| Route_70 |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 05:44 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
| Did WLC say this:
|
| Loading... | |
| emailestthoume |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 05:49 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
| can you include the context? |
| Loading... | |
| TheDyslexicPoet |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 06:23 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
The article which that comment is taken from is from Christianity Today. It has been taken out of context (like most quote mining).
|
| Loading... | |
| Route_70 |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 06:34 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by TheDyslexicPoetThe article which that comment is taken from is from Christianity Today. It has been taken out of context (like most quote mining).
Well, then please do give me the context. |
| Loading... | |
| TheDyslexicPoet |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 06:38 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Route_70Quote: Originally Posted by TheDyslexicPoetThe article which that comment is taken from is from Christianity Today. It has been taken out of context (like most quote mining).
Well, then please do give me the context.
I just did..? Please read the linked article for context. Note that it is part 5 of 6. The quote comes from the last passage on page 5 - but the entirety of the article should be read.
|
| Loading... | |
| hatsoff |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 06:41 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
I believe he should be read this way:
While most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were themselves theists, the majority of Western intellectuals today no longer considers theological knowledge to be possible. [According to them,] The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.
|
| Loading... | |
| Route_70 |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 06:48 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by TheDyslexicPoet
I just did..? Please read the linked article for context. Note that it is part 5 of 6. The quote comes from the last passage on page 5 - but the entirety of the article should be read.
It is apparent from the article and the quote that WLC is indeed admitting that if a person takes reason and logic alone then atheism results. WLC's position clearly is that reason and logic should be interpreted in light of the gospel. He even admits that one "may as well tell the secularist to believe in fairies or leprechauns as [to believe in] in Jesus Christ!"
He is right! |
| Loading... | |
| Route_70 |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 06:50 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by hatsoff
I believe he should be read this way:
While most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were themselves theists, the majority of Western intellectuals today no longer considers theological knowledge to be possible. [According to them,] The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.
It should be taken just as he said it. It is apparent that is what he meant. |
| Loading... | |
| TheDyslexicPoet |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 07:10 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Route_70Quote: Originally Posted by hatsoff
I believe he should be read this way:
While most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were themselves theists, the majority of Western intellectuals today no longer considers theological knowledge to be possible. [According to them,] The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.
It should be taken just as he said it. It is apparent that is what he meant.
I don't believe you read that entire article in 10 minutes. Are you here for an intellectual discussion?
Furthermore, nothing should be taken "just as it was said". In fact, everything should be taken "just as it was said within the context of not only the paragraph it is within, but also the article it is contained". One might even go further and say that it is necessary to have the context of the person's philosophy as well. I agree with hatsoff in their interpretation.
|
| Loading... | |
| Arthur42 |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 07:18 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Route_70Quote: Originally Posted by TheDyslexicPoet
I just did..? Please read the linked article for context. Note that it is part 5 of 6. The quote comes from the last passage on page 5 - but the entirety of the article should be read.
It is apparent from...logic alone...that reason and logic...tell the secularist to believe in...Jesus Christ!
This is a surprising turnaround, Route_70, but I'm glad to see you came to your senses. |
| Loading... | |
| Lightfoot |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 07:28 PM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
I don't see much here really. It could have been worded better, however, its pretty clear when one reads the entire article what Craig was talking about.
Especially this from the article:
"Seen in this light, tailoring our gospel to a postmodern culture is self-defeating. By laying aside our best apologetic weapons of logic and evidence, we ensure modernism's triumph over us."
|
| Loading... | |
| Route_70 |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 07:31 PM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by TheDyslexicPoetI don't believe you read that entire article in 10 minutes. Are you here for an intellectual discussion?
You can believe whatever you want to believe. That is what Christians do anyway -- regardless of the truth or even the facts.
Quote: Furthermore, nothing should be taken "just as it was said".
What a crock! Christian apologists are most dishonest. Did WLC say what or meant? Did he mean what he said? Just because his statement is embarrassing for you does not justify your adding to what he said in order to change his meaning. |
| Loading... | |
| Route_70 |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 07:33 PM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by TheDyslexicPoet
Are you here for an intellectual discussion?
I would settle for intellectual honesty. |
| Loading... | |
| Lightfoot |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 07:44 PM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Route_70,
You have to understand things in context. I will give you an example. There are people, who don't want to pay income tax. They often quote Supreme Court decisions, and lift these quotes out of context, just as your doing with this Craig article:
Example: (taken out of context, one might misread the document)
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/16thb.htm
Tax protestors love to quote some old Supreme Court opinions that say that the Sixteenth Amendment "conferred no new power of taxation." Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916); see also Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). Because an income tax was declared unconstitutional before the adoption of the 16th Amendment in a case called Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1894), on reh’g 158 U.S. 601 (1895), and because the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, protestors conclude that the income tax must still be unconstitutional. This conclusion is false. The short answer is that, while the Supreme Court did hold that the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, the amendment relieved the pre-existing power to tax incomes from the constitutional requirement of apportionment. Therefore, the previous problem with the income tax was removed and the income tax is now constitutional.
|
| Loading... | |
| TheDyslexicPoet |
| Posted 05/27/12 at 07:46 PM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Route_70Quote: Originally Posted by TheDyslexicPoetI don't believe you read that entire article in 10 minutes. Are you here for an intellectual discussion?
You can believe whatever you want to believe. That is what Christians do anyway -- regardless of the truth or even the facts.
Quote: Furthermore, nothing should be taken "just as it was said".
What a crock! Christian apologists are most dishonest. Did WLC say what or meant? Did he mean what he said? Just because his statement is embarrassing for you does not justify your adding to what he said in order to change his meaning.
Hold on now - why the label? Since when did I say I was a Christian? All I have said, is that within context, what you are insinuating about William Lane Craig is false. Regarding your ad hominem, could you please refrain from it? It doesn't help anyone's case for an intellectual discussion. And on that note, and honesty, did you truly read that article in 10 minutes?
I believe that within the context of the article, William Lane Craig meant what he said.
|
| Loading... | |
