Tried With Fire

Every time there's a fight lively discussion among Christians on social media, I am reminded of this quote from Mark Foreman. So for your edification, I am sharing it again.  Many people do not like arguing. They picture an angry dispute between two individuals… It is usually characterized by negative emotions: we are upset, raise our voices, and maybe even stomp out of the room in frustration… Usually, if we are honest, the goal of this kind of arguments is to win… Another type of arguing features a dispute not between competing individuals but between competing ideas… Rather than emotional; it is rational. We are seeking reasons for why we think a belief is true. In arguing this way, we do not attack the other person, but we are both attacking an issue or problem. This is why philosophers often can hold opposite views on issues and yet be good friends.  The goal of this kind of arguing is not to win but to find the truth.  In fact, if you can show me that ...

I read Prelude to Philosophy several years ago. At that time, the Trinity wasn't on my radar, probably not on many people's radar which reveals how low the doctrine was on the totem pole. One of the good outcomes of the Trinity debate is that it is getting us thinking about how we do theology. Author Mark Foreman uses the Trinity as an examples of how sound thinking AKA philosophy helps theological understanding. "Another way philosophy aids theology is in helping Christians to draw out and express important theological concepts. For example, a cardinal belief for Christians is the doctrine of the Trinity: God in three persons. It is often surprising to many Christians to find out that not only is the word trinity not located in the Bible, but there is not even a straightforward, clear statement of the doctrine. This does not mean the doctrine is not in Scripture, for it can be inferred through bringing together a number of passages However, the main problem is that t...

I posted this quote a year ago, but in the light of the Trinity debate, it's worth repeating. Many people do not like arguing. They picture an angry dispute between two individuals… It is usually characterized by negative emotions: we are upset, raise our voices, and maybe even stomp out of the room in frustration… Usually, if we are honest, the goal of this kind of arguments is to win… Another type of arguing features a dispute not between competing individuals but between competing ideas… Rather than emotional; it is rational. We are seeking reasons for why we think a belief is true. In arguing this way, we do not attack the other person, but we are both attacking an issue or problem. This is why philosophers often can hold opposite views on issues and yet be good friends.  The goal of this kind of arguing is not to win but to find the truth. In fact, if you can show me that a belief I had thought was true is actually false, I have not lost but have won, because, I do not ...

Many people do not like arguing. They picture an angry dispute between two individuals… It is usually characterized by negative emotions: we are upset, raise our voices, and maybe even stomp out of the room in frustration… Usually, if we are honest, the goal of this kind of arguments is to win… Another type of arguing features a dispute not between competing individuals but between competing ideas… Rather than emotional; it is rational. We are seeking reasons for why we think a belief is true. In arguing this way, we do not attack the other person, but we are both attacking an issue or problem. This is why philosophers often can hold opposite views on issues and yet be good friends. The goal of this kind of arguing is not to win but to find the truth. In fact, if you can show me that a belief I had thought was true is actually false, I have not lost but have won, because, I do not want to hold a false belief and am now closer to the truth. 1 It's easy to become proud when on...