-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
<Delete>
- Thread starter California Tim
- Start date
- Status
Tim,
But the problem is that you often have two (or more) possible interpretations of Scripture. While YEC's like to use the words "plainly" and "clearly" and "obviously" a lot, this is begging the question since the literalness of some Scripture (Genesis in the early chapters, Job, Song of Solomon) have been debated by Christians and Jews alike since the earliest days.
Then you have the evidence of God's Creation, which we discover through scientific inquiry. This is done by both Christian and non-Christian scientists.
Now, which interpretation is most likely correct? The one that agrees with the evidence of God's Creation or the one that contradicts it?
This is a balancing process, taking into consideration the strength of the evidence from God's Creation, the strength of the given human interpretation of Scripture and the nature of the doctrine being impacted by the various possible interpretations. To say that Scripture should not be informed to some degree by the evidence of God's Creation itself is simply "baby with bathwater".
Remember geocentrism. It should be a mantra.
But the problem is that you often have two (or more) possible interpretations of Scripture. While YEC's like to use the words "plainly" and "clearly" and "obviously" a lot, this is begging the question since the literalness of some Scripture (Genesis in the early chapters, Job, Song of Solomon) have been debated by Christians and Jews alike since the earliest days.
Then you have the evidence of God's Creation, which we discover through scientific inquiry. This is done by both Christian and non-Christian scientists.
Now, which interpretation is most likely correct? The one that agrees with the evidence of God's Creation or the one that contradicts it?
This is a balancing process, taking into consideration the strength of the evidence from God's Creation, the strength of the given human interpretation of Scripture and the nature of the doctrine being impacted by the various possible interpretations. To say that Scripture should not be informed to some degree by the evidence of God's Creation itself is simply "baby with bathwater".
Remember geocentrism. It should be a mantra.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
