Comments on: The Truth is… http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-truth-is/ A Reformed Perspective On Ancient Truth From an Emerging Generation Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:24:09 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Joshm http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-truth-is/#comment-282 Joshm Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:52:55 +0000 http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-truth-is/#comment-282 Kyle- Although it is something of a semantic, I think the distinction of "us and them" as opposed to "us verses them" is a good one. We are both on a quest to discern truth, and to search for truth. I am not interested in defending something I am told to believe, I am only interested in portraying that which I hold to be true. I also welcome to scrutiny of the skeptic because by digging deep into the issues they bring up, my faith has been made stronger. Through the doubt I have, because of skeptics in my life, my belief has been made much deeper. Kyle-

Although it is something of a semantic, I think the distinction of “us and them” as opposed to “us verses them” is a good one. We are both on a quest to discern truth, and to search for truth. I am not interested in defending something I am told to believe, I am only interested in portraying that which I hold to be true.

I also welcome to scrutiny of the skeptic because by digging deep into the issues they bring up, my faith has been made stronger. Through the doubt I have, because of skeptics in my life, my belief has been made much deeper.

]]> By: asisaid by Timothy R. Butler - Authenticating our Faith http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-truth-is/#comment-187 asisaid by Timothy R. Butler - Authenticating our Faith Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:03:54 +0000 http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-truth-is/#comment-187 [...] week, Brad posted a link to an interesting discussion that started over a critique of believers often circular [...] [...] week, Brad posted a link to an interesting discussion that started over a critique of believers often circular [...]

]]> By: A Carnival on Holy Books: To Read or Not To Read « de-conversion http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-truth-is/#comment-182 A Carnival on Holy Books: To Read or Not To Read « de-conversion Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:58:06 +0000 http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-truth-is/#comment-182 [...] thought that reading through all those comments was “mentally draining.” On the “Confessions of a Seminarian” blog Brad Edwards encourages his readers to either “join the fray” or [...] [...] thought that reading through all those comments was “mentally draining.” On the “Confessions of a Seminarian” blog Brad Edwards encourages his readers to either “join the fray” or [...]

]]> By: Brad http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-truth-is/#comment-180 Brad Mon, 09 Jul 2007 18:07:22 +0000 http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-truth-is/#comment-180 The "us and them" distinction is nothing more than a "Christians and non-Christians" distinction made on the basis of belief. If one believes in the objective truth of justification by faith, then the question of "final destination" (heaven or hell) is a result of that belief, but not a cause of the distinction. It is an aspect or result thereof. <em>"You’re still in opposition to the other party both in your personal disapproval of their actions and your differing religious ideas." </em> Not exactly. It is entirely possible to disapprove of an action without disapproving of the person. "Hate the sin, love the sinner," while colossally overused and often seen as a carte blanc for judgmentalism, should truly be the standard. And just to be clear, we are ALL sinners, Christians and non-Christians alike, so that is not a judgment either. <em>...that automatically makes you opposed to them...</em> Why must that be? Why must disagreement automatically equal personal opposition? I can see that I may be opposed to a belief, but that tension can be maintained without also being opposed to the actual person. The “us and them” distinction is nothing more than a “Christians and non-Christians” distinction made on the basis of belief. If one believes in the objective truth of justification by faith, then the question of “final destination” (heaven or hell) is a result of that belief, but not a cause of the distinction. It is an aspect or result thereof.

“You’re still in opposition to the other party both in your personal disapproval of their actions and your differing religious ideas.”

Not exactly. It is entirely possible to disapprove of an action without disapproving of the person. “Hate the sin, love the sinner,” while colossally overused and often seen as a carte blanc for judgmentalism, should truly be the standard. And just to be clear, we are ALL sinners, Christians and non-Christians alike, so that is not a judgment either.

…that automatically makes you opposed to them…

Why must that be? Why must disagreement automatically equal personal opposition? I can see that I may be opposed to a belief, but that tension can be maintained without also being opposed to the actual person.

]]> By: Kyle Kratky http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-truth-is/#comment-179 Kyle Kratky Mon, 09 Jul 2007 17:54:29 +0000 http://bradedwards.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/the-truth-is/#comment-179 but it's still the same thing, isn't it? I mean, "us AND them" is just more passive and a little nicer than "us VS them." You're still in opposition to the other party both in your personal disapproval of their actions and your differing religious ideas. You can be as nice as you want, but supposing you do have the knowledge someone else is going to hell or is doing something wrong, that automatically makes you opposed to them (maybe from a physics sort of angle...). but it’s still the same thing, isn’t it? I mean, “us AND them” is just more passive and a little nicer than “us VS them.” You’re still in opposition to the other party both in your personal disapproval of their actions and your differing religious ideas. You can be as nice as you want, but supposing you do have the knowledge someone else is going to hell or is doing something wrong, that automatically makes you opposed to them (maybe from a physics sort of angle…).

]]>