Why is thinking these so popular?

herev · #51 27th April 2009, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by vossler

I can't speak for you or anyone specifically, all I can do is give you my observations. I know that almost 100% of the time when I speak to someone who claims to be a Christian and they believe in things like abortion, gay marriage, etc. they are evolutionists. You may see this as fictitious but it's in my face all the time. So yes, there are TEs who believe in the fall, in the incarnation, etc. but I would submit they cherry pick the doctrines they support and believe. It's my belief they do this so they won't have to confront their own sins. BTW, this clearly explains why TEs are all over the theological map of doctrinal beliefs.

and do you suggest that you DON'T cherry pick which parts of the Bible you "believe in?"
how about that part about not trimming your beard?
How about that part of not wearing polyester?
How about that part that says God has wings?
How about that part that says do no work on the sabbath?
You do believe that all of them are literal and binding today I assume?

herev · #52 27th April 2009, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by Melethiel

As are creationists; there are creationists who are Catholic and Lutheran, evangelical, and even cults or other religions. So why does it surprise you that TEs are doctrinally all over the map?

You have to determine which set is larger. Certainly, many of those who are proponents of abortion and gay marriage also accept evolution. It does NOT logically follow that the converse is true. I, for example, am extremely conservative, and yet I accept TE.

hello old friend, long time no see

vossler · #53 29th April 2009, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by gluadys

Depends on the situation. I think in some cases abortion is murder and in others it may be justifiable homicide.

This explains a lot, murdering a helpless child could be considered justifiable homicide. Right now I couldn't be happier that I'm not an evolutionist.

I don't begrudge you speaking for the unborn. It is focusing on them while neglecting or even opposing the needs of others.

Anyone who stands up for those who can't stand for themselves should never be discouraged regardless of who else they choose to stand for. The fact that you find this a problem I find very disturbing.

...but I don't set the life of the unborn above or against the life of everyone else.

Neither do I or any other people I know.

So you too make a distinction between killing and murder. Taking life is not always murder. Choosing life does not always mean choosing not to kill.

The premeditated killing of an innocent life is always murder.

Do you really think killing at a distance or indirectly makes it irrelevant?

They're not relevant to my points or this discussion. All it would do is deflect attention from something else.

No. There are actions the bible does not call murder which I would call murder. The genocide of the population of conquered cities for example.

How convenient.

But it is already easy. I see a great deal of twisting of scripture by those who accept the same interpretation of Genesis as you do. It doesn't seem to matter whether one accepts evolution or not when it comes to misusing scripture.

Sure there are plenty of people who twist scripture to their benefit and yes some of them are Creationists. However, just because they're a Creationist doesn't give them a free pass, at least not from me. However without a doubt those who accept evolution are far more prone to do it.

Which tells us absolutely nothing about interpreting scripture! You and I can both believe in the inspiration and usefulness of scripture and still come to different conclusions about what it means. Why do you have to call an interpretation you disagree with "twisting"? Why not just "an interpretation I do not support"?

Martin Luther once said:

"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

This corresponds to my own belief that I must defend Scripture as best I can and should never shy away from stating my beliefs. I try to do that and will only change my opinion when shown, primarily via Scripture, that my view is incorrect.

Mallon · #54 29th April 2009, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by vossler

This explains a lot, murdering a helpless child could be considered justifiable homicide. Right now I couldn't be happier that I'm not an evolutionist.

What does evolution have to do with it? My YEC pastor always taught that abortion is justifiable if the life of the child-bearing mother is in jeopardy. Better to save one life than to lose two.
What do you think about that?

vossler · #55 30th April 2009, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by Mallon

What does evolution have to do with it? My YEC pastor always taught that abortion is justifiable if the life of the child-bearing mother is in jeopardy. Better to save one life than to lose two.
What do you think about that?

I always hear this justification for abortion, this one is a favorite. Instead of focusing on the justifications for over 99% of abortions they hone in on this obscure one in order to find some way of supporting their view of how 'humane' they are by allowing abortion. Sounds really good, doesn't it, save one life rather than lose two? Let's see, of the 52 million abortions performed in the US since Roe I'll bet there probably were, at best, a couple thousand that fall into this category. Yet this is the one people continually use. So let's murder 51.9 million so that we can save 2,000.

To answer your question, no I still wouldn't support it. I'd rather save the child than the mother and in my mind so would any real mother.

Mallon · #56 30th April 2009, 12:33 AM

Originally Posted by vossler

I always hear this justification for abortion, this one is a favorite. Instead of focusing on the justifications for over 99% of abortions they hone in on this obscure one in order to find some way of supporting their view of how 'humane' they are by allowing abortion. Sounds really good, doesn't it, save one life rather than lose two? Let's see, of the 52 million abortions performed in the US since Roe I'll bet there probably were, at best, a couple thousand that fall into this category. Yet this is the one people continually use. So let's murder 51.9 million so that we can save 2,000.

Not quite sure you get the argument. The argument is that only in those cases where the mother and child are both in danger is abortion permissible. I'm certainly not arguing that all abortion is permissible. I'm not advocating the death of thousands to save one unborn child.

To answer your question, no I still wouldn't support it. I'd rather save the child than the mother and in my mind so would any real mother.

Sometimes it's not that straightforward. Particularly with preemies.

Still don't know why you blame abortion on evolution...

vossler · #57 30th April 2009, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by Mallon

Not quite sure you get the argument. The argument is that only in those cases where the mother and child are both in danger is abortion permissible. I'm certainly not arguing that all abortion is permissible. I'm not advocating the death of thousands to save one unborn child.

Like I said, that's a wonderful sounding argument but in reality it is truly worthless because no one who argues that view argues strongly to eliminate all other abortions.

Sometimes it's not that straightforward. Particularly with preemies.

Do you know of anyone who ever fit that description?

Still don't know why you blame abortion on evolution...

I don't blame abortion on evolution, I blame evolution for allowing the 'twisting of scripture' to permit the support of abortion.

Mallon · #58 30th April 2009, 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by vossler

Like I said, that's a wonderful sounding argument but in reality it is truly worthless because no one who argues that view argues strongly to eliminate all other abortions.

If the argument is that abortion is only permissible in such circumstances, then obviously abortion under other circumstances in impermissible. It's true by definition.

Do you know of anyone who ever fit that description?

Yes. Believe it or not, miscarriages are not uncommon and are often quite dangerous to the expectant mother.

I don't blame abortion on evolution, I blame evolution for allowing the 'twisting of scripture' to permit the support of abortion.

Like I said, my YEC pastor advocated abortion under certain circumstances. Maybe it's YECism that twists Scripture instead...
Or, you know, maybe one's stance on origins has nothing to do with the issue of abortion.

gluadys · #59 30th April 2009, 08:19 AM

Originally Posted by vossler

This explains a lot, murdering a helpless child could be considered justifiable homicide.
The premeditated killing of an innocent life is always murder.

Is it? I think even the Catholic Church permits abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. And that is just as premeditated as any other.

They're not relevant to my points or this discussion. All it would do is deflect attention from something else.

Choosing to find something irrelevant or deflecting attention can also be a form of twisting scripture. After all this thread is not really about abortion. It is about your perception that accepting evolution calls for twisting scripture and so puts one in the habit of doing so---which might also lead to accepting, even promoting, abortion and other actions you consider sinful.

When you dismiss the things I consider sinful as irrelevant, then, why do I not have the right to consider that you are the one twisting scripture? Would it not make just as much sense for me to say rejecting evolution requires twisting scripture and puts one in the habit to do so---and the evidence is that most people who reject evolution accept, even promote, actions I consider sinful--some of them equivalent to murder.

Sure there are plenty of people who twist scripture to their benefit and yes some of them are Creationists. However, just because they're a Creationist doesn't give them a free pass, at least not from me. However without a doubt those who accept evolution are far more prone to do it.

I am not saying anyone should get a pass. I am saying that what constitutes "twisting" scripture is most often in the eye of the beholder. It is more a matter of not listening to each other and taking each other's concerns seriously. I don't think you have established at all the truth of the last statement above. All you really establish is that those who disagree with you on evolution are likely to disagree with you on other matters. But who is and who is not interpreting scripture correctly cannot be determined on the basis of how closely they agree with you.

Martin Luther once said:
"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

This corresponds to my own belief that I must defend Scripture as best I can and should never shy away from stating my beliefs. I try to do that and will only change my opinion when shown, primarily via Scripture, that my view is incorrect.

Again that doesn't establish "where the battle rages" or where it should.

Assyrian · #60 30th April 2009, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by vossler

Martin Luther once said:
"If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point."

This corresponds to my own belief that I must defend Scripture as best I can and should never shy away from stating my beliefs. I try to do that and will only change my opinion when shown, primarily via Scripture, that my view is incorrect.

Wasn't one of the major battles raging in Luther's day geocentrism? And literalist Luther was actually on the wrong side, calling Copernicus a fool for contradicting the plain meaning of scripture. Did the church change its opinion about the geocentric interpretation because they were 'shown primarily via Scripture, that their view was incorrect' or did they learn this from science and simply go back to scripture to find a better way to interpret these passages because science had shown them the traditional literal interpretation was wrong?

Personally I am amazed at the lengths Creationist go to to twist the literal meaning of the geocentric passages to make them fit what they know and believe from science about the movement of the solar system. Your own take on it is pretty unique Vossler, insisting we have to take the plain meaning of a passage, as your sig says, for Genesis anyway. But somehow the rule doesn't apply with the geocentric passages on the basis of an arbitrary escape clause you make up that you don't think the geocentric verses are important doctrinally so the rule does not apply. Never mind the bible says all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, never mind the fact that when heliocentrism was an issue, people did think heliocentrism threatened doctrine and the very inspiration of scripture itself. I think an exegetical rule that has to be applied when it suits you and can be dropped whenever it doesn't is the essence of twisting scripture.