OT can chill for a bit.
Do you ever wonder if you are being heard?
Here's what I think:
1. A large portion if not most of the TE crowd is committed to the essential doctrine of the resurrection in a literal sense. The Lordship, resurrection and divinity of Jesus are the essentials, and I think we agree on this.
2. Some TEs would allegorize everything, resurrection and existence of God included. I don't need to convict anyone, but at this point, I don't see a basis for discussion in this forum when that is in evidence. And I am not particularly concerned about offending anyone with the idea that allegorizing the resurrection and deity of Christ are precisely anti-Christian and represent the biggest error that there is.
3. The most frustrating thing is that I can't remember the last time a TE conceded a point that would contradict TE in the slightest. That is a test for a valid theory isn't it? That it can be challenged? It has probably happened, I just can't remember it.
4. Scripturally, there have to be a few things where the Bible would cause a TE to say, Gee, I don't know how to make that fit my view. Why is that such a big deal? Even where it supports YEC?
5. There are times I think when it is valid to demand some agreement on a limited basis or at least for the sake of argument. Oddly enough, we have to fight for this. In most circles you can get this kind of dialogue even when you disagree.
6. There is an undercurrent of charging the YEC discredits God, that we make God deceptive, that we are driving people out of the Church and away from Jesus. It is particularly bad right now. This will pass. It is used on a more limited basis by those around for a while. While I am sure this happens becuase of some YEC personalities (not necessarily here), I don't see the point of pressing that YEC doctrine should necessarily present that concern in and of itself. I would hope the more seasoned TEs would temper that position.
7. Don't forget that excellent post by Deamiter, which really seemed to get where we were coming from. I did the thread here on it.
8. However, there is the view that all things AIG and ICR are irrational, baseless and deceptive. Do we also appear completely dismissive and contemptuous when talking against radiocarbon dating and index fossils? Granted, Mark has lodged a pretty hard broadside on being lied to about genetics. I can see that argument, but I don't know enough about it to make the case that extreme.
9. The genetics arguments are largely people talking past each other with terms I don't care to look up. I think the burden is on the poster to make the terms simple. That is a skill that is part of my job, so I tend to expect it of others. Why does this talking-past happen? I think I see lots of TEs changing the subject to talk past a point such as Marks, rather than really looking at his argument and evidence first. Maybe we are doing that as well?
10. As a system, conventional science has built and impressive edifice. They have checked and cross-checked one another. They appear to agree on levels of O2, radiation, temperature in cylcles going back millions of years. That is not trivial. I call it "elegant". Obviously that is not enough for us. The guys who are punching holes in the fundamental assumptions are not well received.
Do you ever wonder if you are being heard?
Here's what I think:
1. A large portion if not most of the TE crowd is committed to the essential doctrine of the resurrection in a literal sense. The Lordship, resurrection and divinity of Jesus are the essentials, and I think we agree on this.
2. Some TEs would allegorize everything, resurrection and existence of God included. I don't need to convict anyone, but at this point, I don't see a basis for discussion in this forum when that is in evidence. And I am not particularly concerned about offending anyone with the idea that allegorizing the resurrection and deity of Christ are precisely anti-Christian and represent the biggest error that there is.
3. The most frustrating thing is that I can't remember the last time a TE conceded a point that would contradict TE in the slightest. That is a test for a valid theory isn't it? That it can be challenged? It has probably happened, I just can't remember it.
4. Scripturally, there have to be a few things where the Bible would cause a TE to say, Gee, I don't know how to make that fit my view. Why is that such a big deal? Even where it supports YEC?
5. There are times I think when it is valid to demand some agreement on a limited basis or at least for the sake of argument. Oddly enough, we have to fight for this. In most circles you can get this kind of dialogue even when you disagree.
6. There is an undercurrent of charging the YEC discredits God, that we make God deceptive, that we are driving people out of the Church and away from Jesus. It is particularly bad right now. This will pass. It is used on a more limited basis by those around for a while. While I am sure this happens becuase of some YEC personalities (not necessarily here), I don't see the point of pressing that YEC doctrine should necessarily present that concern in and of itself. I would hope the more seasoned TEs would temper that position.
7. Don't forget that excellent post by Deamiter, which really seemed to get where we were coming from. I did the thread here on it.
8. However, there is the view that all things AIG and ICR are irrational, baseless and deceptive. Do we also appear completely dismissive and contemptuous when talking against radiocarbon dating and index fossils? Granted, Mark has lodged a pretty hard broadside on being lied to about genetics. I can see that argument, but I don't know enough about it to make the case that extreme.
9. The genetics arguments are largely people talking past each other with terms I don't care to look up. I think the burden is on the poster to make the terms simple. That is a skill that is part of my job, so I tend to expect it of others. Why does this talking-past happen? I think I see lots of TEs changing the subject to talk past a point such as Marks, rather than really looking at his argument and evidence first. Maybe we are doing that as well?
10. As a system, conventional science has built and impressive edifice. They have checked and cross-checked one another. They appear to agree on levels of O2, radiation, temperature in cylcles going back millions of years. That is not trivial. I call it "elegant". Obviously that is not enough for us. The guys who are punching holes in the fundamental assumptions are not well received.