cDK Theory

[ToBeInChrist]

HAs everyone noted how ToBeInChrist is moving the goal posts?

Maybe I was sloppy. Please show me where, if that is the case.

First AV1611VET asks Cabal for the verse that says everything must be questioned. Then sudenly ToBeInChrist comes in and claims context must be taken into account.

Um, yeah, well that's because I take the whole Bible very seriously, so I want to understand a full picture of what's in Scripture on a topic/issue/theme.

Sometimes how to apply what's in Scripture to a topic involves a bit of prayer and reflection. It seems to me a lot of issues there's different angles, different principles applied from different angles to the same problem.

 

[Tiberius]

Fair enough -- as I said, your point can take a hike.

So you are telling the KJV to take a hike when it tells us to question everything, put everything to the test?

 

[driewerf]

You need to get out more, don't you?

You need to practice more what you preach.
About quoting bible verses out of context, remember the little chat we had? Read at least to p 19, and read also the commebnts of linuxuser.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7572443-18/#post57980118

http://www.christianforums.com/t7572443-31/#post57987565

 

[Cabal]

So you are telling the KJV to take a hike when it tells us to question everything, put everything to the test?

There's a concept I've been toying with recently called the Biblical Everything - in short it means "everything" until apologetics with it becomes too difficult.

A similar concept is the Biblical Nothing - the Bible clearly states that nothing is impossible for God, no quantifiers at all.

Push even a little on that one though, and watch it get thrown under the bus.

 

[Delphiki]

 

[sandwiches]

Remember that AV is a "boolean standardist." Now, I think there's another word for that but I forget...

 

[Cabal]

Remember that AV is a "boolean standardist." Now, I think there's another word for that but I forget...

Does it have the same initials?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

If I'm supposed to prove everything and to hold fast to what is good (1 Thess 5:21), the immediate context being not to despise prophesyings, and earlier on there is mention of being patient, etc. 1 Thess 5:14-15 "Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men" and immediately afterwards in 1 Thess 5:22 I see "Abstain from all appearance of evil." -- in context I do not see a need to get into trying to prove creationism to skeptics, or to try to prove every religious idea to everyone's satisfaction, or to nit pick and answer every possible rational question about religion.

AND since I see passages which indicate I'm supposed to avoid vain babblings and arguments with people who are licentious or trying to argue about geneologies or about science that is falsely so-called... (various passages mentioned in previous posts)

AND since I see that I'm supposed to be willing to give my reasons for hope in Christ... (1 Peter 3:15)

I want take it all together to get an idea of what the Bible as a whole says on the subject of engaging with others and discussing things, questioning things.

I don't see that I have to care to argue over everyone's doubts and objections and controversies. I do see that I should reason with people to turn away from sin and to accept the forgiveness of God to start over in faithfulness to God (see Isaiah 1:18), and I should present reason and witness to others to receive Jesus as their Lord, and I should offer the reasons for my hope.

 

[Cabal]

I don't see that I have to care to argue over everyone's doubts and objections and controversies.

Ok.

I do see that I should reason with people to turn away from sin and to accept the forgiveness of God to start over in faithfulness to God (see Isaiah 1:18), and I should present reason and witness to others to receive Jesus as their Lord, and I should offer the reasons for my hope.

So if doubts, objections and controversies are what's stopping people from receiving Jesus....well, maybe you should be caring about discussing them instead? What if their doubts and objections are founded on genealogies and science? Do you just ignore those doubts and objections altogether?

 

[Nostromo]

Remember that AV is a "boolean standardist." Now, I think there's another word for that but I forget...

Rearranges to "_ _ _ _ _ _ _ and looniest"

But that's not nice.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

So if doubts, objections and controversies are what's stopping people from receiving Jesus....well, maybe you should be caring about discussing them instead? What if their doubts and objections are founded genealogies and science? Do you just ignore those doubts and objections altogether?

If someone rejects Jesus as He is presented in the Bible, if they do not care to pursue with interest this Jesus, the Gospels, what can I do? I can share my hope and my reasons for my hope, and I can point to what I see in this Jesus, I can pray -- but can I argue them into agreement or into faith?

As for other issues, if someone doesn't want to take seriously that a miracle could have happened (at the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin of species, the origin of intelligence), well of course that is going to limit their interpretation of various facts and will have an effect on their application of reason and methodology to facts, so their resulting view of things will be different in various ways.

I don't see the point in frustratedly trying to explain miracles to the satisfaction of someone who will have none of it. I can offer some views/interpretations/hope/reasoning, but people will either be responsive or not.

 

[Cabal]

If someone rejects Jesus as He is presented in the Bible, if they do not care to pursue with interest this Jesus, the Gospels, what can I do?

Acknowledge that the Bible might not be that adequate a presentation of Jesus?

I can share my hope and my reasons for my hope, and I can point to what I see in this Jesus, and I can pray.

I realised I got sidetracked there a little.

The only point I intended initially by raising that verse was to convince Christians that they themselves should be questioning everything. I'm not really the one you should be trying to convince.

Simply put, this whole discussion arose out of a Christian's dogged insistence on refusing to answer the simple question, "Do you question your beliefs or consider that they might be wrong?" Eventually we got a no - my question is, why is this such a big deal to even acknowledge in the first place? And if your belief was really true, shouldn't it be able to stand up to questioning?

Maybe there's a Biblical basis for questioning, maybe there isn't - but if there is, it seems like a lot of Christians aren't holding to it; and if there isn't - why not? What has Christianity got to lose?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

Acknowledge that the Bible might not be that adequate a presentation of Jesus?

Are you serious? You seriously expect a Christian to do this? I believe in the Jesus who is presented in the Bible.

The only point I intended initially by raising that verse was to convince Christians that they themselves should be questioning everything.

I'm fine questioning things. But how many questions do I really need to ask?

Yes I am curious, inquisitive. Yes, I have questions, concerns, issues that I may explore. Yes I have doubts that might be addressed after exploring evidence and reasons. But I do not want to be "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7 KJV

Simply put, this whole discussion arose out of a Christian's dogged insistence on refusing to answer the simple question, "Do you question your beliefs or consider that they might be wrong?" Eventually we got a no

I used to pride myself on some rather radical skepticism, some rather methodological doubt. I wanted to build up knowledge from the ground up, doubting everything and discovering what might survive the harshest tests. But I was ever learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

- my question is, why is this such a big deal to even acknowledge in the first place? And if your belief was really true, shouldn't it be able to stand up to questioning?

I'm not sure how loaded that question is, though.

If by 'stand up to questioning' you mean, satisfy all the radical skeptics/doubters, then the deck is stacked against faith, willfully stacked against faith.

If you mean, can you ask a question, find evidence and reason, and answer basic objections enough to satisfy someone who accepts certain presuppositions or basic assumptions that you do have reasons and evidence behind your hope, then I'd say yes if a person is open to such a hope and willing to tolerate the light that may shine upon their own darkness.

Maybe there's a Biblical basis for questioning, maybe there isn't - but if there is, it seems like a lot of Christians aren't holding to it; and if there isn't - why not? What has Christianity got to lose?

On what? And why? And what are you expecting of Christians? Do you add some expectations of scientists and scholars?

Add a willingness to believe that an intelligent designer exists and got things moving, and a willingness to consider catastrophes and various alternative understandings of the physical/biological environment when life began, etc., other interpretations open up, but rigid adherents of naturalistic methodology don't want to here any of it.

 

[Nostromo]

Are you serious? You seriously expect a Christian to do this? I believe in the Jesus who is presented in the Bible.

I rather imagine he seriously expects any rational person to do it.

But I was ever learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

Do you think anything has changed?

 

[Cabal]

Are you serious? You seriously expect a Christian to do this? I believe in the Jesus who is presented in the Bible.

Well, given that not everyone finds that presentation convincing even though they may be quite earnestly seeking God, yes. Questioning the presentation would be a start at least.

I'm fine questioning things. But how many questions do I really need to ask?

As many as you can think of? Why should certain questions be verboten? I wouldn't expect Christianity to be subject to anything exceptional, but it comes across as one exercise in exception-making after another.

Yes I am curious, inquisitive. Yes, I have questions, concerns, issues that I may explore. Yes I have doubts that might be addressed after exploring evidence and reasons. But I do not want to be "always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth." 2 Timothy 3:7 KJV

What does your personal desire have to do with an idea's validity?

I used to pride myself on some rather radical skepticism, some rather methodological doubt. I wanted to build up knowledge from the ground up, doubting everything and discovering what might survive the harshest tests. But I was ever learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

So in order to become a Christian you had to lower your standards? It would perhaps be more helpful if you didn't just parrot the Bible when explaining this.

Again, I'm not saying that Christianity should be rejected on the basis of something like Pyrrhonism, but again, I think a lot of reasons people put forward for their belief involve making exceptions to how they would normally respond to something.

I'm not sure how loaded that question is, though.

If by 'stand up to questioning' you mean, satisfy all the radical skeptics/doubters, then the deck is stacked against faith, willfully stacked against faith.

How do you know it is wilful? Just because someone has more stringent standards than you does not mean their are wilfully trying to thwart you.

And even if it is wilful, why is that such a bad thing? As long as an objection tries to be logical then shouldn't Christianity be able to field it?

And if such a stance is a bad thing, heck, why do people with such standards even exist in the first place, if God knows that such standards would preclude them from choosing him?

If you mean, can you ask a question, find evidence and reason, and answer basic objections enough to satisfy someone who accepts certain presuppositions or basic assumptions that you do have reasons and evidence behind your hope then I'd say yes if a person is open to such a hope and willing to tolerate the light that may shine upon their own darkness.

Which is positive, but I would say it is more up to the questioner to decide what is reasonable, not the one being questioned. They are the one who would know better what is convincing or not for them.

My issue with the Bible and the approach to witnessing contained in the Bible is that it claims to be sufficient when it obviously isn't, and then has the gall to palm rejection of an inadequate method off as wilful unbelief when that really isn't always the case.

On what? And why? And what are you expecting of Christians?

I think they should be questioning their views as rigorously as any other view, regardless of whether the Bible says to or not. They would at least be consistent in that sense.

Do you add some expectations of scientists and scholars?

Generally I find scientists and scholars to be a lot more willing to question their ideas than many Christians. I sure don't have to pull teeth to get them to even answer that question!

Add a willingness to believe that an intelligent designer exists and got things moving, and a willingness to consider catastrophes and various alternative understandings of the physical/biological environment when life began, etc., other interpretations open up, but rigid adherents of naturalistic methodology don't want to here any of it.

Right, all those refutations posited by Miller, Dawkins, Coyne et al are just symptomatic of not wanting to hear it.

You can disagree with their rebuttals all you want - that's what discussion is, something a lot of Christians seem to shy away from after only a round or two, playing the "well you're going to go to hell" card or some other trope - but to say that they aren't even interested is just fatuous. If they weren't, they wouldn't even have dignified ID with a response.

 

[ToBeInChrist]

I rather imagine he seriously expects any rational person to do it.
Do you think anything has changed?

I expect a rational person to ask questions and think, sure. But at some point we do more than think in a mechanical or mathematic way, we incorporate something beyond formal logic, as we deal with semantics, personal interactions with reality, with other people, with issues of conscience, history, etc.

And at some point we can make a decision to work with something that has been presented to us, to respond and to build upon the basis of our response. I've been presented the Gospels in the Bible. I respond affirmatively to the Jesus presented in the Gospels, and I'm building a life that is centered in a personal relationship with that Jesus.

I could get in the way of my growth as a follower of Jesus by repeatedly applying radical doubt and various destructive methodologies to tear down the path I've been walking, or to keep from moving forward to deeper levels of faithfulness and understanding. But I don't want to do that. I want to continue to walk with Jesus and I want to grow.

Well, given that not everyone finds that presentation convincing even though they may be quite earnestly seeking God, yes. Questioning the presentation would be a start at least.

But how much questioning, what sorts of questions are really all that helpful or appropriate? At some point questioning can be an excuse not to move forward decisively.

So in order to become a Christian you had to lower your standards?

No, I had to raise my eyes and see much higher standards of holiness, goodness, justice, and truth.

Again, I'm not saying that Christianity should be rejected on the basis of something like Pyrrhonism, but again, I think a lot of reasons people put forward for their belief involve making exceptions to how they would normally respond to something.

I think I understand your point, here. I just don't see the point in acting like the subject is impersonal. People do personally respond one way or another for personal reasons, alongside whatever other reasons.

So I don't think people are impersonally persuaded by cold facts and mathematically tight arguments after processing everything through a methodological machine, when the subject has to do with personal morality, faith in a Creator, faithfulness to a holy and just God, etc.

So at some point exchanging objections and arguing or discussing logic and methods is pointless. Sure exchange some objections, make an argument, discuss some logic and methodological question, go ahead. Go back and forth and comprehend each other's reflections, serious thoughts, etc. But how much is fruitful?

My issue with the Bible and the approach to witnessing contained in the Bible

What again do you think is the Biblical approach to witnessing?

Right, all those refutations posited by Miller, Dawkins, Coyne et al are just symptomatic of not wanting to hear it.

Not all of their refutations. I think the Bible presents a lot of nuances to the motivations of people, to the things that interfere with responding to God.

I think it's just easier in a discussion or debate to fall back on a single point/motivation/criticism rather than to deal with complexities, so people often over-simplify for that reason, or just because they aren't interested in considering the complexities.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm talking about how if you really want to ESTABLISH a claim for causation in a scientific experiment, you set up a CONTROLLED LAB and you EXCLUDE other causes, to try to isolate the one cause you are claiming.

So you are unaware of the thousands of experiments done in labs demonstrating that mutations occur? Really?

Now, if you don't have an example in a lab . . .

Nature is our laboratory.

And if you want to try to observe natural changes from one thing to another (again, significant change beyond these little species changes, not just micro-evolutionary mutations)

Different microevolutionary changes occuring in divergent populations IS MACROEVOLUTION.

You just don't have an example of bigger transformations . . .

Sure I do. Compare the genomes of humans and chimps. That is a pretty big transformation for both lineages from their common ancestor, wouldn't you agree?

well show me something that naturally mutates and then gets a new functional limb, at least, then?

Evolution doesn't produce new limbs. It produces modified limbs. The wing of a bat is not a new limb. The bat wing is the same arm that you have, only modified.

Can you show me a controlled lab experiment where life is magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity? If not, then why do you accept it?

 

[ToBeInChrist]

So you are unaware of the thousands of experiments done in labs demonstrating that mutations occur? Really?

Oh, no. I'm aware that many many mutant fruit-flies and rats with dysfunctional mutations or an inability to reproduce or with children who don't survive, are done.

I am aware of some positive minor mutations. I brought up moth's color change in areas where the trees were darkened by smoke.

Nature is our laboratory.

No it is not. Nature is not a man made, controlled environment where causative factors are isolated by scientists to a point where causation can be studied under ideal conditions.

Nature is not a lab, period. You keep saying that, but it sounds like you have no clue, apparently, what a lab experiment is, what a controlled experiment to demonstrate causation is, as contrasted with a correlative study.

Sure I do. Compare the genomes of humans and chimps. That is a pretty big transformation for both lineages from their common ancestor, wouldn't you agree?

You have no common ancestor, though. Piltdown man certainly doesn't count.

Can you show me a controlled lab experiment where life is magically poofed into being by a supernatural deity? If not, then why do you accept it?

In a quite exceptional circumstance, the qualitative change from a situation where there is no living biological being in the universe, to the existence of living biological beings, or the qualitative change from no intelligent biological life to intelligent biological live, or no physical universe to a physical universe -- these three particular amazing circumstances, when I look at how Newtonian physics breaks down on very large or very small scales, I see precedent for saying that we are dealing with strange transformations that may be outside of 'business as usual' in the universe.

Just as travel near the speed of light or distances smaller than an atom make for conditions other than 'business as usual' when we deal with the physics, the difference before/after with the subject of the universe's physical existence/stabilized order, life, and consciousness, are not of 'ordinary scale' with other things dealt with in the relevant sciences.

The theory of macro-evolution, on the other hand, is given a free pass all over the place, with repeated failures to find a missing link that stands up to peer-review, and with various anomalies among fossils, and with repeated ad-hoc revisions in the face of problems.

Macro-evolutionary miracles of FUNCTIONAL mutations derived from multiple minor mutations, are given a free pass as the norm, among evolutionists. Why do you gripe about me accepting some miraculous possibilities at a few key points of transformation?

 

[Nostromo]

I expect a rational person to ask questions and think, sure. But at some point we do more than think in a mechanical or mathematic way, we incorporate something beyond formal logic, as we deal with semantics, personal interactions with reality, with other people, with issues of conscience, history, etc.

And at some point we can make a decision to work with something that has been presented to us, to respond and to build upon the basis of our response.

Indeed, sometimes we do things because we like doing them or just want to do them, not because they make sense.

Do you think that's a good way to decide what is true and what is not?

 

[Nostromo]

Oh, no. I'm aware that many many mutant fruit-flies and rats with dysfunctional mutations or an inability to reproduce or with children who don't survive, are done.

Can you tell us why those dysfunctional mutations propagate so readily in experiments, but wild populations never seem to die out, even though these mutations are just as likely in the wild.