Guidelines for Comments

At least for now, I'm publishing this blog with a simple purpose: I want to expose some of the ideas I've developed over the last 15 years to a structured sort of criticism. Basically, I'm looking for reasons why I'm wrong, identifying that what I've written is:

1. contrary to observable or confirmed fact; or
2. contrary to clear (short chain*) logic; or
3. contrary to established mere** Christian principles.

So, if you don't like what I've said, I guess I'd like to know that, but please keep it brief. I already know that some people will not like some of my ideas, regardless of whether they are true or not. I myself don't like them, but I'm committed to trying to think and do what's true, regardless.

If you can't understand what I'm getting at, I'm more interested. But I know that not everything presented here will be accessible to everyone who might see it. I have an odd background, that has filled my 'mental toolbox' with a rather peculiar assortment of tools. Not everyone has the same set of tools, and some work done by those with one set of tools may not be easy to work out by folk with a different set. Still, I'd like to say what I have to say as clearly as possible. So if something doesn't make sense to you, I'd like to know.

On the other hand, "If you just can't imagine how ANYONE would think or say such a thing!", could I please request that you simply go somewhere else, where people do say things you can think or say? And, save the comments for those places?

 Ben

* Working with words is not like working with logical or mathematical symbols. With symbolic or mathematical logic, it's possible (if not likely!) to have long chains of reasoning with little or no 'slippage' in meaning from start to finish. With words, I believe that this is NOT possible. For this reason, I do not trust conclusions that require long chains of logic to reach. And for THAT reason, I'm not likely to attach much significance to 'proofs of error' in my thinking, when those proofs are in the form of such long chains.

** CS Lewis used the term "mere Christianity" to refer to those things accepted by pretty much all Christians, pretty much everywhere. In short form, this means the three ecumenical Creeds (Apostles, Nicene, and Athanasian) plus a little more. Basically, if it's accepted by conservative Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox Christians . . . then I intend to acknowledge it as true. If it's rejected by any of those three, it needs to be looked at further. The theological content which underlies most so-called "denominational distinctives", I consider to be commonly unknowable at best, and knowably false rather often.