RE: deception in perception

From: Stuart d Kirkley (
Date: Wed Jul 24 2002 - 20:52:40 EDT

  • Next message: Bill Payne: "Re: Coal and YEC models"

    Hey People,

    >From what I see, what started out as a simple question about the
    >nature of good and evil has deteriorated (once again) into a
    >shouting match and intellectual wrestling amongst the good
    >subscribers to this list. WHy is it so hard to objectively listen to
    >and evaluate what others are saying on this list? Isn't that what
    >scientists are supposed to do, evaluate the evidence before them on
    >an objective basis, and to do their best to not allow subjectivity
    >(unless being creative) to creep into their research and possibly
    >influence their findings, which is the only honest way to discover
    >truth, which is what science is trying to do, isn't it? But time and
    >again it seems that discussions on this list stray so far from that
    >attitude of objectivity and sensibility. I find it quite frustrating
    >myself, to the point that I don't pay that much attention to the
    >postings anymore (althought I know there is still a lot of good
    >wheat, but just so much chaff to sift through).

    This subject title caught my attention, and I thought Jay's
    observations to be pretty clear and thoughtful. Maybe there is some
    further background to this discussion which I don't know about.
    Still, I found the replies to be mostly argumentive and a bit
    derisive, if not a bit agressive. Jay's first response was quite
    gracious and still was met with further derision. Perhaps the authors
    of these missives should contemplate the substance of what Jay was
    referring to, the nature of evil, and the insidiousness of the father
    of lies. Isn't it fundamentally important to determine just what evil
    is, and how it operates if we hope to be victorious in our good
    fight. Remember we are all supposed to be Christian Soldiers, so let
    us not try to trip up our fellow trenchmen as we forge onward, but
    let us labour to understand just what it is they are really saying,
    and if we feel some disagreement, let us voice it in the spirit of
    Christ's precious charity, with understanding and grace, a!
    perhaps humility, if that's not asking too much.

    Recently, it occurred to me that the word 'devil' is probably a
    contraction of 'do evil' = d'evil =devil. I wonder if anyone has any
    further hard information that might support this. I do not subscribe
    to the idea that the devil is an actual entity in any form or manner,
    but that it is simply an erroneous suggestion or temptation to listen
    to 'lies' instead of the truth, and nothing more, and that if we
    listen too intently to these suggestions, we end up actually endowing
    these mental suggestions with seeming illusive power. But if we learn
    to dismiss these 'lies' as Jesus did when he was tempted by the
    d'evil in the wilderness, then they can have no power over us, and as
    we are consistent in rebuking them, sometimes forcefully, as Jesus
    did when he retorted "Get thee behind me, Satan', then the devil will
    also flee from us and lo, angels will come and minister unto us, as
    they did to Jesus.Is this not simply demonstrating the power of truth
    over lies, of good over evil? By !
    wing that evil is nothing more than a mental suggestion (sometimes an
    aggresssive suggestion) can help us to know that it can be defeated
    by an unequivocal rebuke of the lie by affirming the truth, and the
    victory will be assured, because the victory is always God's and we
    find that God is indeed the Truth, for God is Truth, and Divine Truth
    conquers all suggetions of any other power, especially since this
    Truth is all power, or omnipotence itself.
    OK, I just wanted to put in my two cents worth. I hope nobody will
    feel they need to jump down my throat because of it. Thanks, and God

    Stuart K.


    On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 19:36:13 Glenn Morton wrote: > >Jay Willingham wrote: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 6:10 AM > >> >>"(A)rgumentum ad biblia". I like that. >> >>I do not regard your, Dave, or Glenn's positions as anything other than >>arguable interpretations. You seem to regard them as irrefutable and get >>downright testy if your dogma is challenged. > >This statement just begs that someone ask you how you view logic itself. Is >logic not the sine qua non of all knowledge, including theological >knowledge? Is logic only a troublesome thing one can discard, streaking >naked through life in the ecstasy of illogic? Logic requires that what you >apply to your opponent can be applied to you. Have you not learned that in >law courts? > >I have a real question. Have you ever actually taken a logic course--I mean >a full semester dose of syllogisms, Venn diagrams and the many logical >fallacies? David is a philosopher who would have taught the stuff, I did >grad work in philosophy where I took Logic, Symbolic Logice,and Logic and >the Scientific method etc. What you have commited is an advocation of an ad >hoc hypotheses, (i.e., the Devil fools everyone on Earth except me). Logic >isn't dogma, it is fundamental. > > >>I am not condemning you and am sorry if you got that impression. > >I didn't get the impression you were condemning me. I thought you were >being excessively illogical, which may be oxymoronic, for how can one be >moderately illogical? It is like being moderately pregnant. > > >glenn > >see >for lots of creation/evolution information >anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\ >personal stories of struggle >

    _____________________________________________________ Supercharge your e-mail with a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and NoTaglines --> LYCOS MAIL PLUS.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 24 2002 - 22:43:01 EDT