RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (and now the flood)

It pains me to say this but unfortunately I agree with you here. They don't see it but its the same error as YEC but they just concede more to science before they dig their heels in and go into denial. Its just a matter of degree although comparatively it is WAY better than YEC.

Albeit well intentioned, they do put defending their concordist and literal interpretation of the Bible before the truth. They are trying to have it both ways but it just doesn't work. I have come to believe that God never intended for the scrpitures what we try to make out of them. The danger of this is that they get labeled as "Liars for Jesus" and that one is a hard one to counter.

John

--- On Fri, 10/31/08, Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com> wrote:

> From: Dehler, Bernie <bernie.dehler@intel.com>
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (and now the flood)
> To: "asa@calvin.edu" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Date: Friday, October 31, 2008, 1:18 PM
> Personally, I don't think the goal of Hugh Ross is to
> follow the truth wherever it leads. I think his goal is to
> defend the Bible in the atmosphere of an attack from
> science, and the YEC position is not viable, which leaves
> him and his OEC interpretation. Therefore, he's trying
> to defend the Bible by using as much science as possible.
> If he were to accept evolution, he'd have to change his
> theological interpretation, and I think his theological
> interpretation comes first.
>
> Sometimes science demands a new theological interpretation,
> and he's resisting that... probably for the sake of
> keeping the faith the same as it always was
> (traditionalism), even in the face of modern science.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Ted Davis
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2008 6:48 AM
> To: James Patterson; asa@calvin.edu; john_walley@yahoo.com
> Cc: bstuart@reasons.org
> Subject: RE: [asa] Advice for conversing with YECs (and now
> the flood)
>
> >>> John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com>
> 10/31/2008 7:56 AM >>> writes:
>
> I agree with RTB and ID on general principles if they
> wouldn't deny and
> spin CD and they wouldn't try to overplay their hand
> and call faith science.
>
>
> Ted comments:
> This reflects Hugh Ross' personal approach to religious
> faith. I've heard
> him speak several times, and every time I come away with
> the overwhelming
> impression that he is a modern Cartesian--he requires
> absolute proof for
> something before he will "believe" it. It's
> a highly unusual attitude for a
> religious person, in my experience. I understand
> everything I just wrote,
> but I don't understand it all.
>
> He seems to strike a chord with many Christians, however,
> judging from the
> size and influence of his ministry. IMO, however, he puts
> far too much
> confidence in science's ability to generate indubitable
> propositions, and
> he's set the bar for religious belief far too high.
> Whatever happened to
> Polanyi's insight that we often need to commit to
> things that we can't be
> sure about?
>
> Ted
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the
> message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 31 15:42:21 2008