Is YEC science? Is is even really a theory?

[AV1611VET]

AV, you do know that in today's day and age---at least in the U.S.----a predominant number of current "atheists" are former Christians, many of whom have read and studied good portions of the Bible, sometimes all of it.

Then I take it you're confirming my suspicion that more atheists have God's Bible, than Christians have Darwin's book?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then I take it you're confirming my suspicion that more atheists have God's Bible, than Christians have Darwin's book?

I could confirm it, but that's not the direction that your previous comment---now removed---seemed to imply.

As for the arrival of "the Falling Away," it could be the case. The problem is that the exacting schedule of Eschatological delivey is up for debate. (Even in my own thinking, I have this debate since while I lean in a Premill direction that has some kismet similar to your Dispensationalism, I'm still evaluating Premill versus Amill. Who knows which way it will go?)

But yeah, a lot of Ex-Christians have, or have had, a Bible on their shelves. But that's beside the point.

And here's the crux of MY POINT that I'm sure remains unclear: I think this whole cultural war we're presently embroiled in comes down not to the presence of a battle over origins, but over a contention involving the historicity and theological import of both The Exodus Event and The Resurrection of Jesus ...

Genesis is a side issue; a scapegoat target, if you will.

 

[AV1611VET]

And here's the crux of MY POINT that I'm sure remains unclear: I think this whole cultural war we're presently embroiled in comes down not to the presence of a battle over origins, but over a contention involving the historicity and theological import of both The Exodus Event and The Resurrection of Jesus ...

To believe, or not to believe, that is the question?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To believe, or not to believe, that is the question?

Yes, to some extent. But the presence of the fact that both epistemic deception on the one hand, and God's lead by His Spirit, both ALSO play a role in any one person's decision to follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

I think these two additional factors open up the all too simple dichotomy of "to believe or not." And an academic battle over "origins" isn't the locus of that spiritual awakening.

 

[Astrid]

The Bible is not an opinion

Terrif! Something to agree on.

Of course it's no more an opinion than
the common opossum is an opinion

And of course, I did not say it is.
Did you fail to read what I said, or
dishonestly pretend I said the Bible is
an opinion?

I was inquiring into the possible
errors in your opinion of what the
Bible means.

An honest response would have
addressed that, not something else.

 

[AV1611VET]

But the presence of the fact that both epistemic deception on the one hand, and God's lead by His Spirit, both ALSO play a role in any one person's decision to follow Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

If I read this right, you're saying that those who don't end up following Christ, don't follow Him because of "epistemic deception"?

If so, I agree.

I believe they are being deceived by the world's educational system.

 

[Astrid]

You debate the Bible's historical significance?

Are you ignoring or denying everything I said
and again changing the subject?
(Rhetorical q., of course that's what you did )

But to your q., of course not. It has huge
historical significance. Ftm, the book of
Mormon has had quite the significance in the
the history of the USA.

The q is not whether it has historical
significance, but the accuracy of
the "history" in Bible, or, ftm, the BoM.

My post, which you wholly failed to address
was about how those parts that do read as
apparent history are sketchy and open
to such a huge range of (inerrant)
interpretations that it's a very unreliable
source for history.
Why not address that instead of chaging the subject?


( yecs explain away things like stars being
hundreds of thousands of light years away
with gimmicks like light speeding up or
slowing down to fit their 6000 yr creation date

Do you suppose Pi really was 3.0 when
Kings was written, but has gotten bigger
since? That would keep it historically accurate)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If I read this right, you're saying that those who don't end up following Christ, don't follow Him because of "epistemic deception"?

If so, I agree.

I believe they are being deceived by the world's educational system.

Partly. But I think epistemic deception is more insidious than simply presence of a "world educational system." It's more like a virus that infects that system and uses that system. It's not necessarily the overall system itself. See the difference? Similar to yours but a little different.

With that said, I place my focus on Exodus and the Person, Life, and Resurrection of Jesus.......along with a host of various Philosophical reconsiderations and challenges to "the System."

 

[Astrid]

I do. But there is a caveat in my saying this. Maybe two.

The problem here is that this "debate" gets truncated into an Either/Or set of polarized positions that are, really, a false dichotomy. This dichotomy can be seen for what it is by anyone who has taken the time to both read the Bible AND do wide academic study. If we all did this, we would know that the "debate" can't simply be pared down to this mere dichotomy.

But I get it: a dichotomy often easily sells more pew seats in Baptist churches and in Atheist meet-ups.

Them naughty " academics" did the math
and found out Pi is not 3.

But none of them will find that "don't steal"
or, "honor your parents" is somehow in error.

 

[AV1611VET]

Partly. But I think epistemic deception is more insidious than simply presence of a "world educational system." It's more like a virus that infects that system and uses that system. It's not necessarily the overall system itself. See the difference? Similar to yours but a little different.

That "virus" is what we call the Sin Nature.

And it is fed by the current world educational system.

But yes, I agree.

The world educational system is infected too.

Its "virus" consists of the nine muses that answer to Satan.

In other words, Satan has infected our learning and set up an [epistemic] infrastructure.

Ephesian 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Them naughty " academics" did the math
and found out Pi is not 3.

But none of them will find that "don't steal"
or, "honor your parents" is somehow in error.

Them naughty "academics" also scrutized the historical development of Eastern Philosophy and found out that Siddhartha Guatama and Lao-Tzu weren't originally divine.

But none of them will say that Buddhism or Taoism are wrong through and through. At least, as an academic............................. I wouldn't.

(Besides, I like reading The Bhagavad Gita, The Dhammapada and the Tao Te Ching. More so than Engels/Marx's, The Communist Manifesto.

The latter I do enjoy tearing apart analytically, though.............)

 

[AV1611VET]

Them naughty " academics" did the math and found out Pi is not 3.

Them "naughty academics" are correct.

But when "them naughty academics" apply it to the Bible -- or any narrative writing -- them naughty academics are overlooking a big chunk of journalism.

Namely:

The simplest approximation for Pi is just 3. Yes, we all know that's incorrect, but it can at least get you started if you want to do something with circles. In the past, many math books listed Pi as 22/7.

SOURCE

Occam's razor can take a hike, when it comes to the Bible, can't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

(Besides, I like reading The Bhagavad Gita, The Dhammapada and the Tao Te Ching. More so than Engels/Marx's, The Communist Manifesto. The latter I do enjoy tearing apart analytically, though.............)

As I understand it, Hinduism was so oppressive -- (mainly with its caste system) -- that Hindus were leaving Hinduism in droves by those who started Buddhism as a "breakaway religion."

To stop this flow of Hindus out of Hinduism and into Buddhism, the Hindus came up with a master stroke of an idea.

They wrote the Bhagavad Gita, that tells the story -- (if I remember correctly, which I probably don't) -- of someone named Arjuna (?), who fled some battle or something, and met a Hindu that talked him into coming back into Hinduism.

Or something like that.

I'm sure I mangled the story.

But anyway, it worked.

And many Buddhists came back to Hinduism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Them "naughty academics" are correct.

But when "them naughty academics" apply it to the Bible -- or any narrative writing -- them naughty academics are overlooking a big chunk of journalism.

Namely:


SOURCE

Occam's razor can take a hike, when it comes to the Bible, can't it?

Occam's razor can sometimes take a hike even if the Bible isn't the object of scrutiny.

Because reality has a way of not always being simple anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

Occam's razor can sometimes take a hike even if the Bible isn't the object of scrutiny.

Because reality has a way of not always being simple anyway.

Those who bring up Pi in an effort to discredit the Bible end up discrediting the Bible, journalistic simplicity, and Occam's razor.

And I have a feeling they would be willing to discredit much more -- even their own selves -- if they can accomplish that goal.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I understand it, Hinduism was so oppressive -- (mainly with its caste system) -- that Hindus were leaving Hinduism in droves by those who started Buddhism as a "breakaway religion."

To stop this flow of Hindus out of Hinduism and into Buddhism, the Hindus came up with a master stroke of an idea.

They wrote the Bhagavad Gita, that tells the story -- (if I remember correctly, which I probably don't) -- of someone named Arjuna (?), who fled some battle or something, and met a Hindu that talked him into coming back into Hinduism.

Or something like that.

I'm sure I mangled the story.

But anyway, it worked.

And many Buddhists came back to Hinduism.

You're right, but you've missed the point, bro. I'm not a syncretist and I was just trying to relate with Estrid on a level she's familiar with.

I've also studied the Eastern Philosophies and Religions as a part of my Philosophy Degree, so you're adding bits I'm already am familiar with.

If I was to extol an Eastern Philosphy, I'd trend toward Lao Tzu. But since I have Jesus.............well, y'know how it goes!

 

[AV1611VET]

If I was to extol an Eastern Philosphy, I'd trend toward Lao Tzu. But since I have Jesus.............well, y'know how it goes!

I dub thee the Epitome of Priority!

 

[Astrid]

Them naughty "academics" also scrutized the historical development of Eastern Philosophy and found out that Siddhartha Guatama and Lao-Tzu weren't originally divine.

But none of them will say that Buddhism or Taoism are wrong through and through. At least, as an academic............................. I wouldn't.

(Besides, I like reading The Bhagavad Gita, The Dhammapada and the Tao Te Ching. More so than Engels/Marx's, The Communist Manifesto.

The latter I do enjoy tearing apart analytically, though.............)

I don't read "spiritual" stuff, myself.

As for Marxism. I will let you take
over arguing my old uncle, late of the
Red Guard.
I won't offer to be translator though.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't read "spiritual" stuff, myself.

As for Marxism. I will let you take
over arguing my old uncle, late of the
Red Guard.
I won't offer to be translator though.

That's ok. You don't have to be a translator for me to down Marx or Lenin or Mao. Since I have a (ex)Russian wife and I've studied Russian politics and philosophy, I can do so from another angle.

But, bless your old Uncle's heart anyway.

 

[Astrid]

You're right, but you've missed the point, bro. I'm not a syncretist and I was just trying to relate with Estrid on a level she's familiar with.

I've also studied the Eastern Philosophies and Religions as a part of my Philosophy Degree, so you're adding bits I'm already am familiar with.

If I was to extol an Eastern Philosphy, I'd trend toward Lao Tzu. But since I have Jesus.............well, y'know how it goes!

Don't know which point got missed this
time but my thought on Pi was that
if a person just uses the Bible for his
facts he would conclude Pi is 3.

And that there actually was a flood.

As for "approximately" 3.0?

The bible is only approximately true?
That's obvious but you would be the
first believer of my experience e to
acknowledge it.