- 帖子
- 1691
- 精華
- 1
- 威望
- 245
- 魅力
- 0
- 讚好
- 0
- 性別
- 男
|
1#
發表於 2005-4-5 08:48 AM
| 顯示全部帖子
Originally posted by runrun at 2005-4-4 06:37 AM:
% D1 J+ w G* i& l# j$ q& F# I/ [4 |9 S, ?1 i$ X
. N D4 }, y C
為什麼 2nd part 有問題而 ... 5 E/ T0 k9 G. x( [( R$ y2 z# |
9 l+ }( N5 l( C+ |3 @9 n1 H \- [8 a
To respond to your question....6 S' \ v. }- y6 G0 D [
2 H* q+ E2 `, `% u& @: X! `
1) Unbelievers can only use the philosophical approach to tackle the ontological arugments here. Since they don't necessary buy into the revelations (at least not the illumination part), it is impossible to try to understand God (noticed the use of the language) from theological view points. This applies to even scholarly work by professors in secular institutions like Yale and Harvard (unless in the Divinity Schools).1 L7 @6 ^: b. R/ @
% {( L- d# X8 m, }, l2) This article is actually a poor piece in terms of logic. It contains some fallacies and would never take place in a philosophy class. Even Bertard Russell's book "Why I am not a Christian" failed to give us a strong argument for the non-existence of God. If a philosopher professor claims he/she has good ground on the non-existence of God, I urge you not to take his/her classes.' B7 k9 @: T; J- g. N
& w& c, ~: `. N2 c5 w# b6 O* ?% QThe crisis Christianity faces today is not the existence of the Being. The irrevelancy of the faith is more of a serious problem than the essence of the faith. The inclusiveness of postmodernity is the biggest threat., I' ^6 l" h0 `. @/ `% g4 V, h/ R
" d4 e2 u. ]5 O, V$ R! U! Y/ D
Let's move on with some real issues.... |
|