Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (40116)	12/3/2001 1:52:22 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It is an objective standard in this sense: Christians have a clear idea of what they are expected to believe, as presented in the Gospels, Epistles, and creeds. They are not allowed to make it up privately, but must at least test their ideas against these external standards. It cannot be better knowledge, for the simple reason that it equally depends upon claims of revelation. One either believes in revelation or not. If one does, why reject the New Testament? If one does not, why believe in contemporary revelation? If you say that contemporary revelation is better because one has a sense of inward conviction accompanying it, then what about several people who claim such revelation, but do not agree on the Jesus revealed? Are their inward convictions all right? All wrong? How does one tell? What about the traditional believer, with his own sense of inward conviction about Jesus? Is that wrong because it is derived from the New Testament? Who can sort it out?