Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:14:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
412 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
>
> > Let's look at the logic you provided. God put information into the Bible for
> > a REASON. If it was something we could learn from our natural surroundings
> > (like, say, gravity), then He wouldn't put it in. (Am I right so far?) So
> > basically, God's act of including it in the Bible implies that the Bible
> > explains aspects of the physical world which we couldn't otherwise determine
> > difinitively through science? (Not sure that's the jump you'd make)
>
> Dave - you get waaaaay beyond yourself when you assume what I mean and then
> build upon that assumption repeatedly. It might be far easier to simply make
> an assumption show it's conclusion and wait for a response... (IMHO)
Actually, I find that more difficult, but that's just the way I think. I
find it easier to think it out to greater extremes when I'm responding, or
else I might forget what track I was on, etc. Dunno... that's just me. But
anyway, I DO try and state whenever I assume someone's opinion, just because
they WON'T always agree with the assumptions I've made about their opinions.
> As to the topic:
> No, that's not what I'm saying.
> A literal interpretation would mean:
> God chose what to include in the Bible, we did not.
> There are many things He could have put in the Bible, but He did not.
> What He chose to put in the Bible He did for a reason.
> Some of those reasons appear to be evident, others do not.
> Whether or not something is in the Bible has no relationship to our ability to
> learn about it.
> Indeed I believe that most things (certianly not all - yet perhaps) in the
> Bible can be observed by us.
> God would want His creation to find His Word trustworthy, and believable.
> But He would not want the creation to re-make Him in their image (so-to-speak).
> As the creation, we should attempt to understand His ways of doing things, not
> force Him to fit our thoughts (finite vs infinite).
> (and here we touch on His attributes)
> As creator - He is greater than us. Also, He does not lie to us - He is truth.
> These are things He tells us in His Word.
Didn't I say that immediately afterwards? Hey, yeah, I did:
> But let's assume you don't want to take it that far. Let's assume that you
> simply are saying that that which is in the Bible is there without dispute,
> and that we may or may not be able to understand (through science) the facts
> that are therein. Ok, why would God do that? What's the difference between
> disclosing those facts, and disclosing other facts? How about hiding those
> facts? But you still have the recourse of saying "We might never know, but
> there IS a reason." I.E. God works in mysterious ways, yes? Well, sorry, I
> just don't buy that. And that's where we're forced to stop debating if
> that's where you want to go, because it's merely a point at which we can
> only agree to disagree. Unless you think we can take it deeper, which I'd
> love to do.
Basically, what it boils down to is that I trust my own logic. And I do so
to the extent that the Bible doesn't make sense to me. And as such, I'm
forced to choose which logic I trust more: the Bible's or my own. And well,
hey, being the conceited person I am (well-- at least as far as philosophy
goes), I'll pick mine. But an important distinction is that I'll allow for
being wrong. And that's why I say that if this is the case, we'll have to
agree to disagree. If I didn't allow for my logic to be wrong, I wouldn't
let us stop there, and I'd try and persuade you further that my logic beats
the Bible. But I'm not about to do that. That choice is mine alone, and
hence, we can't debate it further-- unless of course you want to argue that
my logic CAN'T beat the Bible, in which case, we can continue debating. But
that'd be rather silly of you to do (I think), because (I think) it's a
matter of preference.
> (off topic)
> Evolution is man's construct. It actually doesn't fit with man's science - but
> that's another thread.
Indeed another topic-- and maybe not even another thread... but I probably
won't join in on it, just because I don't feel qualified to do so, and as
such I don't think I could provide much that'd be useful to the debate. Were
I more informed, maybe. But for now I'll just stick to the philosophical
side of things. :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Philosphically - what would your logic say if it were shown that science does not contradict the Bible - not prove it necessarily, but supported a literal interpretation of it? What if science supported that the earth is young and not billions (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Dave - you get waaaaay beyond yourself when you assume what I mean and then build upon that assumption repeatedly. It might be far easier to simply make an assumption show it's conclusion and wait for a response... (IMHO) As to the topic: No, (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
