Re: Pejudice? Cowardice? Re: A Peace Proposal

From: wallyshoes <>
Date: Sun Feb 01 2004 - 20:40:58 EST

Glenn Morton wrote:

> I think I agree with George Murphy. You have lost perspective. Both views
> can not be true at the same time. Thus one is true; the other false. To
> give moral equivalence to Truth and Falsehood (which ever the case is with
> regard to the age of the earth) is simply a flawed activity. All of us have
> a moral obligation to do our best to ascertain the truth in all matters.
> Given the mutual exclusivity of the two positions, one side or the other is
> simply not doing what they should to ascertain the truth. So, I find your
> approach entirely flawed.

I agree with you that they cannot both be true. However, I cannot see any bullet
proof way to determine which is true and which is false. To take a position that
one knows which is correct is what leads to the conflict (from both sides).

None of the data you present refutes a YEC belief in a world in which the
history simply exists. It is equally valid for them to proclaim that *you* are
the person who does not accept scripture and who's view is fundamentally flawed.

You may agree with George Murphy on YECs, but agreement does not make your
position correct. What you need to do is present a case that is sufficiently
compelling to convince a YEC. If you could present one, I'd be happy to carry it
forward at my church. So far the arguments I hear are not compelling enough for
me to contest the YEC viewpoint Im have presented ----- and I am not talking
about debating the voodoo science of ICR.

Do you have the persuasive argument or not?

(no brains in a vat please).

> To claim that the individual lay follower of
> either position is excempt from blame is like saying the German citizens who
> lived through the holocaust but did and said nothing were blameless. They
> weren't. The laity on one side or the other isn't entirely blameless. To
> act as if they are sheep denies them their humanity and ability to think for
> themselves. They choose not to think.

 I note that you and George have very fundamentally different views of how to
interpret scripture. Only one can be Truth and the other must be Falsehood.
Outside of your mutual alliance against YECs, which of you is correct? As you
have said above, both cannot be correct and one of you needs to stand corrected.
Otherwise is it not like the Germans citizens in WW II?


Walt Hicks <>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
Received on Sun Feb 1 20:41:34 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 20:41:34 EST