tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post4186200640268004274..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Os Guinness and BiologosTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-50523674221038431182011-05-27T23:04:47.784+01:002011-05-27T23:04:47.784+01:00WT:
I see no point to further discussion with you...WT:<br /><br />I see no point to further discussion with you about this. Perhaps about something else, but not this. I've said my piece, and unless you feel I owe you some more explanation, I'll just leave it at that.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-29399910288565015192011-05-27T21:19:09.594+01:002011-05-27T21:19:09.594+01:00Coram, I haven't chastised anyone, or at least...Coram, I haven't chastised anyone, or at least that wasn't my intent. Other than that, I agree with your characterization of my posts, but don't know why you would find it odd.<br /><br />Here's a direct statement: I'm trying to answer the questions whose answers seem perfectly obvious to me, and point out that some of the questions seem irrelevant for the circumstances. (I&#wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-8014225393658834162011-05-27T15:15:21.136+01:002011-05-27T15:15:21.136+01:00"Why do I assume that? Because the FIRST rule..."Why do I assume that? Because the FIRST rule of interpreting a text is to assume the author is attempting to communicate rather than obfuscate. I find the titles more than adequate for clarity."<br /><br />Perhaps the first rule of interpreting the text is actually to read the text, something you haven't done in this case.<br /><br />That said, while we might assume the author is Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-31556058964533579252011-05-27T13:15:32.831+01:002011-05-27T13:15:32.831+01:00I couldn't help noticing that wtanksley has ch...I couldn't help noticing that wtanksley has chastised both TUaD and TF for allegedly misattributing intentions to Mr. Guinness' message, even though, according to his own testimony, he:<br /><br />i.) hasn't viewed the videos<br /><br />ii.) is therefore drawing his own conclusions about the matter from the video titles<br /><br />iii.) begins in this thread by claiming that doesn'Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-87783903188050088962011-05-27T13:13:35.928+01:002011-05-27T13:13:35.928+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-8458596027293135862011-05-27T13:09:29.869+01:002011-05-27T13:09:29.869+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Coram Deohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03504564435400500996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-11509650003679046652011-05-27T02:13:06.347+01:002011-05-27T02:13:06.347+01:00Why do I assume that? Because the FIRST rule of in...Why do I assume that? Because the FIRST rule of interpreting a text is to assume the author is attempting to communicate rather than obfuscate. I find the titles more than adequate for clarity.<br /><br />It may well be that Os is attempting to communicate a coded message; but that shouldn't be our first assumption.<br /><br />Anyhow, all of your questions have been on the theme "have wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-51517590680486810072011-05-27T00:07:24.516+01:002011-05-27T00:07:24.516+01:00"But I have to assume he's being as preci..."But I have to assume he's being as precise as the topic requires "<br /><br />Why do you have to assume that?<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-32739983266965763892011-05-26T23:46:27.302+01:002011-05-26T23:46:27.302+01:00I doubt I'll take the time to watch them; I do...I doubt I'll take the time to watch them; I don't usually bother with videos.<br /><br />But I have to assume he's being as precise as the topic requires and as the titles of his talks state, which leads me to conclude that we're talking about Christians who oppose scientific claims because they see them as leading to theologically incompatible conclusions. Like yourself, I can wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-90406944625913049022011-05-26T17:31:50.239+01:002011-05-26T17:31:50.239+01:00I'm not sure it is clear who Os thinks is pola...I'm not sure it is clear who Os thinks is polarizing, how they are polarizing, or why it is miserable.<br /><br />Did I miss something in the videos? or is it simply not clearly stated?Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-40018634996035769532011-05-26T16:17:17.721+01:002011-05-26T16:17:17.721+01:00"Truth", it looks like Os has stated his..."Truth", it looks like Os has stated his convictions forthrightly. It looks like he's deeply convicted that perpetuating a polarization between faith and science is "miserable".<br />I suspect that what you want him to do is to clearly state his position on YOUR conviction, not his. That is a reasonable request on your part for someone interacting with you personally, but wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-63347383019877543222011-05-26T03:19:59.687+01:002011-05-26T03:19:59.687+01:00If Os Guiness has convictions about this matter, h...If Os Guiness has convictions about this matter, he should state them forthrightly.<br /><br />If he has no convictions on the matter, then he should state that he has no convictions on the matter in a forthright manner.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-42611686464070098122011-05-25T06:21:58.523+01:002011-05-25T06:21:58.523+01:00I don't know what Os' position is on this ...I don't know what Os' position is on this topic, but I've heard an anti-evolutionist apologist refer to him as "functionally atheist" before, allegedly for believing in theistic evolution. I wasn't able to find any further information, unfortunately.wtanksleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03283393679440645366noreply@blogger.com