Frames of Reference - Latest Comments

Re: The Probability of Evolution

Sunni Larsen — Wed, 16 May 2012 03:38:20 -0000

This is an incredible discussion. For one, I appreciate that most people have taken to addressing the issues at hand and have not resorted to elementary name calling and couched their arguments with "you're dumb" "I know you are but what am I?"

I am an intelligent follower of Jesus Christ and have wrestled through many of the discussions that have been postulated throughout this thread. I believe that most of the individuals in this thread are pretty intelligent as well and have done at least minimal research on the subject. I have a couple of comments that I would like to add to the discussion, if they might be fruitful.

1.) All analogies break down over time. Cards, license plates, etc. You cannot come up with a simple analogy to describe a complex series of events and expect it to hold up to extreme (and sometimes hostile) scrutiny. Let the analogies be what they will and focus on the main issues at hand.

2.) Mathematics, philosophy, science and, yes, even religion can work together to understand this "elephant" (to use another limited analogy). For example, there are no real negative numbers apart from mathematics, but they do help us figure out complex things in physics and trigonometry while providing a common ground for discussing things like how cold it gets in Canada. Religion doesn't answer exactly "how" things came to be, but rather focuses on why. For example, even given a literal 6 days of creation, there is no discussion as to how the "greater light" was formed, at what temperature, the distance from the earth and it's positional relation to the other "lesser lights" in the heavens. Science (true science) can observe how Micro-evolution has occurred over time and can approximate how old the universe is (with Mathematics' help). But science cannot answer why anything is here at all apart from chance. Philosophy loves the "why" (think worldview) and pushes all of us to come to a conclusion that we are all apparently passionate about. Religion gives a framework for where it all started and where it is going based upon an external source (a.k.a. God). Again, this is simplistic (one paragraph) and breaks down given enough scrutiny. Which leads me to my final point.

3.) We must recognize where in the discussion our understandings lie. Because they are an amalgam of each of these elements. If I philosophically don't believe in God, then from a religious standpoint I am A-Theistic in my religious preference. If there is no God, then there must be some other reason for why things are they way they are (Science for "how" and philosophy for why I even care). Science has given many proofs for current observable stasis in the universe and has effectively helped us to understand how things run. Science still can't help us understand why thing are they way they are, but at least we know that they "are" the way they are. For example, the Bible says nothing about how Cain and Able came to be, but we know through Science that it was more than just Adam and Eve holding hands and making out.

All of this to say, I think it would benefit us all to be able to delineate where our convictions lie and realize that they are a complex makeup of each of these elements and many more (Sociology, etc.). Scientific method demonstrates inconclusively that Micro-evolution has taken place. End of discussion. Science cannot and will most likely never be able to explain the origin of the universe and how something as complex as "life" can originate from no life. I mean if it really is that "likely", as some have suggested, then surely we would have found it in other places by now, even in our own galaxy, much less in our own solar system. If evolution just happens, then something must have happened on Jupiter, even if it is vastly different from our own evolutionary experiment. Without the scientific method, our discussion of origins has to revert to philosophy, religion and/or mathematics. Given that we cannot go back in time yet (please, future scientists, let it be a Delorean), we are left with Philosophical understandings as to the how and why it all happened, Religious understandings of at least why it all happened, and Mathematical understandings as to the probability of it happening at all.

I would suggest that if we all agree that we are all a marriage of each of these disciplines, we woud realize that our position is not as ironclad as we think it is. And neither is anyone else's. Let Mathematics help us understand the uniqueness of our situation. Let Philosophy drive us to individually ask ourselves why we are here and why we even care. Let Science help us understand how things work and how we can better use the limited resources we have on this planet to accomplish the most good. And let Religion help us define a framework that reminds us that we are not as big as we think we are.

Re: The Probability of Evolution

Darrin Yeager — Tue, 15 May 2012 14:13:33 -0000

seems as though you like taking things out of context…

Trying to read a giant monolithic brick of text is tough. I broke it up into paragraphs and messed up a break.

even if evolution turned out to be wrong there could still be other answers that would never be found if no one was looking

I don’t recall ever saying don’t look. But excluding areas of possibility (god), you’re not likely to come to a correct conclusion, and it’s not very scientific.

your confused about the evolution theory, your stuck on thinking its all about how life comes from no life. the theory assumes life can come from no life because we are here.

Spontaneous generation (POOF! Look ma, life!) is step 1 in the process. If you don’t have verifiable, repeatable experimental evidence, it’s not science, and you don’t have a foundation to build on.

Assuming life came from non life because we’re here isn’t science either. You need repeatable, verifiable experimental data. Where is it? No data, no science. Saying it happened in a certain way because we’re here is illogical; the same "logic" thus proves little green men put us here, after all, we’re here so it must be true. Those are both obviously errors in logic.

You must have repeatable, experimental data according to the scientific method, or you’ve only got philosophy, not science.

along with thousands of fossils, show evidence of evolutionary
development

And yet when that evidence is
asked for nobody seems to be able to provide it according to the
scientific method.

do you understand natural
selection? the advancement to more complex life is inevitable as long as
the environment allows.

Sorry, doesn’t work. Far from
inevitable (since the vast majority of mutations are bad), it won’t work.
Which is why even Dawkins
admits a higher power exists. If random chance doesn’t work (and it
doesn’t), you’re left with the idea some "god" (using the term
loosely) must be involved. NOBODY (well, nobody who scientifically looks at
the data) still holds to the classic natural selection (random mutations)
idea anymore. The only question remaining is: what higher power was
involved? And how much?

honestly i just cant believe in a milleniums old book that was
ultimately written by man … i have much more "faith" in current scientific
theories…

NOW we’re getting somewhere. You’re free to
believe whatever you want. God does/does not exist. Evolution did/did not
happen. The moon is made of cheese … whatever. That won’t make it true,
however, but anyone is free to believe whatever they want.

… but
those beliefs aren’t necessarily science.

Re: The Probability of Evolution

Chadingram6390 — Tue, 15 May 2012 06:48:30 -0000

IF evolution is false, you're missing the real answers already, right?
In other words, you've assumed what you're trying to prove in your
argument.

....even if evolution turned out to be wrong there could still be other answers that would never be found if no one was looking. and if you dont think mans theory of our existence is right why does one of the religions have to be right?

Give a list of the peer-reviewed experiments where life comes from
non-life, and matter comes from nothing. Much of the "evidence" is
*assumed*, not proved using the scientific method.

.....i think your confused about the evolution theory, your stuck on thinking its all about how life comes from no life. the theory assumes life can come from no life because we are here. just like christians assume everything in the bible is true without actually being able to know. the difference is when when evidence shows against the assumption in science its thrown out. evolution is more about the development of complex life from single or multi celled organisms, remember lucy? the "missing link"? evolution is how we "came from monkeeys" as christians say. the theory is only a couple hundred years old, slightly younger then the invention of electricity and far younger then anything in the bible. we still have a lot to learn and uncover. i hope i live another 50 years because this conversation would be very different, we can already help the blind see, bring people back to life i.e. CPR, defibrillators, we can part seas, i mean indoor plumbing has only been around for 150 years, i cant wait to see what we find next. we havnt even known about dna for a century yet, who knows the answer it may hold. why didn't you question any of my statements about fossil evidence of creatures populating the planet long long before homo sapiens? how does the bible take this into account? i realize these fossils were unknown at that time but now that we find out this information that contradicts the bible why would you disregard it? we've only had radiocarbon dating for 50 years, and it has shown us the previous timeline was way off, even the one in the bible.

You just described the big bang and spontaneous generation — i.e. evolution — and said it was impossible.

....... seems as though you like taking things out of context. let me repost the whole sentence for you.
i dont understand how people can believe god just made adam and eve
(poof), but an extremely rare biological occurence happening in extreme
environments with violent elemental reactions is IMPOSSIBLE.

let me cut out some to make it easier to understand.

i dont understand how people can believe "the big bang and spontaneous generation — i.e. evolution" is IMPOSSIBLE.

see i cant comprehend how people can say evolution is impossible, unless we assume a higher power put us here which we have zero actual evidence of, then our own existence, along with thousands of fossils, show evidence of evolutionary development. do you understand natural selection? the advancement to more complex life is inevitable as long as the environment allows. the individual with good genes is aided in survival and more likely to pass on their genes, the individual with bad genes is more likely to die out. life thrives, in many different forms, everything is just energy, when you die your carcass will provide energy for plants and other animals. why would homo sapiens be so special to god, we are a fairly young species and havn't always been so intelligent. life just adapts, why would god feel the need to create crazy plant like creatures at the mouth of volcanoes miles under the ocean?

honestly i just cant believe in a milleniums old book that was ultimately written by man, which the bible even infers you should not trust man.
Psalm 118:8

ESV / 37 helpful votes

It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.

Micah 7:5-6

ESV / 10 helpful votes

Put no trust in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend; guard
the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms; for the son
treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her
mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies
are the men of his own house.

and for which much evidence has piled against, the more we learn about our history the more it contradicts the bible. i have much more "faith" in current scientific theories and presumptions then stories from men with much less intelligence. thousands of years ago.

Re: The Probability of Evolution

Darrin Yeager — Mon, 14 May 2012 15:29:29 -0000

evolution may be a theory but its based on physical evidence that has been found.

Give a list of the peer-reviewed experiments where life comes from non-life, and matter comes from nothing. Much of the "evidence" is *assumed*, not proved using the scientific method.

if everyone believed in god and no one searched for other answers like evolution, mankind could miss the real answers altogether

IF evolution is false, you're missing the real answers already, right? In other words, you've assumed what you're trying to prove in your argument.

how vein [vain?] do you have to be to believe that we are the only living species in all of space

It doesn't matter how anyone feels, if they're offended by it, if they don't like it, or believe it, the only question: is it *true*.

but an extremely rare biological occurence happening in extreme environments with violent elemental reactions is IMPOSSIBLE

You just described the big bang and spontaneous generation — i.e. evolution — and said it was impossible.

Re: The Probability of Evolution

Chadingram6390 — Mon, 14 May 2012 07:31:59 -0000

evolution may be a theory but its based on physical evidence that has been found. it might not be 100% correct as of now but the theory will be refined as man becomes more intelligent. this whole forum is based on a statistical outcome but if creationists can believe in infinite beings why cant they fathom an infinite universe? or at least a universe much bigger than imaginable? i agree with such small odds on earth should be rounded to zero, if you start using minute probabilities in context of the universe nothing should be rounded to zero. no one has any idea actually how big the universe is. if everyone believed in god and no one searched for other answers like evolution, mankind could miss the real answers altogether, if there even are other answers. man shouldnt abandon our search for reasons because of faith in old literature, imagine what we could miss because we were to scared to live without reason. millions of other mammals live everyday just to stay alive and reproduce. i personally believe saying god created it all is a cop out. maybe if you believe in a higher power, but with how many religions there have been saying any one of them was the correct one would be going against the beliefs of the majority of human beings that have ever inhabited this planet. i could never believe in the bible, it was physically written by men thousands of years ago and has been so distorted through translations and misinterpreted stories. i also hate when people say, if god doesn't exist whats the point of it all? the advancement of our species? well ya, thats kinda the point. humans are amazing creatures and the continual existence of us and the planet should be our biggest concern. the fact that we're here is almost unbelievable, but the amount of space we have observed compared the number of possible planets there are is so miniscule, assuming you believe in evolution, the chance of other life out there is undeniable. god is real. he exists in peoples heads all over the world, its a state of mind a way of life and a personal belief. how could anyone believing in the bible put so much importance on physical evidence, there is much more recent physical evidence for evolution than anything connecting jesus directly to a higher power. thousand year old stories have no factual meaning to me. i do believe a higher power could exist but its nothing like anyone on earth has ever imagined, and it probably has little concern for our planet or our species. i dont understand how people can believe god just made adam and eve (poof), but an extremely rare biological occurence happening in extreme environments with violent elemental reactions is IMPOSSIBLE. especially when we have fossils that date back much farther then anything mentioned in the bible and long before humans even existed. was god around for the millions of years when it was just dinosaurs? do animals have their own heaven? or is our DNA that much more special. how vein do you have to be to believe that we are the only living species in all of space and time that gets to live for eternity in the best place imaginable. or that we have some special meaning to our existence but every other living creature is only here for us to kill and eat. religion is the only thing we still believe in with such conviction that comes from before the bronze age, why? we found out the earth was round so we threw out the flat theory, we realized we actually revolved around the sun and we weren't the center of the universe, yet we still believe a book with many contradictions and wild stories that are impossible to prove or disprove. science cant validate the origins of these stories as true, but it can validate observable physical evidence of evolution that uncovers new information. we may not be able to make life from nothing, which is what creationists believe, but we can clone exact DNA, if it wasnt for human morals who knows what we could do, for example with stem cell research. to end, i am very confident by the time i die science will have so much more to offer as far as answers, evidence and the truth. religion for the most part will be disproved as we discover more about out existence and heritage. maybe consciousness itself is the real "god".

Re: Which Bible Translation is Best?

Darrin Yeager — Sun, 13 May 2012 19:51:22 -0000

You're right, my NLT is 1996. I didn't know it was revised. I'll have to check it out.

Re: Which Bible Translation is Best?

Frederick — Sun, 13 May 2012 19:48:42 -0000

I enjoyed this article very much.

You referenced the NLT. As I compared this to the current NLT I realized you are using the 1996 NLT. The NLT was revised in 2004 and made some major changes. I find it now to be a very good translation with much less paraphrasing. I use the NLT Study Bible, NKJV Study Bible and an ESV often times together for clarity and understanding.

Re: The Probability of Evolution

Drstrik9 — Sat, 12 May 2012 10:58:45 -0000

No one ever converted to Christianity because they lost the argument. Being right is not our goal. Christ is our goal and very great reward. His grace and love allow us all to misunderstand and/or disagree. We are ALL in the same boat; none of us has perfect doctrine, and all the perfect doctrine in the universe will not save one soul. Rather, ask the Lord of the harvest to speak to their hearts (and our hearts too) -- we will ALL learn something new! :+)

Re: RIP Ginger: 1996–2012

Pattyseifert — Mon, 07 May 2012 13:28:03 -0000

Sorry Darren, it DOES stink and hurts. Thankful that our God will set things right soon and very soon. You are loved

Re: Social Justice and the Counterfeit Christian Gospel

Rgiardelli — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:18:59 -0000

Amen Brother, 2Chronicles 11:14-17 mkes it clear that obedient Jews from the Northern Kingdom went to Jerusalem to be near the Temple and refused to be part of the North's false worship and idolatry,therefore not all of the people of the ten tribes were taken into captivity in 722B.C. by Assyria. It would be like NY State being into captivity and claiming no one from NY State was left anywhere in the US. Also,in Luke 2:36 it states that Anna the prophetess was of the tribe of Asher,one of the Northern tribes,so no tribes were ever lost. God's promises will be fulfilled by Physical Jews who believe,in fact God promises that 2/3 of Israel will die in the tribulation or 70th week of Daniel,but 1/3 will live(Zech.13:8-9) and go into the Kingdom to inherit all of the promises made to Israel by God.

Re: Can You Lose Your Salvation?

Johhny — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 22:38:11 -0000

(Rhetorical) Why is it we are suppose to work out our salvation with fear and trembling? There is something for us to do. Too many times Jesus, John and Paul use the word "if" in their statement. If is an important word. Heb 3:7 states, in the Son and in the Father. And this is what he promised us -- even etrnal life." So what "if" we don't remain? What happens? = No eternal life? John's not talking about rewards here. He says so inthe lst two words of verse 25. Hebrews 3:14, "if we hold firmly to the end." Verse 12 sets it up with, "See to it brothers, that none of you has a sinful heart, that turns away from the living God." He's talking about "brothers" here not heathens. People have used John 17 to state that we can't lose what we had. Look closely at what Christ says, verse 12 says, While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed..." Let's say you take a bunch of kids on a field trip and you come back and report to the parents that "no one got lost, or even hurt." What are directly implying without getting philosophical? WHat you're implying is that IT WAS POSSIBLE for them to have gotten lost or hurt. So why was it that Christ even said that no one was lost? I guess it was possible that someone else could have been lost along with Judas. I have seen Christians live a godly life, even bring people to the Lord and disciple them, AND THEN turn their backs on the Lord for 20+ years (they're not dead yet, so...) They live now for this world. No fruit, no good works. They divorced the Lord. He certainly can't divorce us, but we can and do turn our back on Him. WHat did the Israelites, the "chosen people" do??? ARe they saved? Did they see the promised land? Esau "gave up" his birthright! If you couldn't walk away from the Lord, why are there so many warning?

Re: A Whale of a Tale

vince — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 03:13:03 -0000

Amazing explanation. Very Inspiring.

Re: The Probability of Evolution

Jkurlyhed — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 01:11:34 -0000

Wow. Perusing the web late at night is a strange journey...

So, just to add two pence, this argument - the one involving faith in science versus faith in the bible is one that will continue for as long as science exists (not necessarily the specific argument, and yes this is a red herring, so please forgive).

We do not have the means to understand life's "coming into existence", the planet's, or that of the universe, and we probably never will, so I can't help but wonder whether any and all discussions about the matter are even profitable for us.

If (as is my belief) we were created by God, how could we even wrap our brains around that creation or the creator? If, as the bible states, God is infinite of knowledge and substance, all we have to look forward to in this life and the next is learning from Him but probably not in understanding Him as we are the very definition of finite and fallible.

If it is science's idea that is truth, then why does it matter all? The only things we could hope for even after obtaining such knowledge are the propagation of the species (which is probably a doomed hope given enough time and our own foolishness) or the momentary flicker of existence that is our lives (also doomed as we have yet to deduce practical immortality except in cancer cells).

Perhaps it is putting on the blinders, and perhaps it is simply giving in to hope or fancy (which might, according to science be a psychological imperative to conduce lifeforms to choose to live), but I choose to believe in God rather than not. And either way - either I'm living under the framework of my scientifically deduced imperative or I'm experiencing spiritual fulfillment through Christ.

And according to either argument here set, either of those should be a fine way to survive here.

Re: Buzzword Bingo: Calvinism and Arminianism

Darrin Yeager — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:50:01 -0000

During my tenure in Physics classes, whenever we got to relativity someone would always say the same thing — which is right?

Einstein liked to use trains in his examples, and in one he compared a person in a boxcar moving at 1/2 the speed of light to a person sitting on a hill watching the train go by. If you do the math, it turns out time is different for each person, leading to the question — which is right?

They both are.

Calvinism vs free will is a similar discussion, and Einstein's relativity provides the answer. If you haven't seen it, check out the article Frames of Reference for a brief look at relativity.

I'll be starting a three-part series on Physics and the Bible and I'll tackle this problem and two others, and I'll go into more detail.

Thanks for commenting, and look for the articles in the next few weeks and hopefully that will better explain what I mean.

Re: Buzzword Bingo: Calvinism and Arminianism

Raph — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 08:35:57 -0000

Darrin your
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me (John 6:37) = calvinism

And
… and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out = arminianism

The second part is not about man's free will, but about Christ's free will.

Let me give my example of the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism.

Calvinism: (logically) first regeneration then believe.

Arminianism: (logically) first believe then regeneration (born again).

They both can't be right; they both can't be wrong. Nothing to do with frame of reference, but with what is (the truth of the matter).

Let me say that I find much of your posts very interesting and useful.

Re: Buzzword Bingo: Calvinism and Arminianism

Darrin Yeager — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 10:46:02 -0000

I don't know exactly what you mean by relativist. If it's the philosophical value-relativism where truth varies by the person and situation, no I'm not. If it's Einstein's relativity, yes I am. Calvinism versus Arminianism boils down to *both* are true, and yet *both* are false. Einstein's relativity explains how exactly that works — it's seeing the exact same event from two different reference points, much like two blind people would explain an elephant, one from the front, one from the back. Both would describe an elephant, but quite differently.

Re: Buzzword Bingo: Calvinism and Arminianism

Raph — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:56:02 -0000

Don't you mean both are true (for you)?

Re: Buzzword Bingo: Calvinism and Arminianism

Raph — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:48:10 -0000

So you're a relativist, then? My frame, your frame.

Re: 3 Groups Jesus Squared off Against That Still Exist Today - Frames of Reference

RAphael Gamaroff — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 04:38:41 -0000

Very glad I found your blog.

Raphael (onedaringjew)

Re: The Probability of Evolution

Thesanderbrinks — Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:37:51 -0000

I must remind every one here that evolution is in FACT a theory. It is merly speculation or fanciful thinking by men as to what could and not been proven to be, for evolution to graduate from THEORY to fact or law, science must develop the exsparament in which they can cause LIFE to spontaneously appear and do so every time. As of yet there is NO such exsparament to prove it to be FACT. ( if I am wrong please post on this web site the science and publications, verified data of the exsparament and the eye witness( video or some other media) to prove that it has become fact and no longer just Theory) Other wise evolution is the religion of scientist, or must I remind the verifiable data that is presented in the bible, to this day you can still go and vist many of the cities and people that the bible speaks of, faith begins for the Christan when he or she believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and that he is God in flesh and the Creator of all things. I do belivie that the scientist steps in to faith as well as declaring that evolution is the solo responsible cause for life. So as to the origins of life and how it came about both sides walk in faith. Which is the belief in the things which are not seen..... The question each of us must ask are selves is which one will you put your faith in?

Re: The Tactics of Rebellion

Darrin Yeager — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:15:22 -0000

If you’re leaving your church in a month there’s likely not much you can do about it. However, when you do get to your new home, search for a church which takes the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, and teaches through it.

I just published a book titled “Get Back in the Game: Living Where the Rubber Meets the Road” (ISBN 978-0983111733) which should be available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc. very soon. It uses The Matrix to illustrate truth and how some groups reject it, and then studies Zechariah and Haggai as Israel was rebuilding the temple.

You must remember it’s not your job to open their eyes, it’s your job to present the truth — what they do with it is up to them. You might look at my article The Matrix Guide to Christianity for a start.

For other resources, try John Loeffler at steelonsteel.com — he hosts a weekly radio program, and if it’s not available in your area, you can subscribe to CD’s. One of my favorite John Loeffler quotes — “your failure to be informed does not make me a wacko.”

Also see 5 Bible Commentators You Should Be Listening To where I provide a few places to start. I’ve also written articles on some church fads and where they go off the rails, look for the social justice tag.

Finally, never quit, never give in, never surrender. Yes
it’s discouraging at times, but remember the Christian life is a
full-contact lifestyle.

Let me know what I can help you with.
After looking at a few of those resources, was something not covered
you’re interested in? Specific doctrine? Stay in touch, you can email
me at darrin AT dyeager DOT org — or leave comments on articles.

Re: The Tactics of Rebellion

KariB — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:31:12 -0000

I'm awake. Now what? I grew up in a main stream evangelical church, went to Bible college and currently attend a nondenominational church. I've since found out (had my eyes opened) that the church I grew up in, the college I went to and the church we currently attend ALL have moved into the emerging movement. It's been a very painful six months. The only reason we are still at our church now is we are moving out of state in a month and I want to make a clean break for our kids so they don't have 2 big transitions. I've tried to talk to my immediate leader and was rebuffed. We have a lot of friends in this church. We've been there for years. Last Sunday when we walked in, I felt like crying or screaming. All I could think was how can so many be deceived?

So, now what? What can I do to help open peoples eyes? Where can I find more information on the truth? How do I fight the lies and deceptions? Do I just give up on this church? Shake the dust off and walk on or try to educate people? I'm sure there are others like me who are feeling alone, like Neo standing in the Matrix with all the people rushing past him. What's next?

Re: Didactic and Dialectic Thought

Darrin Yeager — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:09:56 -0000

I haven't heard much about Jacques Ellul, other than he was a dialectic philosopher. You're right, there's not much online about dialectic/didactic thought. Perhaps the best reference I've run across is John Loeffler, whose program "Steel on Steel" runs on many radio stations, and if your area doesn't have it, you can subscribe to weekly CD's.

John has a 7-lecture summary available on DVD for $35. Most of his lectures involve some aspect of logic and critical thinking, and his main site is www.steelonsteel.com

A good book on introductory logic is "Discerning Truth" by Jason Lisle.

Hope those resources help a bit

Re: Didactic and Dialectic Thought

jake bosch — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:34:51 -0000

where does j.ellul fit into this description of dialectic thought ? where can i get a layman's resource to a better understanding of dialectic thought? is there anything on line ? thank you - i did enjoy your article but i need a better foundation in order to understand your critique.

Re: Can You Lose Your Salvation?

Darrin Yeager — Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:15:29 -0000

The problem that they have is that for some reason they don't see that they do not HOLD their salvation.

Exactly. If you can do something to lose your salvation, that means it's works-based, and Jesus' death was insufficient.