tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post1238308410549652464..comments2023-05-24T07:02:16.492-07:00Comments on By Whose Authority?: By Whose Authority? (2)Catz206http://www.blogger.com/profile/02414685937358420034noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-80088128297990312942008-07-31T22:14:00.000-07:002008-07-31T22:14:00.000-07:00NathanaelI truly appreciate the time you have take...Nathanael<BR/><BR/>I truly appreciate the time you have taken to address my comments. I completely agree with you regarding natural theology.<BR/><BR/>Response: Awesome, thank you too!<BR/><BR/> However, where do we draw the line on what God has inherently placed in us? There are things that we can know about God and there are things in theology that simply "make sense." We can all agree on that.Nathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-74025826285144163282008-07-31T11:03:00.000-07:002008-07-31T11:03:00.000-07:00Let me qualify my statement regarding the number o...Let me qualify my statement regarding the number of interpreters necessary for right doctrine. <BR/><BR/>In the Protestant model, each individual is responsible for his own interpretation. That either means that we have millions of individuals needed to agree on "one truth" or we have millions of independent "churches." This actually contradicts the concept of church to begin with as a church David Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07326177059975202341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-46004312751830851672008-07-31T06:28:00.000-07:002008-07-31T06:28:00.000-07:00So you are saying that a circle was once believed ...So you are saying that a circle was once believed to be the orbital path, but based on later testing, it was found that an ellipse actually mathematically works. Are you suggesting that a circular equation exists? It sounds as if you are saying that both can be proven, but we accept the simpler (elliptical path) because the math is easier...are you sure that we don't accept the elliptical David Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07326177059975202341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-36222102899286029092008-07-31T00:05:00.000-07:002008-07-31T00:05:00.000-07:00"By circles being simpler I meant that a circle is..."By circles being simpler I meant that a circle is only defined by a radius and a center, while an ellipse needs a minor axis, major axis and focii. "<BR/><BR/>Yes I know. What I'm saying is that Ockham's Razor was rightfully applied to our understanding of the planets' orbits because the MATH behind an elliptical model is simpler than the math behind a circular model. <BR/><BR/>So, yes, a David N.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00774829757737151477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-60796679543658795312008-07-30T23:47:00.000-07:002008-07-30T23:47:00.000-07:00David,By circles being simpler I meant that a circ...David,<BR/>By circles being simpler I meant that a circle is only defined by a radius and a center, while an ellipse needs a minor axis, major axis and focii. <BR/><BR/>It seems like you are all working from the premise that scripture is the inspired Word of God, simply because it makes sense to you. I find that premise to be very difficult to accept. <BR/><BR/>At what point in your life did David Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07326177059975202341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-86952401037174124592008-07-30T19:13:00.000-07:002008-07-30T19:13:00.000-07:00David,I don't have too much to say here, I'll let ...David,<BR/><BR/>I don't have too much to say here, I'll let Nate respond for himself. But there are a few things you said that I felt I should comment on.<BR/><BR/>"If the simplest theory always won out, then we would still believe that the planets orbit in a circle rather than an ellipse; as a circle is much more simple than an ellipse. "<BR/><BR/>Actually, this is incorrect. We currently David N.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00774829757737151477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-66738952582281492352008-07-30T18:46:00.000-07:002008-07-30T18:46:00.000-07:00NathanaelI truly appreciate the time you have take...Nathanael<BR/><BR/>I truly appreciate the time you have taken to address my comments. I completely agree with you regarding natural theology. However, where do we draw the line on what God has inherently placed in us? There are things that we can know about God and there are things in theology that simply "make sense." We can all agree on that. However, we cannot appeal to "right reason" in David Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07326177059975202341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-33598412444330895452008-07-29T03:04:00.000-07:002008-07-29T03:04:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-20582452232451129542008-07-27T16:39:00.000-07:002008-07-27T16:39:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.David Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07326177059975202341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-44899305404782269382008-07-27T16:38:00.000-07:002008-07-27T16:38:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.David Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07326177059975202341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-42148506423884049642008-07-27T16:11:00.000-07:002008-07-27T16:11:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-25998271294092644592008-07-27T15:52:00.000-07:002008-07-27T15:52:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Catz206https://www.blogger.com/profile/02414685937358420034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-84964513673870948402008-07-27T14:44:00.000-07:002008-07-27T14:44:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-41179664818557160672008-07-27T07:48:00.000-07:002008-07-27T07:48:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.David Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07326177059975202341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-74866574678894059082008-07-26T16:59:00.000-07:002008-07-26T16:59:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nathanael P. Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13545397078211884885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2109883109617013273.post-30926654045363426272008-07-25T23:23:00.000-07:002008-07-25T23:23:00.000-07:00The problem with your premise is that the "church"...The problem with your premise is that the "church" is chronologically prior to scripture. Oral tradition, heirarchy, teaching authority, etc. were all in place before a word of scripture was written. Without a teaching authority, it is impossible to correctly interpret scripturre.David Coxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07326177059975202341noreply@blogger.com