Return of Christ
-Person and Work of the Holy Spirit
-Personality of Satan
-Justification by grace alone thru faith alone
-The Reality of Heaven and Hell
That ain't bad; it can depend on a number of factors, but in some people's case such as Osama bin Laden, Barack Obama, the Maharesh Yogi, Gauthama Buddha, and Robin Meyers, etc, we don't have to wonder. Their respective and disparate viewpoints are not anywhere close to the "edge".
So, at the end of the day, do these interlocutors want to engage ME (for whatever that may or may not be worth) or not? When the field of battle is full of charred straw with half-burned pieces of paper with "The 'Christianity' I prefer to beat down" written thereon floating around, will any reader conclude that the unattractive guy still chilling on the sideline named Rhology ever had to lift a finger to defend his own position?