The cultivation of a lively faith contains learning and growth.

"A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: to understand a proverb, and the interpretation." [Prov. 1:5,6]

There are 8 rules for Biblical Interpretation but they're no substitute for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The Eight Rules of Biblical Interpretation
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/b02.html

It doesn't matter how 'encyclopedic' his mind appears to be. What matters is that as soon as a person (WLC) says a source of information can never be wrong (in this case, the Bible), even if all the evidence contradicts it, this person's scientific opinion is invalidated.

I take it you are unable to answer my question.

I don't really enjoy the debating spirit these days and I don't feel compelled to be controlled by a question if there's a better one to think about.

lol

BeaucoupFish, your question just isn't worthy of a response from Splendour.

This is very dishonest. You don't like the spirit of debate? You should remember you are one half of this sub-"debate". Do you and I have any history? I'd say no. And you are here voluntarily.

Back OT: On the topic of evolution, ganstaman said that only those with a good understanding should be listened to. You replied "no everyone should be listened to". I responded that you clearly don't hold that view yourself when it comes to, say, scripture (surely you won't deny you don't hold an atheist's interpretation of scripture as being particularly valid), so why do you feel differently when it comes to something like the ToE?

Interesting coming from a spiritualist who spends the majority of her time on this forum doing just that

I don't think I want to exchange posts with someone who just called me dishonest.

Did my dishonesty come before or after your last question?

I'd say you had me prejudged before you asked the question. So who's really the dishonest one?

I'd also say its more dishonest of you to try and control another human being like you have a right to be an authority over them than it is for me to take a different tack on a question.

I think you should put Richard Dawkins side by side with William Lane Craig and study them.

Aren't they both rather similar. Aren't both intellectuals with encyclopedic knowledge on subjects.

The difference is in their degree of graciousness or gentility. I'd say WLC is more gracious than Dawkins. Another old fashioned word is "gentility". I'd say WLC shows a greater degree of gentility than Dawkins though both try to act like gentlemen. WLC has that fully regenerate quality a great gentleman has so therefore he is more persuasive because of his demeanour.

gra·cious (grshs)
adj.
1. Characterized by kindness and warm courtesy.
2. Characterized by tact and propriety: responded to the insult with gracious humor.
3. Of a merciful or compassionate nature.
4. Condescendingly courteous; indulgent.
5. Characterized by charm or beauty; graceful.
6. Characterized by elegance and good taste: gracious living.
7. Archaic Enjoying favor or grace; acceptable or pleasing.


Definition of gentility (n)

gen·til·i·ty

[ jen tíllətee ]


1.refinement: courteous and well-mannered behavior, especially when it suggests an upper-class background
2.upper-class status: the status or way of life of somebody from the upper classes
3.pretentiousness: exaggeratedly refined, delicate, or snobbish behavior, affected in order to create an impression of higher social status

I never feel any pretentiousness from WLC like I do from Dawkins when I watch both of them make presentations. WLC is pure class....Dawkins is almost classy but he somehow falls short...

Are you really trying to suggest that someone could possibly have control over you by asking questions on a message board? This is even after you have actually demonstrated that you have compete control over your actions by ignoring my question?

If you had responded that you simply held the two situations to different standards, at least I would appreciate your honesty, and maybe you would even explain why you held them to different standards. But when you just start dodging questions in the middle of an on-going dialog, what am I supposed to think?

Your perspective is so different to my own and I find that fascinating, so want to know more. But what is the point of asking you anything beyond the mundane if you have no interest in reciprocating any real discussion? Believe it or not, I bet there are many posters in RGT that are also fascinated by your position and want to try and understand it more. It is so disappointing that it seems that you try and find any possible excuse to quote scripture in response to someones questions, even when it is not directly relevant. We want to hear what Splendour thinks, not what Splendour quotes. Be true to your "Location" mantra

WLC is a dishonest person, and a liar. He'll say on one had that he's open to changing his mind, and then on the other hand he says he'll never change his mind even if all the evidence contradicts the bible.

This is something you can never say about Dawkins (and the vast majority of atheists). And maybe it's just me, but I'll take honesty over not being pretentious everyday.

Sorry I can't agree with you.

I know you don't have a good enough grasp on Christian concepts to even know where WLC is coming from.

Huh?

I'm a Christian we study God's thoughts to try to follow Him. That requires trying to think like Him.

He's coming from the land of HeadInSand.

edit: nm