Facts, no matter how convincing, rarely trump a good, solid dose of repetition.
so how is saying you have the truth limiting someone else from having the religious freedom which our country was founded on? Because the whole purpose of the constitution was to let people meet and believe what they want. so isn't her statement limiting that? I mean the people who claim to have the truth never say other people cant meet.
Also isn't she claiming to have the truth in that she is saying the truth is tolerance? That people must except all as truths of peoples as equal?
also isn't she basically saying the religion should be on of the Unitarian church where all worship their one truth under on church? This push is in America to force tolerance on all, which isn't really tolerance but a consent to no one having the truth and all just following some man made thing under the truth on tolerance.
The point to me is more that what it means to be human is tied up with not knowing the ultimate truth and also tied up with having your own truth (i.e. coming to your own understanding of what's true). Even the apostle Paul only claims to know in part. So I see it as advocacy of fallibilism more than relativism.
Paul does Claim to know in part because God is still Transcendent but that doesn't negate all of the claims he makes for people to come to Jesus who claims to be " the way the truth and the life". The God of the bible is still personal though he is Transcendent because if he were only imminent then we would know all of him and be able to be God and control him. If we was all Transcendent then we would be deist and Jesus claiming to be God and prophesied to be "Emanuel" "God with us" would be negated. Also Jesus claiming the name "I am" which only God did and almost being stoned for it would be negated. So not knowing God totally doesn't negate the fact that he is the truth.
It's possible to believe something without claiming to know it. How a person holds their beliefs is often more important than what beliefs they hold.
that's not totally true because if I believe God to be transcendent and have no interaction with me then I live as though I am the only thing to govern my life. If I see God as a dictator then I may flee from Him for fear of Him and reject all he says. It's not faith alone that determines living. But the object of your faith. See the Muslims worship that totally wrathful God and thus they work to get their way into heaven. Like Evolutionist have faith in that science therefore there can be nothing outside of it and the very thought of anything makes them laugh. See its the object. To the biblical God, God is holy thus because of the mans rebellion in Genesis His person demands a sacrifice. Yet he is love in that he came down in the person of Jesus to pay the plenty for our sins that we may be restored to him. Thus his is where my joy lies and my hope and my life. For if faith is in anything else it always mirrors that object. Such as a man who loves porn believes it will satisfy thus he will chase and mirror his life with those desires and pursuits. But if your faith is in the true God of the bible then it will totally impact your life differently than anything else.
sorry the Muslim's God is not totally wrathful but also partially merciful and demands a sacrifice and work for them to prove themselves. In contrast the Christians God paid the plenty and restores all men who come to him.
The polar opposite of George H.W. Bush's: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."
Atheist- I'm sorry that Bush said that about Atheists. You are a citizen and can be a patriot. All people deserve freedom to believe and cant be forced to believe anything.
Post a Comment