Reputation
1,931
Top tag
Next privilege 2,000 Rep.
Edit questions and answers
Badges
8 17
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~54k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 525 votes cast
Oct
9
accepted What is the interpretation of the bow in the cloud after the Flood?
Oct
9
asked If humans are now genetically tainted by corruption, what was perfection like?
Oct
8
comment Why do Christians need to promote their religion to non-believers?
Religions that don't encourage their followers to convert others (and don't make up for it by slaughtering, invading, and colonizing) tend to die out. Thus, you would expect every major religion to have an element of proselytizing. Also, it's human nature to share things that seem beneficial or important. The interesting cases are the widespread religions that don't do this much (e.g. Buddhism). I'm not saying that it's not interesting to know the Christian justification, but the universal pattern should also be recognized.
Oct
8
comment What are the theological implications of “filioque”?
It's a side tangent (good answer otherwise), but "a love so strong that it is an actual person" is much more nonsensical than interesting. For example: "This inspiration is so strong that it is coffee." Huh?
Oct
6
revised Once a believer, always a believer?
added 592 characters in body
Oct
6
revised Once a believer, always a believer?
added 8 characters in body
Oct
6
answered Once a believer, always a believer?
Oct
5
comment How is it that someone who lived thousands of years ago can “represent” me?
@warren - So the question was "How is it logical?" and your answer is "You can't tell."? In order for that to be a good answer, it would be nice to have more justification for the claim that we can't know (or even guess at) the reasoning and/or more explanation of at least what God's standard is for transferral of responsibility.
Oct
5
comment How is it that someone who lived thousands of years ago can “represent” me?
This is more a restatement that Adam is a representative, in that we are held accountable for his actions, than an answer as to why it makes sense. As Chelonian points out, the colonization of the Americas by Europeans does not seem to be a great analogy.
Oct
4
comment What is the meaning of “anything” in Matthew 18:19-20?
@Richard - Surely the conditions you list have been met by the loved ones of people imprisoned and later killed by dictators throughout the ages. So this then raises the question: is this an example of the Bible being in error? Or is the interpretation incorrect somewhere? (Or are the conditions essentially impossible to meet, e.g. because God's will is already set, and only if you happened to guess it and pray accordingly will things unfold the way you wished?)
Oct
4
revised Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
edited title
Oct
4
comment Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
@Richard - It's a sentence fragment. I'll make it less fragmentary.
Oct
3
comment Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
@Richard - Why did you change the title? It no longer matches the question or the accepted answer.
Oct
3
accepted Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
Oct
3
comment Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
That was it--it was a TAG argument in the style of Van Til (from the presuppositional apologetics link). The "further reading" may contain the exact argument--still checking it out. Thanks!
Oct
3
revised Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
edited tags
Oct
3
asked Is there an argument that God, as a self-proving entity, is necessary for logic?
Oct
2
awarded  Nice Answer
Oct
1
comment How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience?
@David Stratton - Uncommonly generous! Thanks for being willing to consider other perspectives.
Oct
1
comment How should a Christian relate to pseudoscience?
My comments to David apply here also--it's the evidence from experiments, not the beliefs of scientists, which make something scientific, and while a bit of pseudoscience might be true (almost by accident), the key distinction is that it's not science. Thus, I still feel that your answer starts off being misleading, essentially falling into the pseudoscience trap by focusing on the "science" part rather than the "pseudo" (in this case, "fake") part.