To the unredeemed the gospel is foolishness
I am not ashamed of the gospel because is the power of God unto
>Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 20:06:22 -0500
>From: "John P. McKiness" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Glenn and John continue.
>This will be my last post on this issue, I will leave the last word to
>I have enjoyed the discussion but it is time to go on to other things.
>At 09:23 PM 9/12/97 -0500, you wrote:
>>Therein lies the problem of objective data. IF as you say the
>>data is contradictory to the Biblical account, they why should we
>>the Biblical account and especially what reason is there to say it is
>>divinely inspired? Is God unable to inspire truth in an author?
>The difference lies in perspective and interpretation. Once we accept
>the Bible has the authority of God behind it, all we can do is accept
>it says. At some point you have to make the leap of faith -- I took
>accepting Christ and in accepting the Bible as God's revelation to me.
>There is no higher authority to me.
>I pray that when you find that you cannot make science and faith meld
>will be ready to make the leap also so that your faith may grow in
>the lack of "supporting" evidence.
>John said in his last post:
>>>I agree with you that Christ's resurrection is part of the
cornerstone of our
>>>faith, in that it is part of Christ. I also do not doubt the
>>>your statement of nearly becoming an atheist (another faith statement
>>>way) because of the irrational nature of the Flood in the light of
>>>reasoning. It is because of this that I continue. As long as you
>>>a high value on human reason your faith will always be secondary and
>>>danger. I believe that you (and those who believe they can bridge
>>>between faith and science) have taken the humanistic step of making
>>>something human the final judge of all things. In other words, you
>>>saying that if I cannot prove god's revelation I will have nothing to
>>>with the idea of him. This is part of the mentality that gets us in
>>Not prove, support. I said that a few days ago and we need to get
>>straight. ONE CANNOT PROVE GOD'S REVELATION. One can support it with
>Sorry about that, I glad we agree that we can not prove revelation.
>But, from my reading of your posts for the last 1.75 years I believe
>"support" equals most people's prove. I better make it clear that I
>scientific evidence which would support the Genesis flood or any of
>activity, but instead the entire known record appears to deny it.
>>>Glenn responded earlier in part with:
>>>> I have had Mormons say exactly the same thing to me only reversed.
>>>>claim that the Spirit of God speaks to them of the truth of their
>>>>your standard you can't dispute with them.
>I returned with:
>>>I've been there and done that and disputing with them is a waste of
>>Why? Assume for the sake of argument they are the correct ones and we
>>wrong. Is disputing with them a waste of time? See, you have decided
>>you will have faith in Jesus, a particular faith. Evidence has no
>>on that faith anymore than evidence has a bearing on the beliefs of a
>>young-earth creationist. They also believe what they believe with out
>>attention to the evidence.
>As to disputing about faith matters with anyone, it is a waste of time.
>sharing with other people my belief in Jesus Christ and how He is
>building my faith is my duty as a Christian.
>> In my opinion, both approaches, yours and the
>>YECs is nothing more than deciding a priori what is correct then never
>>varying or looking back. There is nothing to doubt. I find that truly
>>because the fun is in the struggle to understand things and without
>>doubt, one can never grow in his beliefs. It is doubt about our
>>which spurs us on to solve the problems.
>Sorry Glenn, but I do not see how doubt helps one grow in faith. I am
>the point where I doubt that there has been any value in my post high
>education, I am preparing to dropping the pursuit for a degree that has
>me deeply into debt after 29 years and, at the age of 47, I am now
>figure out what my calling is if it is not teaching geology.
>I really don't see how doubt is very helpful to faith, trusting in
>what builds faith not physical evidence and reason. After all,
>evidence and reason lead Job's wife to say "Curse God and die!" In
>of depression and despair, only faith in my Fathers Love is important
>But who is it that pays attention to evidence and then bends the
>"support" his faith, I sorry to say it is you and the YEC's (I am also
>to say that I see very little faith expressed by that group as a whole,
>I see no reason to believe in Christ from their work). Glenn, I'm
>say as a geologist, your model of a restricted flood in the Med. Sea
>(a flood that in the eastern basin most mammals of the time could have
>walked away from) without evidence of any organism we could call man at
>time (5.5 m.y.) is about as farfetched as any wildly speculative "flood
>geology" "theory" I've seen.
>I gave up on creationists of all strips, and their literature, years
>well as any attempt to reconcile faith statements and human reason. I
>learned that as Christians we must learn to live in the dichotomy, very
>little in our faith is supportable by physical evidence. Think about
>there any convincing, supporting evidence for us in the late 20th
>that God exists? If not, how can you believe what you read in the
>why do you even waste time reading it? Why are you on a crusade to
>your idea of where and when Noah's flood occurred especially when it
>agree with either Scripture or valid scientific interpretation of the
>Glenn said in his last post:
>>John, I am not going to let go of the breakfast problem yet. By your
>>definition, everything requires faith and can't be proven. You are
>>correct, but that trivializes all knowledge. When I read a
>>report, I have to have faith that the scientist is not making it all
>>(some have). If I can only count proven things which require no
>>no fact of science is so proven. In that case, there is no
>>between science and religion. No way to tell a good scientific theory
>>bad one. I can believe whatever I want. Should I dust off my former
>>beliefs? If not why not?
>I do not argue against the value of human reason or science or another
>person's word unless I learn that they are untrustworthy; but I
>reject the idea that we can do science (or human reason) to "support"
>(Since I eat breakfast alone, at this point you'll have to accept my
>for the fact that I had breakfast this morning, if you can't -- to bad,
>your problem not mine because I didn't go hungry.)
>Glenn wrote in an earlier post:
>>>>John in 1 John 1:1 says, "That which was from the beginning, which
>>>>heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and
>>>>hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the Word of Life."
>>>>These are all appeals to observational evidence.
>>>It sounds to me as though I have to accept by faith the statements of
>>>someone else, this is not an "appeal to observational evidence."
>>Yes it is, you accept the words of the scientist who writes papers in
>>journals. When you read Science or nature, what observational
>>you see? Charts? Tables? I can draw pretty charts and tables that
>>observational content whatsoever. Why do you believe the testimony
>>veracity of your fellow scientists and not the trustworthiness of the
>>apostles? Both reports must be believed by faith.
>>Foundation, Fall and Flood
>Glenn somewhere along the line you have missed what I have been saying.
>agree that in order to do science I have to have faith in the authors
>papers I read, but I am also obligated to read through the procedures
>results to see if I accept that the author's interpretation of his
>reasonable. I also have to have faith in the orderliness of the
>and that God (if He exists) isn't going to arbitrarily change the rules
>every 10 minutes and leave the evidence of the past rules. If I don't
>those assumption I cannot do science.
>But in accepting what other scientist say in their articles I accept
>statements by the evidence they present _not the original objective,
>observational evidence_ that they had available to them. The authors
>those articles probably had to chuck much of the data and observations
>gathered because they assumed it was irrelevant to their study (In
>words they had to confine their study and cull all available data in
>way). Remember in science the information we gather is determined by
>questions we ask and the data we believe addresses the questions.
>But I also do not place the same value on human reasoning (either mine
>anyone else) as I do the revelation of God. And I see no hope of
>reconciling God's revelation with statements of human reason (or of
>being given or being able to redeem science, culture etc., as Reformed
>acquaintances have told me is our Christian duty). To me all things
>except Jesus Christ and His redeemed siblings, will be destroyed in the
>refining fire. This is why I believe there are in fact two knowledges
>(truths), they are no way equal. Human reason is clouded in sin an
>approach God or understand His ways. God must enlighten us by His
>revelation and He requires faith, which is only supported by His
>This is the message, I believe, we need to get out to Christians at all
>levels, because faith that requires the weight of human reason can
>in Christ and cannot survive in this age.
>Glenn, I do not see where we can go from here so these are my last
>the subject. I accept at this point that we agree on very little
>the idea that science can support Christian faith, I pray that in the
>will agree in faith on our Redeemer. It has been an interesting and
>stretching experience. Thank you for this joust of words.
>In Him only,
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com