Any Advice?

[Bryan]

on another message board I've been dealing with a person who claims everyone's god is the same. This may suprise some but this is the first time I've actually talked with a person who holds this view (my freinds are for the most part either Christians or athiests not people who believe their spiraturally minded when they are not) and am wondering what kinda articles or advice I can be given. Although I've pointed out what I believe are some huge contridictions with his view it seems like I'm just banging my head

Bryan
SDG

 

[alwaysreforming]

Bryan,
For someone to hold that view, it sounds like they either haven't put a lot of thought into the issue, or they simply don't care.

The timing may not be right for this person; no matter what you show them they may not have any interest in Truth. If you can pursue the matter without losing your cool, then more power to you, but you may be better off perhaps spending your time with more interested persons.

I could be totally wrong, but when I've come across this type, this is what I've found to be the case.

I commend you for your sincere interest in reaching out to people; that's an encouragement to me, brother!

 

[Texas Aggie]

They are absolutely correct.... everyone's God is the same.

The worship of God is very different amongst the cultures of the world. They know not who they worship because they are not made partakers of God's covenant and they sacrifice to devils.

Naturally everyone's God is the same God... because there is only one God. No need to argue with them for they are in spiritual darkness. It's like arguing with an alligator... all mouth and no brain. God has to reveal Himself to such persons.

They have not the light... only darkness. I wouldn't cast pearls before swine much longer if there is little reception. Best wishes.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Texas Aggie
They are absolutely correct.... everyone's God is the same.

The worship of God is very different amongst the cultures of the world. They know not who they worship because they are not made partakers of God's covenant and they sacrifice to devils.

Naturally everyone's God is the same God... because there is only one God. No need to argue with them for they are in spiritual darkness. It's like arguing with an alligator... all mouth and no brain. God has to reveal Himself to such persons.

They have not the light... only darkness. I wouldn't cast pearls before swine much longer if there is little reception. Best wishes.

I really like that alligator comparison. Good one.

The question to ask would be like Paul's answer. "If our God is the same, then why aren't you believing what you're saying?" I mean, from such a position surely we could eliminate the contradictory doctrines which are applied to each differently presented God. But the answer I've gotten one time was that contradiction was a proof more than a roadblock. When I pointed out contradictions, he felt vindicated. So it was clear that he was saying it in rebellion, not as a thought-out argument. And in that case there was nothing to argue back, because it wasn't an argument in the first place. I was a "Leave me alone!" shrouded in a bold but foolish defence.

If he persists, be patient and wait for the opportunity. Don't bite at his bait.

 

[Bryan]

Ya, he's now claiming that both my truth is correct and his truth is correct

Is this the kind of reasoning I am going to face when I go to university this fall? People grasping at whatever they can get ahold of as their worldview falls apart around them yet insist that they are in a fortress? I'm starting to much perfer the athiests I spent high school with.

At least like I wrote in my blog I understand more what Schaeffer was talking about in "The God Who is There". It seems I was going in the right direction with the reading I have been doing over the summer.

Bryan
SDG

 

[Bryan]

The way the discussion is going I won't be surprised if he says yes to that question Paul

Bryan
SDG

 

[toddpedlar]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Bryan
Ya, he's now claiming that both my truth is correct and his truth is correct

Is this the kind of reasoning I am going to face when I go to university this fall?

Bryan
SDG

No, I can guarentee you that you will not face this kind of "reasoning" because this is not "reasoning."

Paul's right, Bryan... although just to make it clear... this is exactly the kind of idiotic argumentation (deftly avoiding the word "reasoning") that you'll get. By and large, people believe the old canard about the blind men all feeling the elephant, and everyone saying something different about the elephant, depending on where they are touching the elephant... in that insipid story, the elephant represents the nature of God, and all the people have different stories about God because of their different perspectives on the elephant.

The only thing true about the illustration is that all those men are blind.
Otherwise, it's an utterly untrue concept, as is obvious.

If the person to whom you are talking claims that your truth is true, and his truth is true, then there's obviously a major logic problem there. With him, find something wherein you are at diametric opposition, and ask him again if he thinks that you are both correct.

Here's where presuppositional apologetics I think really has its strength. Do you have any resources for the basics? (Always Ready by Bahnsen is a decent read, or you can look to Van Til) Any other suggestions for this young man, folks?

Todd

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Paul manata

Originally posted by Bryan
Ya, he's now claiming that both my truth is correct and his truth is correct

Is this the kind of reasoning I am going to face when I go to university this fall?

Bryan
SDG

No, I can guarentee you that you will not face this kind of "reasoning" because this is not "reasoning."

Start going for the throat, ask him if your friends religion, "thou shall molest children to enter heaven," is also "correct."

Also, I wrote something on this somewhere, Jacob always finds it and quotes it. It was a mock dialogue between covenant keeper and covenant breaker ..... never mind, I found it:

covenant breaker: "All roads lead to heaven"
Covenant keeper: "Christianity says that it is the ONLY way, so you are saying Christianity is wrong, and therefore since it is contradictory you can deduce any premise; like Christianity does not lead to heaven, So by saying ALL raods lead to heaven, you are saying that the Christian road does not lead there, thus contradicting youself."
covenant breaker: Oh, well who cares about the laws of logic anyway.
covenant keeper: O.K. so all roads DO NOT lead to heaven?
covenant breaker: yes they do.
covenant keeper: no they don't
covenant breaker: yes they do.
covenant keeper: You cannot say that I'm wrong because you don't believe in the laws of logic. You are saying that we both cannot be right. If we both can be right then you have to say that all roads don't lead to heaven. Or you can accept the laws of logic and your still wrong because your statement says that christianity does not lead to heaven, therefore, all roads do not lead to heaven.
Furhtermore, you have a moral problem, what if my road is the religion of child molestation, then you have to say that that leads to heaven!

I remember printing that out a few times. That and the mormon dialogue are great!

 

[Bryan]

Do you have any resources for the basics? (Always Ready by Bahnsen is a decent read, or you can look to Van Til)

I think I have a fairly firm grasp on the basic; I've read through Van Til's Defense of the Faith, Frame's Apologetics To The Glory of God, and just recently finished The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith by K. Scott Oliphint. But understanding the basics and putting them into practice will take soem getting use to.

Bryan
SDG

 

[alwaysreforming]

Bryan,
I have a friend of about 10 years who argues and reasons like the guy you're dealing with. He goes to the Unity "church".

Rules of logic seem to make no sense to him, although he says that he's very well versed in logic, was on the "debate team" in college, etc.

We've gone round, and round, and round, and round, and .......

2 things seem to happen:
We argue for an hour and he'll say that I'm just not understanding the situation correctly;
We'll come to an impass and he'll say, "Well, I basically agree with you. The whole thing comes down to semantics really."

(Anytime they are stuck, they just blame it on "semantics." It alleviates any further thinking or struggle.)

Another outcome is that I will actually "win", meaning he'll see the light and agree with everything by the end. Then, the next day, we're right back to square one! Its EXTREMELY frustrating! ...Which is why I say if you can continue on and keep your cool, more power to you. I can't. I don't discuss theology with him any more; not at all!

 

[Joe Keysor]

Bryan,

I joined the board you referred to in your first post and went to the Introductions Forum to introduce myself. I skimmed some of the threads and came across this introduction by Woman of faith:

WomanofFaith
Be nice! I'm new!
Member # 7160

posted 08-01-2005 07:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok My name is Jessica And please dont hate me because i am bi just love me.....ok hate me!

No one else seemed to mind about her being "bi" which I took to mean "bisexual" but I made the following comment:

I am new to the board myself and don't know how they do things around here.

No one should hate you because you are bi, but if that means what I think it does, love should inform you that God has rules and laws he expects us to honor, and being bi - according to the ordinary use of the term, maybe you meant something different - is not a lifestyle that agrees with the love of God.

Did people on the thread not notice the word "bi", or did they notice not care. I did leave open the possibility that she meant something different.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by alwaysreforming
Rules of logic seem to make no sense to him, although he says that he's very well versed in logic, was on the "debate team" in college, etc.

This proves that he had no knowledge of logic.

He sounds a bit like my debate partner...

 

[Bryan]

Likely noticed not to care. The majority of the board members are "teeny-bopper Christians" who understand little outside of Sunday School lessons they once went to. It's one of those places that I'm always complaining about but keep getting dragged back into

Bryan
SDG

 

[JKLeoPCA]

We've gone round, and round, and round, and round, and .......

2 things seem to happen:
We argue for an hour and he'll say that I'm just not understanding the situation correctly;
We'll come to an impass and he'll say, "Well, I basically agree with you. The whole thing comes down to semantics really."

One thing that has helped me out a few times in discussions and debates that seem to run in circles and never end is a simple pad of paper and a pen. Write down his view in detail, and work out one detail at a time. Make your opponent agree to the written statements of what he is claiming to believe. Like leaving a trail of bread crumbs, you have points of reference to constantly bring him/her back to so he/she does not run in circles trying to just wear you down. Also it provides you with maps to use when you encounter the same debate again. For the person your discussing things with, it may help them stop trying to use circular reasoning patterns in an attempt to never give you a straight answer.

 

[alwaysreforming]

Originally posted by JKLeoPCA

We've gone round, and round, and round, and round, and .......

2 things seem to happen:
We argue for an hour and he'll say that I'm just not understanding the situation correctly;
We'll come to an impass and he'll say, "Well, I basically agree with you. The whole thing comes down to semantics really."

One thing that has helped me out a few times in discussions and debates that seem to run in circles and never end is a simple pad of paper and a pen. Write down his view in detail, and work out one detail at a time. Make your opponent agree to the written statements of what he is claiming to believe. Like leaving a trail of bread crumbs, you have points of reference to constantly bring him/her back to so he/she does not run in circles trying to just wear you down. Also it provides you with maps to use when you encounter the same debate again. For the person your discussing things with, it may help them stop trying to use circular reasoning patterns in an attempt to never give you a straight answer.

Man, that's good advice, John! Very wise, amigo!

 

[youthevang]

I read a thread of ameotoko's and he is definitely drinking from the "cup of demons".

http://www.lightthesky.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=22