When I say that it's reasonable to suspect a Pentecostal candidate for believing in a literal Bible (or more specifically, YEC), your defense is that 'Pentecostal' doesn't automatically equate to 'literal Bible' for any specific individual, even if the denomination's core belief says it's based on such. By your account, it is not necessary to believe literally, because that's not the only reason to be Pentecostal, so we can't suspect any one Pentecostal we meet of believing in a literal Bible, and it's unfair to do so.
Btodd
When I say that it's reasonable to suspect a Pentecostal candidate for believing in a literal Bible (or more specifically, YEC), your defense is that 'Pentecostal' doesn't automatically equate to 'literal Bible' for any specific individual, even if the denomination's core belief says it's based on such.
Emhasis is mine.
Now you are arguing something entirely different than the point you originally made and I attacked.
For those who think it's paranoia for me (or any other person) to assume that Palin is a YEC, she was a member of Assemblies of God (Pentecostals) for almost 30 years. From their website:
"Assemblies of God believers hold that the Genesis account should be taken literally."
No mention here this is the denomination's
core belief. On the basis of this statement, which you retrieved from the organization's website, you concluded it is more likely Sarah Palin, being a Pentacostal/member of an AG church, also believes Genesis should be taken literally, and you understand literally to mean a YEC. (this understanding of literally is rather fallacious, as I take it literally and do not believe in a young earth).
There are several reasons why this form of argument was, is, and remains flawed and fallacious reasoning.
First, since when did the AG website speak for the beliefs of ALL its members? I am a Pentacostal, I am also a member of the AG church, and I can assure it does not speak for me and my beliefs. Furthermore, you have had at least one other AG member/or Pentacostal also state the same thing.
Next, the more serious problem with this line of reasoning has been the correct criticisms made by myself and JamesWright. You deduce it is more likely than not Sarah Palin believes in YEC. This is your conclusion. What is your evidence or reasoning to support such a claim? She is a Pentacostal/and or a member of an AG church. Presumably, a majority believe in YEC (if we are to assume the AG's general remark is accurate). Yet, just because a majority of some group of people profess a belief in X doe not mean a specific individual of this group likewise believes in X and neither does it follow it is more likely than not a specific individual believes in X.
This type of fallacious reasoning was evident in your posts as early as page two.
And finally, has the OP'er been to a Pentecostal church before? Are you suggesting that it isn't likely for her to be a YEC? Pentecostals are VERY literal about the Bible, aside from being frighteningly out of touch with reality (with the speaking in tongues and 'slain in the spirit' stuff).
The argument is flawed. Just because a majority of people who attend a Pentacostal church presumably believe in X, does not mean a specific individual from the same church believes in X or is more likely than not to believe in X. This type of flawed and fallacious reasoning is well documented and philosophy students are instructed, very early on, not to engage in this type of poor argument.
Now let's address your newly qualified argument.
the denomination's core belief says it's based on such.
The AG website can dictate core beliefs all it wants. It does not mean its members are adhering to ALL/MOST/SOME of them or believe in them. It is true, certain paid positions require the individual to attest in the validity of those core beliefs and not express an opinion, while engaged in their official duties, contrary to those core beliefs. This hardly means they believe in ALL of them, every single one of them. In fact, there are a few I know of who disagree with maybe one or two of them. Furthermore, we are talking about the official doctrine of the organization, which is entirely different than the individual members themselves.
In support of this contention, I rely upon language from the AG website itself.
These are nonnegotiable tenets of faith that all Assemblies of God churches adhere to. Well, what does this statement mean? Who are they talking about in terms of the "church"? I do not think they are talking about EVERY SINGLE member when they say "church" but rather are referencing the governing body of the church, such as the board of directors, pastor, associate pastor, youth pastor, children's pastor, and so forth, or this group AND a majority of its members so believe. On this basis, does it mean every single member of an AG church adheres to ALL tenets? No.
How, then, can this AG organization dictate what a church is to believe? Because the words "Assemblies of God" is a label, a trademark so to speak, and they can extend it and withdraw it from a church. Do you really think the AG label is applied only after a poll is done of every member in the church and it is revealed all of them have verbally confessed and promised they believe in every single tenet of the AG organization? Hardly. It does not set up lie detector tests at each door every Sunday morning and screen its members to make sure those in attendance are actually telling the truth when they say they believe in the AG beliefs before allowing the church to become a member of the AG organization. What is done, however, is the governing body attests they believe in the organizations fundamental beliefs, and will not preach or express an opinion from the pulpit contrary to them.
A good example of this is the Democratic Party. It would be a profound mistake to assert individual members believe in the pronouncements of the DNC headquarters, even if they are construed as fundamental beliefs.
The reality is, there are people who want to attend church on a regular basis, in an effort to further develop their relationship with the Lord Jesus, for edification and building up, friendship, fraternity, and a sense of family. Among the various churches to attend, the AG is perhaps if not MOST closely alligned with their beliefs, and so they decide to attend and become a member of the AG church. Do they do so on the basis they believe in EVERY tenet the AG organization espouses? No and it is unrealistic, irrational, and unreasonable to believe so. They chose the church because they have the MOST in common with it as opposed to other churches where they have less in common. They chose the AG church, not because EVERYONE of their beliefs are IDENTICAL to those of the AG church/organization, but because they have more in common with the AG church than with other churches.
However, examining the website, we get the following. They have 16 Fundamental Truths, which are non-negotiable. Absent from this list is a LITERAL INERPRETATION of the book of Genesis, much less any explication what a LITERAL INTERPRETATION would constitute.
Then they have what is called the CORE BELIEFS OF THE FELLOWSHIP. There are four of them, and not ONE of them mentions a literal interpretation of Genesis, much less what a literal interpretation would constitute.
My point all along is that it's reasonable to suspect Palin, a member of a Pentecostal, literal Bible promoting church and denomination for 28 years, of believing in a literal Bible. And I would like to hear her discuss it.
Another example of you modifying your argument, and slowly progressing away from the original flawed argument you made. Suspecting is not the same as, you originally claimed, it being more likely than not. Your above claim is more logical, your prior one was not and is not.
