Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: curiosity

"Good. Calvinism is a vile, unscriptural heresy with a perverse view of God."

So I keep hearing. But somehow, what Calvinists say, even if I don't like how they say it, is making more and more sense to me. Just why is this?

It also looks like somehow you are relying on something your average scientist would say is unacceptable: that since we can't 'disprove' Eve was outright created by a miracle, the possibility it happened is acceptable ... on a rational basis. By this logic, I.D. is fully acceptable, scientifically, yes?

You are leaving room for 'miracles'. Within scientific rationalism, I don't see this as a rule - the possibility of miracles is expressly excluded. So, I confess, I am a bit confused by what you are meaning here:

"Sorry, but that's just not true. It's true that the TEO states that the first man was born of a subhuman mother. However, there is no scientific way to rule out the possibility that God then, with a miracle, created the first fully human woman so that he would not have to mate with subhumans."



315 posted on 09/29/2005 7:26:53 PM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies ]


To: gobucks
So I keep hearing. But somehow, what Calvinists say, even if I don't like how they say it, is making more and more sense to me. Just why is this?

I find Calvinism insidious because of its doctrine of double predestination and the denial of the universal salvific will of God. But let's not get off topic. We can come back to this later.

It also looks like somehow you are relying on something your average scientist would say is unacceptable: that since we can't 'disprove' Eve was outright created by a miracle, the possibility it happened is acceptable ... on a rational basis. By this logic, I.D. is fully acceptable, scientifically, yes?

Sure, so long as it remains a theological point and it is not claimed to be a scientific theory.

You are leaving room for 'miracles'. Within scientific rationalism,

I'm not sure what you mean by "scientific rationalism."

I don't see this as a rule - the possibility of miracles is expressly excluded.

Not at all. It is true that when a scientist seeks to explain a phenomenon, he tries to find natural explanations. However, this in no way implies that must believe miracles never happen. Indeed, many scientists are Christians, which means that they must believe that miracles occur sometimes.

316 posted on 09/29/2005 7:50:26 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson