and also that would mean that we should take it that God was commanding Isreal to sin when He had them go in and kill entire nations.California Tim said:
Upvote
0
-
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.
Romans 14
- Thread starter versastyle
- Start date
- Status
that repeatable thing is a killer.
Anyone want to repeat walking on water or parting the Red Sea
Upvote
0
You are missing the point. It takes discernment and education (based in science btw) to understand God's Word. Its not always as simple as the pompous and arrogant would like everyone else to believe.YahwehLove said:and also that would mean that we should take it that God was commanding Isreal to sin when He had them go in and kill entire nations.
It takes discernment to conclude insist is okay if God says so.
Upvote
0
Your pompous attitude is seriously getting annoying.YahwehLove said:
that repeatable thing is a killer.
Anyone want to repeat walking on water or parting the Red Sea
I am very close to pushing the ignore button.
Are you purposely trying to lose respect here?
Upvote
0
Tim,
All four of the philosophers are basing their position on a purely rational approach to our world, and the idea that "it is impossible for immutable laws to be violated." This is something that Christians simply do not accept. We have no problem at all with the supernatural, with God overruling His own laws. So, the miraculous is not an issue for those who accept the supernatural by Faith.
Now, turning to the science part. Where you are getting it wrong is confusing what science can investigate and comment upon on the one hand, and what science can "rule out". The fact that science can not investigate and make statements about things outside of natural laws does not, in any way, mean that they "rule it out".
Oh, I think I see where the problem is. You are also not distinguishing between naturalistic methodology and naturalistic philosophy (or philosophical naturalism).
Naturalistic methodology is simply the process of determining what happens within the natural world, not what may happen via supernatural forces. The "scientific method" uses naturalistic methodology to explain the natural order of things, how things happen in the absense of the supernatural. Science, using naturalistic methodologies, does not exclude the supernatural as a possible force, it is just not equipped to deal with it, and so doesn't try to.
Science is not the sole arbiter of truth about how the world works or what happened in the past, it is just a single tool to determine this. This tool is used to determine what the natural evidence says.
Naturalistic philosophy, on the other hand, is the belief that all must happen according to natural forces, and that any forces which can not fit within these natural forces should not be accepted or given any consideration as a possible causitive agent.
Former, good. Latter, bad.
All scientists, whether Christian or not, whether they accept the supernatural or not, use naturalistic methodologies. Scientists are in the business of explaining how things work in their natural state, so this is process they must use.
Now, many scientists are, indeed, not only using naturalistic methodologies, but have a naturalistic philosophy and, to the extent they let this philosophy show, they are no longer speaking as scientists, but simply espousing their philosophical underpinnings.
Scientists who are Christians use the naturalistic methodologies in every aspect of their scientific research, and rightly so. Their job is to discover all the natural processes which God established in this world. This is great, and not a threat to Christian belief in the least.
Now, when we review the evidence, we need to just make sure to weed out conclusions that are not based on the naturalistic methodologies alone, but which are influenced by naturalistic philosophy. This requires "rightly dividing the word of truth", just like we do with reviewing the preaching of word.
Accepting the conclusions reached by naturalistic methodologies is something we do every day. You accept that rainbows are created by light refraction, and are not just supernatural events. You accept that lightning is a natural process and not just a sign of God's anger. And, when the evidence about or past is soundly based on naturalistic methodology, and not naturalistic philosophy, it should be accepted to the extent it IS sound.
So, by this process, we get what the evidence from God's Creation is, and the conclusions drawn from that evidence are reliable to the extent it is supported by the evidence, and to the extent there was not a supernatural force or event which overrides that conclusion.
For example, we can say that the evidence from God's creation can lead us to the conclusion that no living being has been raised from the dead UNLESS there was a supernatural event. We, as Christians, believe that such supernatural events have taken place.
Now, here is the essential angle when it comes to the age of the earth, the flood, etc. The fact that we are willing to accept the supernatural, and must qualify our scientific conclusions with the possibility of the supernatural, there are times when we can know that a particular supernatural event did not occur. NOT because the event would violate a natural law, that is NEVER a reason to say an event could not occur (that is a very important point, and where the strawman comes in).
Instead, we can know a supernatural event did not take place when there is specific evidence present that WOULD NOT BE THERE had the supernatural event occured. OR, if a particular supernatural event did take place, it would leave specific evidence which is NOT present. If either one of those is true, then we can know that the particular supernatural event did not take place. Or, better to say that to the extent that the evidence is there that should not be there or that the evidence is not there that should be, we can conclude that the supernatural event did not take place.
Why? Because God is in charge of all that evidence, and would not leave behind evidence that could only be there if the event did not take place. And, He would not remove evidence that would necessarily be there if the event took place. I think you would agree that God is not the author of confusion and would not play tricks like that.
This the case with the flood, for example. There is a great deal of evidence which would not be there if a global flood took place within the last 10,000 years. There is also a lack of evidence that would be there if it had. These are all set out in great detail in many threads in the other forum, and this is not the place to go into all of that.
So, given this, I think it is much more likely that the text was not referring to a literal global flood.
All four of the philosophers are basing their position on a purely rational approach to our world, and the idea that "it is impossible for immutable laws to be violated." This is something that Christians simply do not accept. We have no problem at all with the supernatural, with God overruling His own laws. So, the miraculous is not an issue for those who accept the supernatural by Faith.
Now, turning to the science part. Where you are getting it wrong is confusing what science can investigate and comment upon on the one hand, and what science can "rule out". The fact that science can not investigate and make statements about things outside of natural laws does not, in any way, mean that they "rule it out".
Oh, I think I see where the problem is. You are also not distinguishing between naturalistic methodology and naturalistic philosophy (or philosophical naturalism).
Naturalistic methodology is simply the process of determining what happens within the natural world, not what may happen via supernatural forces. The "scientific method" uses naturalistic methodology to explain the natural order of things, how things happen in the absense of the supernatural. Science, using naturalistic methodologies, does not exclude the supernatural as a possible force, it is just not equipped to deal with it, and so doesn't try to.
Science is not the sole arbiter of truth about how the world works or what happened in the past, it is just a single tool to determine this. This tool is used to determine what the natural evidence says.
Naturalistic philosophy, on the other hand, is the belief that all must happen according to natural forces, and that any forces which can not fit within these natural forces should not be accepted or given any consideration as a possible causitive agent.
Former, good. Latter, bad.
All scientists, whether Christian or not, whether they accept the supernatural or not, use naturalistic methodologies. Scientists are in the business of explaining how things work in their natural state, so this is process they must use.
Now, many scientists are, indeed, not only using naturalistic methodologies, but have a naturalistic philosophy and, to the extent they let this philosophy show, they are no longer speaking as scientists, but simply espousing their philosophical underpinnings.
Scientists who are Christians use the naturalistic methodologies in every aspect of their scientific research, and rightly so. Their job is to discover all the natural processes which God established in this world. This is great, and not a threat to Christian belief in the least.
Now, when we review the evidence, we need to just make sure to weed out conclusions that are not based on the naturalistic methodologies alone, but which are influenced by naturalistic philosophy. This requires "rightly dividing the word of truth", just like we do with reviewing the preaching of word.
Accepting the conclusions reached by naturalistic methodologies is something we do every day. You accept that rainbows are created by light refraction, and are not just supernatural events. You accept that lightning is a natural process and not just a sign of God's anger. And, when the evidence about or past is soundly based on naturalistic methodology, and not naturalistic philosophy, it should be accepted to the extent it IS sound.
So, by this process, we get what the evidence from God's Creation is, and the conclusions drawn from that evidence are reliable to the extent it is supported by the evidence, and to the extent there was not a supernatural force or event which overrides that conclusion.
For example, we can say that the evidence from God's creation can lead us to the conclusion that no living being has been raised from the dead UNLESS there was a supernatural event. We, as Christians, believe that such supernatural events have taken place.
Now, here is the essential angle when it comes to the age of the earth, the flood, etc. The fact that we are willing to accept the supernatural, and must qualify our scientific conclusions with the possibility of the supernatural, there are times when we can know that a particular supernatural event did not occur. NOT because the event would violate a natural law, that is NEVER a reason to say an event could not occur (that is a very important point, and where the strawman comes in).
Instead, we can know a supernatural event did not take place when there is specific evidence present that WOULD NOT BE THERE had the supernatural event occured. OR, if a particular supernatural event did take place, it would leave specific evidence which is NOT present. If either one of those is true, then we can know that the particular supernatural event did not take place. Or, better to say that to the extent that the evidence is there that should not be there or that the evidence is not there that should be, we can conclude that the supernatural event did not take place.
Why? Because God is in charge of all that evidence, and would not leave behind evidence that could only be there if the event did not take place. And, He would not remove evidence that would necessarily be there if the event took place. I think you would agree that God is not the author of confusion and would not play tricks like that.
This the case with the flood, for example. There is a great deal of evidence which would not be there if a global flood took place within the last 10,000 years. There is also a lack of evidence that would be there if it had. These are all set out in great detail in many threads in the other forum, and this is not the place to go into all of that.
So, given this, I think it is much more likely that the text was not referring to a literal global flood.
Upvote
0
noversastyle said:
what is it with those laughy smileys that makes people just assume someone is being nasty?
maybe it woudl be better if they did away with them entirely for this forum.
I was agreeing that we do not modify the bible to fit sciences stance on issues that they cannot prove things based on scientific method.
They cannot repeat lots of things in the bible, and that doesnt make them false.
Upvote
0
you almost sound, with your use of ''science'' there, that we need to let secular science interpret our bibles for us.versastyle said:
please correct me if that is wrong.
Upvote
0
Agreed.Vance said:
but does the bible REALLY teach that clearly, or did men just read between the lines too much?
Did they take ''figures of speech'' too far?
Thats a far cry from the specific, repetitive language used in Genesis 1
Upvote
0
Again, the modern geocentrists would beg to differ. It was convincing and clear enough for Christians to read those Scriptures geocentrically for thousands of years. And, to them it was backed up by sound, and even essential theology. I should say "is" since some are still around.
And, again, the specific and repeated language of Genesis 1 speaks something clearly to me which seems to differ with what it speaks clearly to you. I see nothing whatsoever of an attempt at literal history in that chapter. Your insistance that it MUST be literal history is actually just as baffling as the geocentrists insistance of their reading is to you.
And, again, the specific and repeated language of Genesis 1 speaks something clearly to me which seems to differ with what it speaks clearly to you. I see nothing whatsoever of an attempt at literal history in that chapter. Your insistance that it MUST be literal history is actually just as baffling as the geocentrists insistance of their reading is to you.
Upvote
0
Ok.Vance said:
lets compare.
show me the scripture that is used for a geocentric universe.
Lets see if they arent just using figures of speech that arent really attempting to press the issue.
As opposed to Gen 1, that in verse 5, defines a day (for no apparent reason), then goes to lengths to show that that day is being used.
I doubt there is this kind of accuracy or detail for a geocentric universe.
At least, not from the piecemealing of scripture Ive seen presented in the past on the topic.
Upvote
0
What you need to do is go to the geocentrist sites I linked for you earlier to hear where they are coming from and why. Again, check out this thread and follow the links:
http://www.christianforums.com/t1102004-what-geocentrists-say-.html
And I agree with you that they have it wrong. But again, you act as if your interpretation is so obvious that everyone who doesn't accept it MUST be just finding ways around the obvious. And remember, it is NOT a matter of how much Genesis goes on about days. If it was a figurative use of days, this is still what the writer would do, just as my poet might go on about the details of the branches and leaves, but still be using the tree figuratively.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1102004-what-geocentrists-say-.html
And I agree with you that they have it wrong. But again, you act as if your interpretation is so obvious that everyone who doesn't accept it MUST be just finding ways around the obvious. And remember, it is NOT a matter of how much Genesis goes on about days. If it was a figurative use of days, this is still what the writer would do, just as my poet might go on about the details of the branches and leaves, but still be using the tree figuratively.
Upvote
0
in all honesty, I use them to show Im not saying anything from malice.versastyle said:
I just assume if you see a laughy one, that you would assume if we were talkin in person that I was pretty chipper about the whole thing.
Upvote
0
Vance said:
the problem for me is that the bible NEVER ''says'' the earth is flat.
It NEVER "says'' that the earth is at the center of the physical universe from what Ive seen.
It DOES however, say that it was all created in 6 days.
And it does so an a very persuasive and convincing manner.
Upvote
0
California Tim
Well-Known Member
Isn't it true that you feel the very same way about your interpretation? OR would you have me believe that the alternative you offer to our convictions of scriptural clarity would be scriptural uncertainty?Vance said:
Upvote
0
I think its true of all of us.California Tim said:
We each persist that we're not insisting we're right or that ours is the correct understanding and all the while we're doing just.
well, except for me, I guess.
I convinced absolutely that it was 6 literal days.
No doubts at all.
Upvote
0
No, that is not at all how I feel about my interpretation. I do not at all think that my interpretation would be obvious to everyone, but I think that it is almost assuredly the right one, after having studied and prayed about it for decades. (notice the "almost").California Tim said:
And, no, it is not a matter of Scriptural uncertainty, it is a matter of interpretive humility. Making a claim to understand all of Scripture with complete clarity would be an amazing thing to do, and I assume you don't make such a claim. We have literally thousands of denominations based on differing interpretations of Scripture, assuring that almost EVERYONE is wrong about many of their interpretations. To assert that you, or your church, or your denomination, etc, is the ONE among the multitude that has gotten it all right would be . . . Well, it would be wrong, for one thing.
We know and agree upon that which God HAS made clear to all of us who have accepted Christ: we are sinners in need of redemption and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice is that redemption.
But to say that all of Scripture has a particular clear and obvious interpretation is to ignore 2000 years of disagreement over such things. My gosh, they didn't get out of Acts before disputing what God really wanted!!
Upvote
0
Not all of us our so convinced. God seemed to create in innate desire to learn more about Him, other than what can be read.YahwehLove said:
Upvote
0
California Tim
Well-Known Member
Well Vance,Vance said:No, that is not at all how I feel about my interpretation. I do not at all think that my interpretation would be obvious to everyone, but I think that it is almost assuredly the right one, after having studied and prayed about it for decades. (notice the "almost").
And, no, it is not a matter of Scriptural uncertainty, it is a matter of interpretive humility. Making a claim to understand all of Scripture with complete clarity would be an amazing thing to do, and I assume you don't make such a claim. We have literally thousands of denominations based on differing interpretations of Scripture, assuring that almost EVERYONE is wrong about many of their interpretations. To assert that you, or your church, or your denomination, etc, is the ONE among the multitude that has gotten it all right would be . . . Well, it would be wrong, for one thing.
We know and agree upon that which God HAS made clear to all of us who have accepted Christ: we are sinners in need of redemption and acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice is that redemption.
But to say that all of Scripture has a particular clear and obvious interpretation is to ignore 2000 years of disagreement over such things. My gosh, they didn't get out of Acts before disputing what God really wanted!!
You've got a bit of a problem here. On the one hand you contend for a particular interpretation. In so doing, you insinuate others, like myself are arrogant and wrong in our own convictions. Yet you continue on to say:
"To assert that you, or your church, or your denomination, etc, is the ONE among the multitude that has gotten it all right would be . . . Well, it would be wrong, for one thing."
So I do not know how you can take a firm stance. Do you feel you have the right interpretation - in violation of your own proclamation- Or not? Or could you be simply stating: "I don't know what the truth is, I just know nobody has it."?
Upvote
0
- Status
