|
|
#41
11-22-2006, 05:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
You then neglect to create or allow the concept of fire to exist anywhere in the world. [/ QUOTE ] But the tree of knowledge did exist. Forgiveness of sins in Christ exists. I don't get your point. 
|
|
#43
11-22-2006, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think I phrased it that way - if I did, it was incomplete. A more complete statement, which I think all Reformed theologians would agree with, and most Christian theologians of any consequence, would be something like: Genuine scientific facts do not contradict a correct interpretation of the Bible. [/ QUOTE ] Or rather: The correct interpretation of the Bible is that which no genuine scientific facts contradict.
|
|
#44
11-22-2006, 06:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] No matter how you twist it around, once you grant that God intervenes, you deny free-will, and ultimately deny God the gratitude of a being who has it. [/ QUOTE ] I don't follow the logic of this. Take an analogy - you tell your child not to stick his hand in the fire then leave him alone but watch him. Just when he's about to stick his hand in the fire you stop him. Did you prevent him from exercising free will? [/ QUOTE ] The child never had free-will. Your ability to intervene denied it. You can't have a power to intervene and a free-will. The existence of one precludes the existence of the other.
|
|
#45
11-22-2006, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't think I phrased it that way - if I did, it was incomplete. A more complete statement, which I think all Reformed theologians would agree with, and most Christian theologians of any consequence, would be something like: Genuine scientific facts do not contradict a correct interpretation of the Bible. [/ QUOTE ] Or rather: The correct interpretation of the Bible is that which no genuine scientific facts contradict. [/ QUOTE ] Precisely. Is this distinction beyond you, NR?
|
|
#46
11-22-2006, 06:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
The child never had free-will. Your ability to intervene denied it. You can't have a power to intervene and a free-will. The existence of one precludes the existence of the other. [/ QUOTE ] Err - so children dont have free-will since their parents have the power to intervene? I thought you were a believer in free-will [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
|
|
#47
11-22-2006, 06:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
You should've posted this in my thread. ... http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=2#Post8059476 [/ QUOTE ] I love the "didn't you see that other thread about science and religion?" implication in this post
|
|
#48
11-22-2006, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
The child never had free-will. Your ability to intervene denied it. [/ QUOTE ] The ability to intervene denied the results of the child's exercise of his free will.
|
|
#49
11-22-2006, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
Precisely. Is this distinction beyond you, NR? [/ QUOTE ] I see no difference in the two statements. What's the distinction?
|
|
#50
11-22-2006, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Free-for-All on Science and Religion
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The child never had free-will. Your ability to intervene denied it. [/ QUOTE ] The ability to intervene denied the results of the child's exercise of his free will. [/ QUOTE ] More it was the actual exercise of intervening that denied the results - the ability you had to intervene was merely a necessary but not sufficient condition.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
