Dear All I certainly support this line of reasoning. Tested reality …

Comment on Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians by Ken.

Dear All

I certainly support this line of reasoning. Tested reality is our best objective tool for understanding the nature of things. I just don’t agree that those tests should get shoe horned into anyone’s pre selected footwear. Best to lake off the shoes and walk barefoot.

Feeling the ontological sand between my toes,
Ken

Ken Also Commented

Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
Re: The Extent of Human Reason

Prof Kent’s Quote

“Stop the heresy and blasphemy! THE BIBLE CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO HUMAN REASON.”

Philip’s Quote

“Even a modified use of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists.”

Dear All

What a rational conundrum. How is one to decide that the Bible is superior to human reason if one cannot use human reason?

This is why when Erv says tongue in cheek that Sean is on a heroic crusade he is right. Sean is trying to overcome this irrational approach by saying there is a rational, empirical basis for belief in the Bible. Whether he can do so remains to be seen, but at least he comprehends the need and I think this is a rational approach.

On the other hand the progressive Adventists understand that the sheer magnitude of scientific evidence supports evolution and are trying to reconcile this with their faith. That is a rational approach as well.

I have watched with interest as the various camps try to use facets of church doctrine to claim they are right. There is only one legitimate way to solve the problem. The ruling body of the church needs to step forward and issue an edict. Otherwise the controversy will prevail to the detriment of the Church. Church leadership is required.

I hope this helps.

your agnostic friend
Ken


Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
Re Philip’s Quote

“The Seventh-day Adventist Church endorsed the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation in the 1986 Annual Council. In so doing, the Church expressly rejected the Historical-Critical hermeneutic of biblical interpretation, as reflected in this statement: “Even a modified use of this method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists.” AR, Jan. 22, 1987. The 1986 Annual Council action is reflective of what has been orthodox theology of the Church during the past 147 years.”

Dear Sean

Is this true or not true?

Regards
Ken


Why those who hate the Bible love blind-faith Christians
Dear Adventist Friends

Perhaps it is just my personal observation by I discern a certain warming of hearts as of late.

I have many fond memories of Christmas. It is by far, still, my favourite time of year. Christianity and Christmas has and still have a profound, wonderful impact upon the world. On Christmas Eve, as I have always do, I will attend the neighbourhood church to enjoy the simple service. There I will hold a candle of peace and share the warm fellowship of my neighbours, notwithstanding what they or I might believe.

I hope you and yours have a wonderful Christmas. I’ll be thinking fondly about all of you.

Peace on earth goodwill to men.
your agnostic friend Ken


Recent Comments by Ken

Supreme Court Decision on Church Employment Case
Hi Bob

I asked once before and I’ll ask again: what is your background and expertise in biology?

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
Re: What every human being on the planet believes?

Empirically, as i don’t have blind faith I could know this, perhaps it could only be a divine being that could do so. šŸ™‚

Always open to correction though to those that know the absolute truth,

I remain,
Your agnostic friend
Ken


A “Christian Agnostic”?
Re Bob’s Quote

“But we can “observe” that the making of complex systems (and books, and works of art and science) is done by “creators” every day – observable, repeatable, testable. A mechanism proven to work.”

Hi Bob

Thanks for your comments.

This may surprise you but I’m actually intrigued by the design argument. My Dad is a Deist although I’m not of that bent, at least not yet! The laws of nature, i.e. gravity, that even allow the universe to exist are pretty marvelous. Did they arise as a result of a random quantum fluctuation or was their Grand Designer behind it all. If so what is or was the nature of such designer based on what we empirically observe about our universe?

The problem I have with intelligent design within our universe and especially regarding life on earth is theodicy. I do understand how the concept of original biblical sin accounts for the loss of perfection, but I have a very tough time understanding why a God would cause such destruction of his creation based on the disobedience of the literal eating of an apple. I just can’t rationally fathom how the eventual and natural demise of our solar system can be based on Man’s fall. Empirically, through science we can now view the death, and birth, of stars. Was this all caused by eating forbidden fruit?

Thus one must ask: why would a good, compassionate God create a Universe, and sentient life, that suffers and dies? Age old problem, that in my estimation has been allegorically resolved through the Genesis narrative.

Let’s move on to evolution. Micro evolution does not seem to be a problem for anyone. Life does adapt to its environment through genetic change. In my mind the issue becomes what happens over billions of years. After considering everything I have read to date I cannot honestly see an overwhelming case for a young earth. Moreover I have not read or heard anything yet that such a view can be scientifically supported by anyone without a biblical creationist bias. Given enough time great change will occur as evidenced by the vast diversity of life spread over every niche of our planet. Were there kangaroos on the Ark, or did they evolve in an isolated part of the world from whence they could not spread?

I don’t think evolution is a fraud or a hoax. Too many educated people of faith believe and accept it for it to be an atheist conspiracy. Have their been mistakes made and will they continue to be made? Are there dishonest scientists? Certainly. They are fallible humans, just like you and I, after all. But the issue is what does the weight of all the multidisciplinary evidence indicate?

Hope that helps

Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Yes, I am suggesting that our scientists should also be theologians to some degree. I’m also suggesting that our theologians be scientists to some degree as well. There should be no distinct dividing line between the two disciplines…”

Hello Sean

First of all, thank you Holly for your comments. You have always treated me with civility and charity for which I am most grateful.

Secondly, on reflection, I do hope I was not strident or offensive in my recent remarks. I am a guest here and should behave with the utmost respect regarding my Adventist hosts. After all I was proposing the Chair of ID at an ‘Adventist’ institution! What gall and temerity from an agnostic!

However something Dr. Kime said struck a very strange chord in me: that a Chair in ID at Harvard would be a quantum leap ( forward – my edit) while such a Chair would be a step backward at LSU. I’ m very sorry Wes, but for me to honestly investigate reality such double standard is not acceptable.

I am sad today, because I think I’m coming to the end of my Adventist journey. I really did see ID as a sort of bridge between your faith and objective inquiry about a ‘Grand’ Design. (apologies Mr. Hawkings). Oh Wes , perhaps I am ontological Don Quixote after all, comically tilting towards immovable Adventist windmills. šŸ™ .

However all is not forlorn because I’ve made excellent friends of the heart here. ;). I won’t forget you.

Good luck in your pursuit of God.

Goodbye
Your agnostic friend
Ken


Dr. Ariel Roth’s Creation Lectures for Teachers
Re Sean’s Quote

“Public association is one thing. Private association is another. While many do not feel at liberty to publicly associate themselves with our work here (for obvious reasons), most who still believe in SDA fundamentals (and who are aware of the longstanding situation at LSU and other places) feel that our work in providing enhanced transparency for what is being taught to our young people in our schools was/is necessary on some level.”

Hi Sean

The irony here is that those that are supporting institutional enhanced transparency are hiding behind cloaks of anonymity. That’s not how you, I, Wes, Bob Ryan, Wes, Bill Sorenson and many others here behave. Imagine if Jesus hid behind a cloak and didn’t proclaim his nature. What legacy of respect would he have left?

Conviction requires courage period.

Your agnostic friend
Ken