chbrooking
Puritan Board Junior
Okay, I see your point. I suppose I can leave it at that.
But, and I think this is important. That would require that we clarify everything we say. I cannot use the term "God", since an unbeliever may have a different conception of that. I can't use the term "creation" for the same reason. I can't use the term "logic" or "reason" or "proof". Come to think of it, I cannot use ANY term without issuing the disclaimer that I'm using that term with the assumption of Christian theism behind it. Perhaps that would be a good thing. Who knows what it would do for evangelism?
But seriously. I cannot make any claim on an autonomous foundation. And if the unbeliever starts in on me after making what is a TRUE claim (impossibility of the contrary), thinking that my claim does not rise to his autonomous notion of the possible, then we have a good starting point for our discussion. I guess I'm trying to say: Why do we have to guard our language, when we're the only ones using language right?
But, and I think this is important. That would require that we clarify everything we say. I cannot use the term "God", since an unbeliever may have a different conception of that. I can't use the term "creation" for the same reason. I can't use the term "logic" or "reason" or "proof". Come to think of it, I cannot use ANY term without issuing the disclaimer that I'm using that term with the assumption of Christian theism behind it. Perhaps that would be a good thing. Who knows what it would do for evangelism?
But seriously. I cannot make any claim on an autonomous foundation. And if the unbeliever starts in on me after making what is a TRUE claim (impossibility of the contrary), thinking that my claim does not rise to his autonomous notion of the possible, then we have a good starting point for our discussion. I guess I'm trying to say: Why do we have to guard our language, when we're the only ones using language right?