Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

who would be so out of his mind to make positive claims of the existence of God? Certainly no one who knows the foundation of God/man relationship is based on faith.
You know, that thingie that cannot be seen, or measured, or at all explained, or even understood by those with the experience.
neither could a Shaolin proof the spiritual side of his craft, not even to himself. it's just 'there'.

quote:

---

No. I demanded that accurate historical documents and trustworthy prophets be put on the same level as well-established science. Will we be so arrogant here as to deny the validity of history?

---

Just a minute ago you were talking about the assuming the existence of a creator.Now you move the goal posts - but unless and until you can provide evidence that these documents are historically accurate enough to be placed on the same level as well established science - unlike every other ancient history then your claim of historical accuracy is irrelevant. Nor can you demonstrate that you have "trustworthy prophests" on your side. There's nothing forbidding you from trying to make those demonstrations here. We've had similar discussions before.Of couse if you don't WANT to actually back up the claim to have such documents then that IS against the forum rules. And you would be demanding an unfair advantage.Oh and I'm quite prpeared to trust MY personal experiences when dealing with well-understood matters like comprehending the English language.

You trying to proof the existence of God?
Go on, are you mad?The Bible is meant to be disregarded exactly the way it is and for the reasons it is.This book has stood the test of time and will continue to do so despite 'knowledge increasing, men running to and fro'.And human beings discovering so many wonders extant can decide and do decide that it all just happened - from nothing.

quote:

---

Just a minute ago you were talking about the assuming the existence of a creator. Now you move the goal posts...

---

Are you referring to my hypotheticals which asserted that whichever case is true, the Bible is relevent? What are you trying to say here? I think I have been arguing toward a consistent end this whole day so far.

quote:

---

but unless and until you can provide evidence that these documents are historically accurate enough to be placed on the same level as well established science - unlike every other ancient history then your claim of historical accuracy is irrelevant.

---

What kind of evidence would you like? Whose word will you trust? I know you trust Dawkin's word. Why? Will you trust thousands of Bishops' words?

quote:

---

Oh and I'm quite prpeared to trust MY personal experiences when dealing with well-understood matters like comprehending the English language.

---

We are not so different. I'm quite prepared to trust my personal experiences when dealing with well-understood matters like spritual warfare. Can both our experiences be entered into evidence please?

Pecos,Is it worthwhile to encourage our lost brothers and sisters to trust the Bible? It is their decision, but it seems a worthy thing to encourage.

Pecos,Just to further explain my stance on this, I find the following verse helpful:John 2:22 When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.I think the Bible makes a strong case that it's primary claims are trustworthy at a logical level, while it still maintains mystery and things that must be taken on faith. Apostles appealed to logic and reasoning as well as mystery and faith.

Chopping and changing arguments is hardly being consistent.And you don't knwo to what extent I trust Dawkins' word - but I will certainly trust Bishops in the only valid field of expertise they have - the current teachings of their sect. Whether those teachings are ture is not a subject that being a Bishop qualifies them to be trusted on - if anything it is the reverse.And "spritual warfare" is not somethign that is even known to exist. THa you would call it a "well understood" subject makes me suspect that your assertiosn are simply insincere trolling.

And that has been going on for some centuries. The Bible, as one might expect given it's history, gets some things right and some wrong. The history seems to have some right things (but I'm not a historian) the science side (cosmology, geology, physics and biology) seems to be batting around zero.Does anyone have a disagreement with your suggestion to take the Bible in separate bits and examine it? I'd be surprised.

quote:

---

Does anyone have a disagreement with your suggestion to take the Bible in separate bits and examine it? I'd be surprised.

---

Well, I've been asking folks here to, but instead I'm just getting responses about how I'm being inconsistent. The topic is whether or not we are held to a higher standard. It seems that some folks here need to be willing to engage the creationists within the context of Biblical authority. I am not hearing any arguments as to why we should distrust Biblical claims about a spiritual realm for example, about the existence of sin, for example, about the divinity of Christ, for example, etc...

But, Mike, science, by definition, does mention God and what creationist ID scientists say about God is relevant. Accepted authority by who? By the majority science view? If so, then it's our job to change that. We're not going to do that by capitulation, relegating the science forum to them. There are forums here for both the strictly theological in faith and belief and for science. Your argument essentially confines us to faith and belief forum, when in fact, when talking origins, mutation, scientific law application and so forth, we need to, as creationists, be allowed to apply ID to our scientific views in discussion and debate. This's EvC, not EvE Forum. If we are dissalowed scientific discussion and debate relative to ID creation here, then admin needs to show us all the door and have an ongoing exclusive tea party here, discussing their views on secularistic science. 1. They say "that's not science" because they've been brainwashed by their secularist teachers from kindegarten through their doctorate that it's not. We need to show that ID is a valid science argument applicable to scientific study, discussion and debate.2. When it's science, we need to call it science and show that it is indeed science. This's why we're where we are here and in academia. Creationists on the whole have capitulated and allowed ourselves to get where we are, with secularists running the show.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

In Message 227 I said, "The topic is whether standards are being unevenly applied here at EvC Forum. Before one can answer this question, one must establish what the standards are."In other words, if there's a standard other than science that you'd like to apply, please give us a couple examples, or at least describe it. I think Nosy's inquiry is on-topic, and an answer might provevery helpful toward moving the discussion forward.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Buzzsaw,

quote:

---

There are forums here for both the strictly theological in faith and belief and for science. Your argument essentially confines us to faith and belief forum, when in fact, when talking origins, mutation, scientific law application and so forth, we need to, as creationists, be allowed to apply ID to our scientific views in discussion and debate.

---

I do think your approach is correct. However, I think it is additionally both useful and necessary to invite Ev's to step outside of science and engage there as well. They are choosing not to, but it is important that they acknowledge the hypocracy of failing to do so. But, more importantly, it is essential that Christians invite others to explore God's Word. Scripture is the ultimate authority. God's law will do more to convict those He has called to Him then our buffoonery.

messed up and doubled postThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-20-2004 01:55 PM

It seems to me that in the Faith and Belief forum there have been endless discussions about what the Bible has to say. I mostly read them over but have very little to say on the topic. What I do see is endless discussions that produce little clarity. On occasion I see someone saying that a particular passages says something that it clearly, to me, doesn't and I shrug and realize we will agree to disagree. There is damm little other evidence to bring to bear so it seems that the disagreements will never be settled.Unlike the science fora no one ever seems to be able to suggest some way to distinguish between competing ideas. The arguments go around and around and the number of angels dancing on the pinhead is never settled.

quote:

---

In other words, if there's a standard other than science that you'd like to apply, please give us a couple examples, or at least describe it.

---

I think my message 276 describes it. Relevent to this debate is science, the Bible, history, philosophy, prophesy, and perhaps more things. We should gladly welcome these areas, else, as I said, Ev's are hijacking by limiting a discussion that includes more factors than they are willing to entertain.