>At 12:28 PM 4/15/98 -0500, J.D. Guzman wrote:
>>
>>Philosophically speaking I do believe in objective truth, however, I don't
>>think that humans are capable of understanding or acquiring it.
>
>Then I would assert that you don't really believe it exists.
Let me just say this every scientist believes in infinity, however, there
are few, and I would wager none, that understand the concept. Furthermore
there is certainly no way of aquiring infinity. None-the-less infinity
exist and is vastly important to many scientific theories. Now just because
infinity can't be fully understood, does that mean that it doesn't exist? I
surely hope that this is not the case, otherwise, the field of physics has a
lot of rethinking to do.
>>
>>Now you seem to base you premise on the "fact" that Christians can't
handle
>>observational data. Let me ask you, are Christians the only ones that
can't
>>handle observational data? I would venture to say that even among the
most
>>scientific of people there will always be a reluctance to avoid or
disregard
>>evidence that is contrary to ones opinions.
>
>Granted. But this is the argument my children used to give me when they
>wanted to go to a party that I didn't want them going to. "Johnny's dad
>lets him go!" They used to say. So instead of dealing with the way you and
>other anti-evolutionists OUGHT to behave, you merely point to the
>misbehavior of others. Well, those others are not Christians, are not held
>to a christian standard and are not supposed to be serving the Lord of
>Lords. Under this condition, who do you think OUGHT to behave better--the
>atheist or the Christian? What you are offering is like saying Johnny is
>dumb so I want to be dumb also. It is a self defeating position.
First of all let me clarify that I am far from being an anti-evolutionist,
however, I am disapointed at the way evolution is touted around as if it
were the only explanation to life.
The reason that I brought up the above argument was not to throw the
responsibility to the other side but rather to cause you to realize that
Christians aren't the only ones that can misinterpet facts, scientist can,
and do, too. In light of this shouldn't the question you asked be
suplumented with the additional question of how are we to know that
scientist are correct?
I admit that some Christians make the very bold assertions that the Earth is
only 6000-10000 years old. I will also tell you that when asked for some
decent evidence of this most people have nothing to say. Personally I find
the young earth theory very shakey, and I believe that even this is granting
it too much credibility. The flip side to all of this is that even in the
scientific arena we can find people that manipulate facts, and falsify data
to agree with their theories.
It is true, as you pointed out in you rhetorical question, that Christians
should be setting an example. Personally I am ashamed when Christians do
such ill mannered things, however, seeing how we are human I don't think
that there will be a stop to this any time in the near future.
>
>>Now I would like to ask you something Glenn. You have given me the
>>impression that you are a pretty devoted Christian, however, there is
>>something that strikes me inconsistent. You argue that we can't take the
>>Bible literally all the time, and that there are some things in the Bible
>>that are inaccurate.
>
>Can you refresh my memory on this. In general I tend to hold that the
>Genesis account is entirely historical. Is there a mis-spelling or two?
>yes. But that is well documented. So please remind me of specifically what
>you think I don't believe happened in the Scripture.
I would like to apologize for the above comment. I made the mistake of
confusing you with someone else.
>
> Now let me ask you this, if there is one thing that is
>>inaccurate in the Bible, then how can we be sure that any of the Bible is
>>right? How do we know what parts of the Bible are correct and which ones
>>are not? Personally I think that either we accept the whole of the Bible
as
>>true and admit that there are things that we can't understand, or we
>>attribute the whole text to the imagination of man in an attempt to find
>>purpose to his life. To argue for a middle ground is like walking on
>>quicksand.
>
>To tell a young christian who is going into geology that the entire
geologic
>column doesn't exist, or that overthrusts don't exist is to condemn that
>person to have a crisis of faith when he finds that what the Christians
told
>is is false. Similarly to tell him that all the rocks can be explained by a
>global flood will also condemn him to that crisis when he learns that
>burrows and footprints (which can not be transported by the waters of the
>global flood) are plentiful throughout the geologic column.
>
>And he will eventually ask the same question I just asked. If Christians
>are not trustworthy in getting their facts correct, and the earlier
>Christians weren't trustworthy either, how can one know that there was a
>resurrection when it was reported by the original christians whose veracity
>we can't check.
Well it is true that this Christian will in all likelihood be start to ask
himself questions as he progresses in his education; however, I don't think
that this would happen if the Bible wasn't taken as scientific text. The
Bible main purpose is to be a spiritual guide, and due to the content it can
also be considered a historical document.
As to the resurrection that is believed by faith. That it is documented in
a book called the Bible is secondary. Even if the Bible didn't exist I
would still accept the resurrection, because I have faith that it happened.
Best Regards,
J.D. Guzman