|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
As I see it, I have provided evidence. You have disagreed and simply dismissed my evidence without actually providing any contrary evidence.
I will allow the record to stand as it is. Nothing will convince you that you are wrong. However, people with inquiring minds will read these pages. They will read what I have posted, and they will read your dismissal. I hope they will also follow some of the links, and consult other evidence, that they may judge the issue for themselves. As further evidence, I suggest the wikipedia entry on Sola Scriptura as a starting point. Here are a couple of selections from that entry:
Wikipedia writes:
and
The idea of the singular authority of Scripture is the motivation behind much of the Protestant effort to translate the Bible into vernacular tongues and distribute it widely. They believed each man should be able to read the Bible for himself and compare the teachings of the Church and the Reformers against it. Wikipedia writes:
Sola scriptura reverses the order of the Church's authority, as it is understood in the Catholic tradition: Instead of the Catholic Church's teaching authority being the interpreter of Scripture, sola scriptura makes Scripture the interpreter of tradition. For this reason, it is called the formal cause of the Reformation. Sola scriptura did not originally signify a radical rejection of all authority of the Church to interpret the Scriptures, but rather represented a claim that the teaching authority of the Church is regulated by the Bible, constrained by Scripture in both a limiting and a directing sense. As John Wesley stated in the 18th century, "The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church." The Reformers argued that the Scriptures are guaranteed to remain true to their divine source, and thus, only insofar as the Church retains scriptural faith is it assured of all the promises of God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Correct. Faith is saying that her premise should not be challenged. That position is IMHO simply a demonstration that she realizes that the premise is indefensible.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm not worried about the inquiring minds. You have a false idea of the meaning of the priesthood of all believers and of Christian liberty and it is up to you to show that your idiosyncratic reading is shared by the Southern Baptists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The YEC premise that God is above all is no more unchallengeable than the evo premise that science is above all.
Yes, the premise is absolutely unchallengeable, and should not be challenged, of course, as certainly the word of God Himself is not to be disputed, but once again you miss the point, the context. It's an EXPLANATION of the situation at EvC. The point is that this is the reason the debate at EvC is impossible, not that EvC or anyone must change to accommodate God -- heaven forbid -- but that whichever premise dominates requires the other to yield. That's just the way it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The YEC premise that God is above all is no more unchallengeable than the evo premise that science is above all. Yet another misrepresentation of what anyone has said. You are perfectly free to challenge the Scientific position, or even the scientific method. Just bring on the evidence to support your assertions. So far, all we've seen is your claims that science cannot be challenged and that we must accept your premise without challenge. Once again, if there is support for your premise, here's your opportunity to do so. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPhat Inactive Member |
RAZD, I am always amazed by your artful and colorful posts...occasionally a bit over-complex, but commendable just the same!
In your model, here: I see where some could see the overlaps a bit differently. Perhaps like this: Outer layer: Science...proof...empiricism.Next layer: Philosophy....human wisdom dissected and commented upon Next layer: Faith...an internal concept Next layer YEC...a subset of some peoples faith. Personally, I see God as the outermost issue...One who frames the very definitions of words, concepts, and Creator of wisdom. Perspectives are always viewed from differing angles!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You define the challenge to science on the basis of the science premise, demanding evidence. This you will allow. Of course. This is what I am talking about.
What you will not allow is that the Bible, the revelation of God Himself, challenge science, but this is what demonstrates the symmetry of the opposing premises. Science can challenge science and can challenge the Bible too from the EvC perspective. From the YEC perspective it is the Bible that challenges science and everything else including wrong theologies based on the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
jar writes: Correct. Faith is saying that her premise should not be challenged. That position is IMHO simply a demonstration that she realizes that the premise is indefensible. I guess we should let Faith clarify her point if she wishes, but I read 181's message to be that all should be allowed to debate on one's own premise and that alone. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Excuse me, ADMIN Phat, but that discussion is off topic here. Please move it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
From the YEC perspective it is the Bible that challenges science and everything else including wrong theologies based on the Bible. Fine Faith. Support that premise. Show us why such a premise should be considered. Show us why the other theologies are wrong. Convince us. Is your premise so weak and unsupportable that you cannot defend it? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You need me to defend the obvious fact that YECs hold the Bible as the judging authority over science? Or that the standard of correct Biblical interpretation is that the Bible is to be compared to the Bible? REALLY?
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 12:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I guess we should let Faith clarify her point if she wishes, but I read 181's message to be that all should be allowed to debate on one's own premise and that alone. That's fine Buz, but don't you think a premise should be able to be defended or supported? Folk are free to come up with any premise they want, but should that premise stand solely by assertion? Should it be open to challenge and question? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Neither.
You need to support your assertion that your premise may not be challenged. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What ARE you talking about, jar? The Bible is defended at EvC all the time as the word of God, the final authority for a YEC. This thread is for a different purpose which you are simply interfering with. The purpose is to demonstrate the EXISTENCE and CONSISTENT OPERATION of these premises on the two sides and the CONSEQUENCES of their neverending conflict. You are, in other words, seriously off topic.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-26-2005 12:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1473 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You need to support your assertion that your premise may not be challenged. Not on this thread I don't. It is off topic here. Start another one for that purpose.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024