> Re: T/D #1 (Theistic/Deistic definitions)
> Craig Rusbult (email@example.com)
> Thu, 23 Oct 1997 20:21:11 -0500
> Terry says,
> >I think that it is a severe compromise of the
> >Biblical perspective to create a category such as matter in random motion
> >(MIRM) in order to communicate. I'm all for communication but I'm not
> >about to let terms and concepts be introduced that essentially beg the
> >question and then force us to come up with convoluted models about how God
> >interacts with the world.
> Doesn't good communication require using terms that are understood by
> your reader/listener? If a person's worldview is that everything in the
> universe occurs due to "matter in random motion", MIRM accurately describes
> this view. Then this worldview can be contrasted with a theistic
> >Why is not the simplest thing to point out the
> >fundamental problem to start with? If we think that our belief in God is
> >that fundamental to our thinking about the universe, how can start the
> >discussion with the unbeliever on their terms, i.e. that it is possible to
> >think about the world without God.
> Because *they* do "think about the world without God."
> As an educator, I don't understand why it is problematic to "speak the
> language of a person" in order to help him learn a new concept. This is a
> fundamental principle of communication. Don't we often use terms (murder,
> hate, racism,...) to describe things that we don't agree with?
> Well, it's time to go now. I'll respond to the rest of Terry's post
> (and Allan's and Keith's) tomorrow morning.
> Craig R