As I have already said, I am not prepared to accept Kevin's attempt to
re-word *my* criteria.
Kevin asked the question "For example, what evidence or argument would
he [Stephen] accept as proof that he is wrong?" and I in good faith posted
seven lines of "evidence or argument" which would cause me to reconsider
my position about TE/ECs having been taken captive (to varying degrees)
to scientific materialistic-naturalistic philosophy (Col 2:8).
Jonathan is a TE/EC and he apparently thought my seven criteria were
reasonable.
Now it seems that Kevin fears that if he addresses my seven lines of
"evidence or argument" (which *he* asked me for), he might confirm that I
am right! Well that is Kevin's problem. I take his failure to be straight-forward
in this as evidence that I *am* right!
Unless Kevin addresses my criteria that *he* asked me for, I am not
prepared to waste any more time with him on this.
Steve
On Wed, 22 Sep 1999 00:57:54 EDT, Biochmborg@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 9/19/99 4:22:03 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
>sejones@iinet.net.au writes:
>
>> >>>KO>...I for one would appreciate it if Stephen would be gracious enough
>to
>> >>>explain how we "TE/ECs" should "rationally discuss" his assesment
>> >>>that we have been "taken 'captive' by a 'hollow and deceptive
>philosophy'
>> >>>(Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-naturalism", such that "the 'E'
>> >>>part of 'TE/EC'" controls "the Christian 'T' part."
>>
>> >>KO>For example, what
>> >>>evidence or argument would he accept as proof that he is wrong?
>>
>> >SJ>Thanks to Kevin for asking! I would be prepared to reconsider my claim
>> >>that "TE/ECs...have" to varying degrees "been taken `captive' by a
>`hollow
>> >>and deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), if TE/ECs:
>>
>
>It has now become apparent to me that Stephen has completely misunderstood
>what I was asking him to do, but at the same time I also misunderstood
>Stephen. Let me try to explain.
>
>Stephen claims that "TE/ECs" have been "taken 'captive' by a 'hollow and
>deceptive philosophy' (Col 2:8), namely scientific materialism-naturalism".
>He claims that he is willing to accept that he is wrong, but only if "TE/ECs"
>will "rationally discuss" the issue. This is where I misunderstood him. I
>originally believed that he meant he might be wrong about "scientific
>materialism-naturalism" being a "'hollow and deceptive philosophy'", when in
>fact he meant that he might be wrong about "TE/ECs" having been "taken
>'captive'" by it. In other words, believing as he does that "scientific
>materialism-naturalism" is a "'hollow and deceptive philosophy'", he believes
>that anyone who denies it has been "taken 'captive'" by it. As such he would
>admit that he is wrong about this belief only if these same people were to
>admit that "scientific materialism-naturalism" is a "'hollow and deceptive
>philosophy'" and that they had been "taken 'captive'" by it (though
>presumably not anymore). Based on this scenario, Stephen's answers to my
>questions would in fact be appropriate.
>
>However, where Stephen misunderstood me was in assuming that I saw the
>situation as he did. I believe that Stephen is not only wrong when he claims
>that "TE/ECs" have been "taken 'captive'", I also believe he is wrong to
>claim that "scientific materialism-naturalism" is a "'hollow and deceptive
>philosophy'", that it adversely influences the thinking of "TE/ECs" and that
>"TE/ECs" are trying combine it with Christianity. As such, when I asked him
>what evidence or argument he would accept as proof that he was wrong, I meant
>wrong about everything, not just the one thing he was willing to admit to.
>
>As such, in fairness I withdraw my previous complainbts about his answers,
>but also in fairness I now request that he describe what kind of evidence or
>argument he would accept that would convince him:
>
>1. that "scientific materialism-naturalism" is not "a hollow and deceptive
>philosophy"
>2. that the scientific thinking of "TE/ECs" has not "been adversely
>influenced by scientific materialism-naturalism" and
>3. that "TE/ECs" are not "trying to combine the two competing philosophies
>of Christian theism and scientific materialism-naturalism".
>
>I believe this is a reasonable request that anyone who would want to discuss
>this issue rationally should have no trouble fulfilling-*unless* they are
>only interested in justifying their beliefs and forcing others to agree with
>them. The ball is now back in the
>Stephen's court!
>
>Kevin L. O'Brien
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen E. (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ Email: sejones@iinet.net.au
3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Web: http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
Warwick 6024 -> *_,--\_/ Phone: +61 8 9448 7439
Perth, Western Australia v "Test everything." (1 Thess. 5:21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------