Different approach to apologetics

Faith & Science Conversation
,
62

Isn’t there is a difference between the reality of an experience as against its validity. No one is necessarily doubting the veracity of the report, like the experience of being handed a $100 bill. The experience happened, but is the bill legitimate or counterfeit, is it valid.

I do not doubt the validity of Phil Yancey’s experience (below), but I do Muhammad’s, Joseph Smith’s and Ellen White’s, to name a few. I do not necessarily doubt the veracity of any of the latter’s reports.

ETA:

…even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:14

 

63

What I just posted addresses that… we’ll see if Paul agrees. :slightly_smiling_face:

 

Note ETA above, and here:

…even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:14

64

Not sure if this is aimed at @Paulm12 or me, so with that said . . .

I respect all religious experiences equally, and it is good to see Christians who share this view. I’ve always thought that atheists and Christians share a lot of core values such as basic respect for our fellow humans.

In keeping with the theme of this thread, could a Christian be convinced to change faiths by the testimony of a Muslim? I would think that it has happened at least once.

1 Like
65

Knowing you general position that makes sense.

If religion is personal, and we are to accept that there can be different flavours of Christianity (denominations) then it is not a big step to encompass other faith structures for the single God. Admittedly, this is not encouraged by Scripture but there are indications that God looks at the heart not the actions or beliefs.
I guess it is not good practice to suggest that there might be valid alternatives to the “product” you are promoting. Personally I prefer the results to the methodology. I have met many an atheist who displays more Christian attitudes than some vehement professing Christians.

Richard

66

I would say that a well-grounded one could not, especially if they have had experience of their loving Father’s providential interventions. To die for, literally.

67

You under estimate the human factor. There are so called Christian communities that I would shun with the proverbial barge Pole. In these cases Islam may seem a valid alternative.

Richard

68

That sounds racist. :grin: Or ethnicist, anyway.

You underestimate the Holy Spirit factor.

69

As a general rule, everyone should consider that other people are just as convinced of their own beliefs as we are of our own. I think this would greatly improve apologetics as well as conversations between people of different faiths and no faith.

70

It’s a tricky question. Some interpret it as a believer losing their salvation and others see it as that person not being born again to begin with.

This is an interesting passage from Matthew that speaks to the dilemma:

For there shall arise false christs and false prophets and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

71

It’s not about ‘how convinced we are’. You could be talking about an antivaxxer or climate denialist.

72

I do wonder about this with those types who deny they have the ability to act. I don’t mean to beat the proverbial horse, but my mind genuinely goes to this issue as it’s been a major topic for discussion with me and for some time I thought I was exaggerating the issue. But there are those out there who would argue (or even question) that consciousness is an illusion. Susan Blackmore in her introduction to consciousness by OUP is one such example.

73
  • Define “religious experience”.
74

This depends on what we think the essence of “religion” is. If the essence of religion is religious experience (like William James argued), then yes. If the essence of “religion” are propositions about the world, than no. The connection of religious experience with these propositions is not always clear.

If I claim I am a Christian because of my personal religious experience reflecting on Jesus, putting it into practice, etc, than I can’t a priori claim a Buddhist is invalid from their experience (I think this is part of what John Hick was trying to argue). I actually think the word “religion” is relatively ill-defined because we cannot form a set of necessary and sufficient conditions to decide what constitutes a religion. Still, we tend to have ideas we associate with religions that make a fuzzy idea of what we mean. With this in mind, is it possible for someone to experientially “know” Jesus without ever having heard of Christianity, the Bible, etc? I think it is possible.

I bring up this point because people often look at all religions as making contradictory claims, as if they all have epistemic parity or are even in the business of making propositions. Historically, Christianity has been very analytic and philosophical, so applying this same mentality and methodology to other “religions” may be misguided. It is through western philosophical ideas that are now inseparable from Christian influence (due to their marriage for hundreds and, in many cases, thousands of years) that we view other religious claims.

In answer to your question, yes I accept the possible validity of other religions, or at least religious experiences, insofar as they do not contradict what I know to be true by my experience or what I believe to be true through western logic.

1 Like
75

Sometimes…what is “bad” or “gospel lite” for one person, is a lifechanger for another…it depends solely on what was or was not a major roadblock for a particular person…Roadblocks are not the same for everyone. And this goes in both directions. I once read something by an atheist who was so excited because he/she had found “proof” that Nazareth had not existed in the era during which Jesus would have spent His boyhood–thus the whole gospel account was a lie/Jesus fictitious etc…and then someone else came along and noted discoveries of a community and various buildings, etc… I suppose that definitions of “bad or good apologetics” works both ways sometimes.

76

Great comments…and so true…

77

I reject that possibility. Saul, on the road to Damascus, heard a voice coming from a bright light asking “Why do you persecute me?” And what did Saul ask? Saul “knew a bit about Christianity”. He had held the robes of those who stoned Stephen. But he didn’t know Jesus was the one who was talking to him, until the voice told him so.

  • Since when are all religious experiences “valid”? When the Postmodernists ascended the throne? What does that even mean?
  • IMO, humans experience emotions; perform rituals; and affirm propositions.
    • Emotions are involuntary responses. One doesn’t have to be an adherent of some specific religion to experience any of them. One doesn’'t even have to be a theist to feel awe when looking at the stars over head or the beauty of some natural, i.e. physical, view.
    • Motivated rituals are voluntary acts that don’t make much sense without some propositions…
    • A proposition, on the other hand, is neither an involuntary experience nor a voluntary act.
78

Spending time with biblical theologians can help weed out some of the more troublesome philosophical ideas. It was the imagery of the glory cloud that I found in Chilton and Kline that helped me see the problem with pseudo-Dionysius’ via negativa. I don’t mean to oversimplify the monumental task, but there are some stark reliefs, pseudo-Dionysius was one of these.

I certainly accept the possibility of God answering prayers for people of other religions. Ironically people can think God showed them favor for their good deeds. For me, in coming to understand myself in a kind of Isaiah 6 “woe is me” experience, I couldn’t imagine relating to God apart from the righteousness of Jesus.

79

For me it’s about what is reality. I dont believe, for example, that the reality of God is at the core of Islam, precisely because it denies basic truths about that reality - Christianity and Islam cannot be both reflecting reality as they contradict each other. No doubt youll think im a bigot, but reality is reality.

80

What would a devout Muslim say? Probably something similar, except in support of their own beliefs. I have no problem accepting that you are being absolutely honest about your beliefs, and I would assume the same of people from other religions. We can have a long debate about who is ultimately correct, but at a base level we should give each other the benefit of the doubt and assume we are all being honest about where we stand.

2 Likes
81

No, I do not, but may Christians never experience the Holy Spirit, or misunderstand what they do experience.
Before you condemn other beliefs you need to understand where they are coming from. And maybe should not limit God or His grace. Christianity is right for me, but I would not impose it onto others. If we are all given the choice then it must be without consequence otherwise it is under duress and no longer a true choice.

Richard