Infinityloop
Star
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,622
Which of the two is more superior and why, alongside this, what makes Christianity different from the former?
Just like the "Christianity vs anti-intellectualism" thread, this is in response to the Christians who do not base their beliefs on a rational basis and choose to ignore critical thinking in determining their worldview.A weird question from a smart guy.
Christianity is based on divine revelation. Random beliefs are based on human fallibility. These are diametrically opposed. So how is one not superior to the other?
Seems like the nature of your question is epistemological then? How do we rationalize that which we believe to be true?Just like the "Christianity vs anti-intellectualism" thread, this is in response to the Christians who do not base their beliefs on a rational basis and choose to ignore critical thinking in determining their worldview.
In response to your question (which would be more relevant in this thread). The Bible (NT) is not based upon Revelation, it is based upon what it claims to be a historical event (being the life and ministry of Jesus Christ) involving the revelations of the people involved in those accounts. This is provided in the Christian canon by the books of Matthew Mark Luke and John, which again claim to be historical accounts of this event.
As for "how is one not superior to the other?", this once again comes down to the rational basis and the critical questions we ask in order to come to determine what we believe to be the correct set of beliefs. This is more important for those intolerant and antagonistic towards other's belief systems than those who are accepting of disagreement and uninterested in attacking other belief systems that have require the same level of 'faith'.
If you're not one of those Christians, then the question would not apply to you.
Yes it is epistemic, it's not how we rationalize something already held - it's what our process of logic and reason is in deciding what we believe to be true.Seems like the nature of your question is epistemological then? How do we rationalize that which we believe to be true?
Yes, this is why I like you, because you are more familiar with Christianity's rich intellectual history pre-15th century. Christianity has indeed had very high-thinkers in it's history (particularly within "Gnostic", Catholic and Orthodox branches). Naturally I think Protestantism tends to see these epistemic questions as threatening and I think it is for subconscious reasons. Sola scriptura itself is a complete rejection of epistemology and requires a further sola (fide) to firmly establish the focus of it's religious beliefs.Have you seen the history of the Christian world?
I agree with you brother.I hear where you're coming from. Sola scriptura is the death of reason within theology and as long as Protestants adhere to this debilitating doctrine, the Christian faith will remain blemished.
Nope, you're thinking of the Quranist movement. Islam has a completely different worldview to Christianity. There is divine, revealed Revelation, which is the Qur'an. The Qur'an is not a history book, it is the word of God revealed to Prophet Muhammad. Orthodox Islam does not only refer to it's scripture, it's scripture has it's place within a wider and more diverse context. This includes two things foremost: Hadith literature (which is separate from the Qur'an) and the fiqh traditions, alongside the long progression of scholars etc.This goes for orthodox muslims who apply a similar sola scriptura doctrine to the Quran as well. So maybe they could be added to the targeted audience.
No no God did not dictate the Quran.Islam has a completely different worldview to Christianity. There is divine, revealed Revelation, which is the Qur'an. The Qur'an is not a history book, it is the word of God revealed to Prophet Muhammad.