Greg Bahnsen - Introduction to Worldviews (part 1)

[JohnO318]

to kev3d-You misunderstood him. He was referring to Christ's coming in judgement upon Jeruselem in the year 70AD. There's an entire doctrinal postion regarding that 'coming in judgement by Christ' among reformed Christians.

[dent3138]

"You misunderstand my use of mutually exclusive, in other words, the two cannot both be true simultaneously, both may be false but if one is true the other cannot be. "

Kewl !!

then we agree...

Of course a Christian will reject all other faiths...I dont think Atheism is really a worldview which is mutually exclusive from all other worldviews....just theistic ones.

[kev3d]

True, Atheism could include a wholly natural universe, or that we are all in a giant computer simulation or that Aliens "created" the universe as a laboratory or even some concepts weirder than that. As it is, I stick with nature because it has (as far as I know) the best evidence going for it.

[s2000r1titan]

Greg was phenomenal....we all miss him. And now that he's dead, everyone wants to debate him.

[kev3d]

I guess god couldn't fix his heart. *shrug*

[a5dr3]

I guess Jesus couldn't get himself off the cross either. -God ordained from all eternity the days each of us have on this earth, according to his eternal purpose. God could fix Bahnsens heart and yours. But, of course,God has made some men who are like brute beasts, creatures of instinct, born only to be caught and destroyed. 2 Peter 2:12

[kev3d]

Wow...so profound. I guess I should now believe in Monsters, Zombies, Magic Wands, Talking Animals, Giants, A god who throws boulders, Ascensions and life after death...because of the wisdom of the Bible...oh wait. The Bible is absurd. Oh well. Ezekiel 23:20

[a5dr3]

Its absurd because you don't know what your talking about? poor baby hates God cause mommy didn't cook for him and now he tries to justify his childishness with insipid analogies and muddled philosophy he learned on chat shows. If I thought you could understand why your an idiot I would explain, but why don't you just go back to your internet porn and your anti-depressants and keep trying to fool yourself that your day of judgement before the throne of Christ isn't getting closer every minute.

[bitbutter]

For someone claiming to be a christian you show a lot of hate.

[kisstheclowns]

We aren't commanded to open the hearts of hostel pagans, we are told to shut their mouths. There are those who seek knowledge and those who are just mockers. Jesus distinguished between the two all of the time.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"We aren't commanded to open the hearts of hostel pagans, we are told to shut their mouths. There are those who seek knowledge and those who are just mockers."

Considering your choice of language; in which category would you place yourself?

[kisstheclowns]

I place myself in the category of someone referencing 1 Peter 3:15. Sorry if you don't like it. I am not mocking anyone. Atheist do a fine job of that to themselves. Jesus answered the Pharisees with contempt as they tried to test him. I think your view of Christianity is slightly skewed. See a5dr3's next comment to further my point.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"I place myself in the category of someone referencing 1 Peter 3:15. Sorry if you don't like it. I am not mocking anyone."

So, honestly, do you enjoy it: the fact that your book allows you to look down on people who do not think like you? Nice to hear, though, that you take 'contempt' as an example. If Jesus would have killed the Pharisees, would you go around killing atheists, too?

[kisstheclowns]

HOSTEL is the key words. I still preach with gentleness, but turn the other cheek means give another chance, not let someone continue to walk all over you. I won't answer the other drivel that you have included in you response. As an atheist, you have no business discussing moral do's and don'ts. Nor do you have enough knowledge of scripture to ask asinine "what ifs." What if a square was a circle!??....no point.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"...turn the other cheek means give another chance, not let someone continue to walk all over you."

Glad you point out that Matt 5:44 is nonsense. After all: you cannot love anyone on command, can you? Especially if he's your enemy.

"Nor do you have enough knowledge of scripture to ask asinine "what ifs."

I'm sure you would like to be the judge of that. Nevertheless, my 'lack of knowledge' shouldn't be an excuse for you to answer the question. Unless, of course, you are unable to do so.

[kisstheclowns]

I never said Matt is nonsense, that's what you believe. I am just telling you the actual meaning of the verse. Some often confuse turning the other cheek with being a submissive whipping boy, which is a gross misinterpretation. This is an example as to why I said you don't have enough knowledge to debate scripture. What was your question again? About Jesus killing people? Come on, man... don't waste my time.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"I am just telling you the actual meaning of the verse."

And so am I. Doesn't Bahnsen say that ALL men know God, even the unbelievers? If you agree with this, you'll have to agree that that means I have just as much right as you to my intepretation the Bible, by my knowledge of God. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[kisstheclowns]

Knowing God's natural revelation doesn't equate to understanding his SPECIAL Revelation. Just because his law is written in your heart does not mean you have received salvation. Yes you do know God, but not scripture. There is a difference.

[dent3138]

"...Doesn't Bahnsen say that ALL men know God, even the unbelievers? If you agree with this, you'll have to agree that that means I have just as much right as you to my intepretation the Bible. "

Uhhhhh the Bible is not a source for "personal interpetation"...if you want to study hermenuetics on a basic level that should get you started to read and interpet the bible.

IOW--the authors intended message is what you interpet...not what you want to hear or bring to the text

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

Considering the many, many Christian denominations, it would appear that even Christians cannot agree on a correct interpretation of the Bible. There are as many 'correct' interpretations as there are denominations.

[dent3138]

Truth is not by convention. The goal of interpetation is to interpet the authors message...not to validate the recievers point of view. Point being, not every interpetation is valid.

Im assuming we are NOT talking about bible translations, but rather personal takes on particular passages.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

'The goal of interpetation is to interpet the authors message...not to validate the recievers point of view.'

Yet it is exactly that what all denominations do: they interpret the message to validate THEIR point of view. They even fought wars over it. So again: which is the correct interpretation of the Bible? Even Christians among themselves cannot agree on it.

[dent3138]

Im trying to figure out what your point is here...

The Bible is not entirely interpeted.

There is no "interpeted Bible."

Passages that are open to interpetation only have a couple possible exegetically valid interpetations.

You make it sound like tho whole book is up for grabs.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

"As an atheist, you have no business discussing moral do's and don'ts."

So I assume YOU have authority to discuss moral do and don'ts? I hope you excuse me for not simply accepting that. But I do offer you the chance to back that up. It will require you, however, to start with two things:

a)Name your primaries, i.e., what are the basic, irreducible axioms of your worldview?

b)Define 'morality'.

[kisstheclowns]

a) the unchanging, explicit word of God.

b)conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. This is only absolute in light of the Christian world view. The contrary can only be relative, therefore not absolute.

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

a) A 'word of God' is not a basic, irreducible axiom. Please try again.

b)Ditto. You need to be more specific: don't use the word 'moral' to define 'morality'.

[dent3138]

A) Word of God=Bible ...Gods revelation of Himself to us as All powerful, all knowing, all good and unchanging.

B)Right and Wrong as God reveal to us...

It is only fair that you list yours as well ;)

[pioerghaozprhgorueir]

Not sure why you answer a question I asked someone else 8 months ago.

If you wish to get an idea of what I'm getting at, however, you might do a Google search for 'Anton Thorn's Argument From Existence'.

[a5dr3]

Hate would be aphaty towards a fool who is on a miserable path to a much worse destination.

Telling someone the truth is not. I don't subscribe to your pagan concept of what a Christian is supposed to behave like, especially towards an assaulting enemy.

[bitbutter]

"especially towards an assaulting enemy."

I'm wondering how your insults fit with "turn the other cheek" and "love thy enemy"?

[a5dr3]

I'm wondering why you think Jesus was a hippy and how you find it necessary to advertise an obviously ignorant opinion. If you want to know what those verses mean in context there's plenty of information on the net.I have every justification to tell a fool who's argument against the existence of God is that people die, that he is just that, a fool and one who is on his way to Hell. His first comment was far out of bounds and he deserved to be called out for his malevolence.

[kev3d]

Far out of bounds? How about having "In god we trust" printed on the currency of a nation founded on Secular Principals? How about the hatred preached and practiced by christians against non-believers?

[dent3138]

I see...

Why dont you just say what you are getting at?

Dont you know what you believe?

You dont have to have all the answers, just the ones you demand of others.

[kev3d]

Tell me that those passages dont appear in the bible. I can cite them all. FYI, Ive never done a drug in my life, Its a mistake to assume Non-christians are miserable and god haters. I dont hate god, just as i dont hate zeus or Santa Claus. I do hate ignorance however.

[a5dr3]

I can't give you an entire course on theology and philosophy. If u want to learn something, like why 'hating ignorance' isn't even meaningful without appealing to an absolute standard of veridicality that only the revelation of an omniscient being can provide, listen to Bahnsens debates and the rest of the class when its posted. If not, then don't. But please don't think your offering any thoughtful objections that I haven't already been too underwhelmed to answer from twenty other 17 year olds.

[kev3d]

Call me immature all you wish, either directly or indirectly, but I am not asserting that the dead can rise, that Zombies have walked the earth and that Animals have talked. Besides that, all Christianity is based on A: All humans deserve torture upon death and B:No Human is capable of "saving" one's self from eternal damnation. Thus C: One must accept an offer from an Ego Maniac. I find all three ridiculous.

[a5dr3]

Wading through your grossmischaracterizations of scripture, and misunderstanding of Christian theology, what u have essentially posited is that if u havent observed something, it can't b true.(It would be impossible enough for u to argue from what u have actually observed to any coherent theory of general laws upon which to build an epistemology, or that your observations r even trustworthy) but u seem to think your opinion is the standard of what is and is not possible in the universe

[kev3d]

Of course I cannot rule out miracles entirely, but I cannot rule out that the sun won't come up tomorrow either. We assume it will because of prior experience and we have no observed reason to believe it won't rise. You reject outright ALL other faiths because your book says to, but how do you know? The point is you are willing to compromise your skepticism for your faith, I am not.

[dent3138]

One what basis do you assume the sun will rise?

"You reject outright ALL other faiths because your book says to"

How do you know why a Christian would reject another faith?

Ho do you know what the Bible says about rejecting other faiths?

Does your Skepticism apply to sunrise? If so you should keep a flashlight next to your bed?

If not, it seems your faith is supplanting you skepticism.

[kev3d]

I assume that the sun will "rise" (Or rather that the earth will continue to revolve) firstly because of prior experience, there is no apparent reason for it not to rise. Secondly because I understand, at least on a basic level, how planets rotate and how gravity works. Skepticism is not about doubting that which we don't know, but are reasonably certain will happen. Skepticism is simply about demanding solid proof for extraordinary claims.

[dent3138]

First,relying on prior experience affords no evidence for the future unless you assume induction.

Second,learning from the past is only possible by assuming induction, .

Why can you assume the future wil be like the past?

You see this is where the Christian would scratch his head, because you make an extraordinary claim about the nature of the universe, and supply no solid proof.

[kev3d]

Inductive reasoning is by no means conclusive, but not all inductive claims are equal. If I say "The Sunrise has continued uninterrupted for billions of years, therefore it is extremely likely that the sun will rise tomorrow" this is less 'risky' than saying "Some observed things stop , therefore the Earth will stop spinning tomorrow." Even though the original observations are correct the conclusions are very different. My claims are not extraordinary since they can be predicted time after time.

[kev3d]

At some point one has to answer what is more likely? That the sun will rise as it has since there has been a sun and an earth? Or that it will not, especially with no reason (no sightings of large meteors). So with christianity, what is more likely? That the laws of nature were suspended for a time? Or that stories were exaggerated over the years and given people's predisposition to legends and myths, believed the stories to be true? All my experience tells me the latter.

[dent3138]

The Christian foundation for induction doesnt rest on likleyhood, rather it is held that the laws of nature will hold until Christ comes again.

You claim have a predisposition to myths and legend, I dont think thats accurate...Skepticism =300 BC ish...

[kev3d]

If Skepticism was as deep rooted in the cultural zeitgeist as myths, legends and superstitions, not only would there be no religions, but there would also be no palm readers, psychics,tarot card readers or astrologers. Everything from Santa to the Easter Bunny to Jesus Christ is embedded from an early age into our collective heads. As for christ's return, he said it would happen in the lifetime of the disciples...as far as I know, there are no 2000 year old jews running around.

[dent3138]

I do believe there is a tendancy in history for people to put forth beliefs that suit there purposes, and these could potentially fall into myth/legend/evolutionary type stories.

Christianity is not a self serving faith. It begins on a personal level by acknowledging utter dperavity and helplessness.

[DetectiveTackett]

You're begging the question.

[a5dr3]

Well, I don't care what u think, and I'm not sure why u do either. Especially when on your worldview u arent making truthful evaluations of evidence or reasoning logically, your just the subject of your brains electromagnetic responses. Now do you have any compelling rational argument or evidence why the Almighty Sovereign Creator of the Universe can't raise someone/himself from the dead, or is your argument more like

[kev3d]

It is not for me to explain why the ressurection is impossible, assuming that Jesus was Biologically dead (not clinically dead) All christians can come up with is "The empty tomb!" But of course the Pyramid tombs are empty as well, should I assume Pharaohs were raised?

[a5dr3]

I know miracles can't happen, therefore miracles can't happen. You do realize you've already ruled out the possibility of supernatural events before examining whether or not there can be supernatural events?

[kev3d]

All supernatural "events" turn out to be very natural indeed after examination. To say "we don't know, God must have done it" is not an answer. We know, Specifically, why quakes occur, but the bible describes that it is God. Lets assume that miracles do exist...which is more likely? That primitive people didnt know why quakes happened? Or That Plate Tectonics is wrong?

[a5dr3]

Sorry, I just don't have time to adequately explain all this to you. I would highly recommend watching the entire apologetical course when it's posted. You don't know the power of the dark side.

[blbarkle]

Kev,

Dr. Bahnsen has provided warrant for believing God is going to judge you if you don't repent. If you actually stopped for a moment and truly considered the *warrant* you have for rejecting Jesus Christ, you would be quick call upon Him to save you, intellectually as well as morally and spiritually. If you are willing, I would be glad to listen to and consider your arguments.

[kev3d]

And if you understood why you reject all other faiths but your own, you would understand why I reject yours.

[RayNinblood]

Nice one, that shut him up.

[dent3138]

....what is your Faith?

If competeing claims are mutually exclusive, it would be irrational not to hold to one or the other...

1+1=2

not 1+1=2 or 3 or 4..whatever you like.

[kev3d]

You misunderstand my use of mutually exclusive, in other words, the two cannot both be true simultaneously, both may be false but if one is true the other cannot be.

[LaneCh]

I'm so glad you have footage of Greg Bahnsen.  Do you know if there was ever video taken of the Great Debate?

[grandconjunct]

Paleocrat told me has VHS of the stein /bahnsen debate

[LaneCh]

I wonder if he'd consider posting it if he could. I would love to see that. I didn't know there was ever video of it taken.

[gregbahnsen]

I am relatively sure that there is unfortunately no video of that debate, though all subsequent public debates were recorded on video.