Friendly Question(s) to TEs

[steen]

Personally, if I was responsible for doing that I'd want a brother to tell me, wouldn't you?

And I just did.

 

[vossler]

And as I am not an atheist, and as acceptance of Evolution is not against God, I reject your implication.

No implication intended, I thought you accepted evolution? Everything I've ever been told by gluadys and others is that evolution is evolution, that's why TEs and atheists/agnostics can share so freely in the C&E area because you agree on evolution and the role of science within it.

 

[vossler]

But then, you attack TE even though we ARE accepting God's word.

I don't attack anyone, I may challenge but not attack.

 

[vossler]

And I just did.

If you can show me how I've belittled you I will most certainly apologize and ask for your forgiveness.

 

[steen]

If you can show me how I've belittled you I will most certainly apologize and ask for your forgiveness.

Sorry, but I already did several times previously in the tread.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

My faith is tested every day, however I don't test or question God's Word; it it true.

It is not Gods word that I talked about, it is your personal interpretation of that word.

 

[vossler]

It is not Gods word that I talked about, it is your personal interpretation of that word.

As a YEC believe me my interpretation of God's Word is tested all the time.

 

[chaoschristian]

I believe a Christian Forum that invites non-believers to participate is exactly the right place to witness. Is it ideal, obviously not, but most things aren't and if we always waited for the ideal time, very little witnessing would ever go on.

That's not really what I was talking about, but I'll run with this.

CF's main vision is to united Christians as one body. The way I interpret that is Erwin is providing the opportunity for us to cross the divides between us and find ways to meaningfully engage. I don't think there is any expectation that we need to or necessarily should agree on all things at all times.

That CF can also provide an opportunity to witness to non-Christians is secondary to its vision. I think Erwin helps to create an environment in which it is possible, but he himself acknowledges that it can be difficult, and not all Christians are gifted in internet evangelism as it were.

That being said, not all parts of CF are condusive to witnessing. CREVO is one of those places. The purpose and intent of the forum is to debate and discuss the scientific arguments behind evolutionary theory and various manifestations of creationism.

The non-Christians who are there are there to discuss science, not to be witnessed to. I think we need to respect that.

My own experience teaches me that when Christians forcefully witness all it really does it create illwill and work against the Kingdom. When I was an atheist I really resented in your face evagelism, or even people who couldn't take a polite 'no thank you.' Being earnest has its merits, but we don't have the right or even the grounds to make people be witnessed to.

Something might happen in CREVO, a connection, and building of trust, a mutual respect between two people that would open the door to future relationship and witnessing. But that witnessing is going to take place in a different context than CREVO. It's just not the right place.

CF might be a place where witnessing can take place, but I think that for the most part, CREVO is not the right corner of CF to try and make it happen.

My whole deal is, their unbelief is far more important than their acceptance of evolution. These are all people who, to use an analogy, are driving their cars off of a 1000 foot cliff and we're just waving them on.

Yes, salvation is more important than acceptance of evolutionary theory. However, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with salvation. I was firmly convinced by the evidence of evolutionary theory before I become a Christian. That acceptance had nothing to do with my rejection of God and it had nothing do to with my acceptance of God.

With regards to our role in salvation: we are to witness through our character, attitude and action. That is all that we can do. A person's salvation is totally in God's hands and is based solely upon his Grace. Nothing we do will save a man's soul. When I finally accepted Christ, it had nothing to do with any of the times a person had witnessed or exhorted or berated me before. In fact, I can say that it happened despite the witnessing the exhortation and the beration.

I'm glad to hear evolutionary theory isn't a foundation of yours. Still it certainly is a means of getting in the door. I agree that part of that process is showing them Christ working through you, yet still, if you never point them to the Savior then, in effect, you're waving at them as they drive off the cliff.

Hmmm, if what you are saying is that our common interest in evolutionary theory is a means by which to engage in a dialogue that leads to a relationship that leads to trust that might in the end lead to a witnessing experience, then yes I agree with you. In this manner evolutionary theory is the same as NASCAR or sports or being an IT geek or liking to drink Lime Ricky's. It's a means by which to engage.

Our church practices this. We call it servant evangelisim. We engage with the community in ways that we hope are a service and are meaningful. We expect nothing to happen in return. But if one of our outreaches leads to a conversation or a prayer (and they have) then that is a gift. We do not, however, stand on the street corners of town and 'preach the Word.' In our environment, that would be counter productive.

 

[vossler]

CF's main vision is to united Christians as one body. The way I interpret that is Erwin is providing the opportunity for us to cross the divides between us and find ways to meaningfully engage. I don't think there is any expectation that we need to or necessarily should agree on all things at all times.

No arguments here.

That CF can also provide an opportunity to witness to non-Christians is secondary to its vision. I think Erwin helps to create an environment in which it is possible, but he himself acknowledges that it can be difficult, and not all Christians are gifted in internet evangelism as it were.

Given that there is such a large non-Christian area, I would hope that witnessing and salvation would be of more importance than to identify it as "secondary." Evangelism is difficult for most Christians and the vast majority would tell you they're not gifted in that area. That still doesn't change anything, Jesus came to seek that which is lost and He called us to do likewise. If we're dialoging with the lost it behooves us to take advantage of the opportunity.

That being said, not all parts of CF are condusive to witnessing. CREVO is one of those places. The purpose and intent of the forum is to debate and discuss the scientific arguments behind evolutionary theory and various manifestations of creationism.

I will admit that the primary purpose and intent is to debate and discuss creation and evolution. However, I would hope that Erwin had the idea that if atheists and agnostics congregated in that forum that they would be exposed to Christ and His teachings.

The non-Christians who are there are there to discuss science, not to be witnessed to. I think we need to respect that.

If these non-Christians don't want to hear about Jesus then there are plenty of other places on the net where they can discuss CREVO without being subjected to Jesus. Now if someone comes out and says they don't want to hear it, obviously you respect that, but I certainly don't think you go in assuming everyone doesn't. Besides, no one is asking you to hit them over the head with the Bible, just show them how God works, through your actions and words, in all areas of your life. That is true witnessing. But that doesn't happen when Christians are belittling other Christians.

My own experience teaches me that when Christians forcefully witness all it really does it create illwill and work against the Kingdom. When I was an atheist I really resented in your face evagelism, or even people who couldn't take a polite 'no thank you.' Being earnest has its merits, but we don't have the right or even the grounds to make people be witnessed to.

The key word here is forcefully. Again, no one wants anything jammed down ones throat, but with love one can present the gospel in a manner that is extremely pleasing and enticing. How is love being displayed when Christians belittle other Christians?

Something might happen in CREVO, a connection, and building of trust, a mutual respect between two people that would open the door to future relationship and witnessing. But that witnessing is going to take place in a different context than CREVO. It's just not the right place.

I agree, but you don't get there by belittling others. You have to show yourself as being different and having something that the world doesn't.

CF might be a place where witnessing can take place, but I think that for the most part, CREVO is not the right corner of CF to try and make it happen.

I'm not saying you or anyone should 'make' it happen, just present yourself as someone who isn't like the typical atheist/agnostic. To be perfectly honest, a lot of TEs do exactly that.

With regards to our role in salvation: we are to witness through our character, attitude and action.

I couldn't agree more!

That is all that we can do.

I'll disagree slightly here, we can and are called to pray for them too.

A person's salvation is totally in God's hands and is based solely upon his Grace. Nothing we do will save a man's soul.

Here...here!

When I finally accepted Christ, it had nothing to do with any of the times a person had witnessed or exhorted or berated me before. In fact, I can say that it happened despite the witnessing the exhortation and the beration.

Then you are the exception because the two primary means that God uses to convert the human soul are His Word and the Holy Spirit.

Hmmm, if what you are saying is that our common interest in evolutionary theory is a means by which to engage in a dialogue that leads to a relationship that leads to trust that might in the end lead to a witnessing experience, then yes I agree with you. In this manner evolutionary theory is the same as NASCAR or sports or being an IT geek or liking to drink Lime Ricky's. It's a means by which to engage.

That's exactly what I'm saying, you are 100% correct.

Our church practices this. We call it servant evangelisim. We engage with the community in ways that we hope are a service and are meaningful. We expect nothing to happen in return. But if one of our outreaches leads to a conversation or a prayer (and they have) then that is a gift. We do not, however, stand on the street corners of town and 'preach the Word.' In our environment, that would be counter productive.

Sounds like a great church.

 

[chaoschristian]

That's exactly what I'm saying, you are 100% correct.

OK, then let's build on this point in this context.

If as Christians we are to witness through out character, attitude and actions, then I think we all need to look as objectively as we can at the behaviour of the Christians in the CREVO forum and analyse what we see.

What I see there are Christians (or parodies - dang that Poe's Law) who openly mock the means by which we have to connect to the non-Christians - science. We have Christians who openly state that it is OK TO LIE in order to defend Christianity/creationism. We have Christians who engage in very questionable, very frustrating behavioral.

Have you seen the new thread with the poll asking if the forum needs rules on intellectual honesty? Our brothers and sisters have acted in a way that has lead a great number of the regulars in the forum to view Christians as basically dishonest.

And I agree with them. If Christianity is necessarily defined as it has been described by certain Christians/creationists in the CREVO forum, then I'm throwing off the mantle of 'Christian'. I won't lose my faith over it, but call me something other than Christian.

I think Vossler, if you can begin to understand this, then perhaps you will also begin to appreciate why you see TEs aligning with the non-Christians.

It's not a matter of 'if TEs associate with non-Christians, there must be something non-Christian about TEs' but a case of 'certain Christians comport themselves so badly and give Christianity such a bad reputation that the TEs would rather be associated with people of higher integrity, and if the non-Christians exhibit more integrity, then so be it.'

Verstehen Sie?

 

[vossler]

Ja, ich verstehe dich.

If as Christians we are to witness through out character, attitude and actions, then I think we all need to look as objectively as we can at the behaviour of the Christians in the CREVO forum and analyse what we see.

I agree!

What I see there are Christians (or parodies - dang that Poe's Law) who openly mock the means by which we have to connect to the non-Christians - science. We have Christians who openly state that it is OK TO LIE in order to defend Christianity/creationism. We have Christians who engage in very questionable, very frustrating behavioral.

That's a big word LIE. You'll have to specifically show me where that is happening. In all my visits there I've never seen a YEC lie, not saying it doesn't happen because we're all human, just that I haven't seen it.

Have you seen the new thread with the poll asking if the forum needs rules on intellectual honesty? Our brothers and sisters have acted in a way that has lead a great number of the regulars in the forum to view Christians as basically dishonest.

Yes I've seen it. Let me ask you this, and tell me if this makes sense. You view evolution as the truth, I view it as a lie straight from hell, could it be that we're both speaking the truth? Not likely given my black and white question. So, you believe that you can prove evolution to be the truth and I look at your evidence and I'm not convinced at all. Does that now make it a lie? Maybe, but then again it may mean that I haven't looked at it with the proper perspective or mindset. I see the debate much like that.

And I agree with them. If Christianity is necessarily defined as it has been described by certain Christians/creationists in the CREVO forum, then I'm throwing off the mantle of 'Christian'. I won't lose my faith over it, but call me something other than Christian.

I could say the same thing about how evolution is described by TEs.

I think Vossler, if you can begin to understand this, then perhaps you will also begin to appreciate why you see TEs aligning with the non-Christians.

I understand, but I believe you need to understand my point as well.

It's not a matter of 'if TEs associate with non-Christians, there must be something non-Christian about TEs' but a case of 'certain Christians comport themselves so badly and give Christianity such a bad reputation that the TEs would rather be associated with people of higher integrity, and if the non-Christians exhibit more integrity, then so be it.'

Even if this were true, that doesn't give TEs the license to belittle them.

Kanst du mich jetzt verstehen?

 

[chaoschristian]

That's a big word LIE. You'll have to specifically show me where that is happening. In all my visits there I've never seen a YEC lie, not saying it doesn't happen because we're all human, just that I haven't seen it.

What I was specifically referring to was an instance in which a creationist claimed that laying was OK to do if it was done defending creationism. I cannot remember who is was, but his post ended up in the signature of someone else in CREVO. when challenged on this remark, mind you, this person defended himself and his position with vigor. I'll snoop it out and provide you with a reference.

Yes I've seen it. Let me ask you this, and tell me if this makes sense. You view evolution as the truth, I view it as a lie straight from hell, could it be that we're both speaking the truth? Not likely given my black and white question. So, you believe that you can prove evolution to be the truth and I look at your evidence and I'm not convinced at all. Does that now make it a lie? Maybe, but then again it may mean that I haven't looked at it with the proper perspective or mindset. I see the debate much like that.

Hmm, in this regard you and I are at odds, this we know. But more importantly you need to understand that I don't see evolutionary theory as the truth. I view evolutionary theory as the best explanation for the truth as revealed by Creation through science and reason. Subtle but important difference.

I could say the same thing about how evolution is described by TEs.

No, I don't think any of the TEs in this forum assert that TE-ism is the only way to view life the universe and everything. That's not really a part of TE thinking, although some may hold to it.

I understand, but I believe you need to understand my point as well.
Even if this were true, that doesn't give TEs the license to belittle them.

Regarding evagelism, I like to think I understand your POV. I understand the sense of urgency and primacy that is associated with it.

Kanst du mich jetzt verstehen?

Zug! <---did you ever read Mark Twain's diatribe on the German language?

 

[Willtor]

That's a big word LIE. You'll have to specifically show me where that is happening. In all my visits there I've never seen a YEC lie, not saying it doesn't happen because we're all human, just that I haven't seen it.

There is a general consensus among TEs (and most creationist organizations, for that matter) that Kent Hovind is a fraud and is deliberately deceiving people. If somebody cites him, once, and is corrected (especially if that correction is the citation of a creationist resource) that's not a big deal. But many posters try to defend him, or simply ignore the rebuttals and continue to throw around his claims. Now, "lie" is a term I don't apply lightly. I apply it to Hovind, but I don't apply it to other creationist resources, even if I think their views are intellectually dishonest. However, in my experience, most people aren't so careful in calling people liars. The idea is that if someone deliberately continues to associate with someone like Hovind, that person must be equally guilty. I don't subscribe to this because there are a lot of possible reasons a person might continue to associate with a liar, without being a liar, himself.

At any rate, I am familiar with TEs becoming overzealous in disassociating themselves from Hovind and his followers. It's wrong. But it is a faulty response to a valid premise.

 

[theFijian]

My car broke down the other day, I want to know how I can attribute it to God.

 

[vossler]

What I was specifically referring to was an instance in which a creationist claimed that laying was OK to do if it was done defending creationism. I cannot remember who is was, but his post ended up in the signature of someone else in CREVO. when challenged on this remark, mind you, this person defended himself and his position with vigor. I'll snoop it out and provide you with a reference.

Lying is never, I repeat never OK and I most certainly would vehemently disagree with this creationist, whoever he/she may be. If I saw that posting I would most definitely ask them to remove it and/or remove themselves from associating themselves with YECs. If there is one thing I've always appreciated about YECs is that, for the most part, they are fairly uniform in their beliefs and worldview. Having said that, however, there will always be a rogue out there who is on the fringe of everything. Now, if your honest, even you would have to admit that the vast majority of YECs are not like that.

Hmm, in this regard you and I are at odds, this we know. But more importantly you need to understand that I don't see evolutionary theory as the truth. I view evolutionary theory as the best explanation for the truth as revealed by Creation through science and reason. Subtle but important difference.

Yes, I know we're at odds here and yet we can still be friends who are cordial to one another. See that's what I'm talking about, both of us are very strong in our beliefs, yet neither would belittle the other. So if two people who have as strong and diverse beliefs as you and I can do it, there is no reason not to expect others to do the same.

I fully understand your explanation for evolutionary theory, it makes perfect sense. I'll accept that subtle difference and try to remember that.

Regarding evagelism, I like to think I understand your POV. I understand the sense of urgency and primacy that is associated with it.

That's good, it will help when reading future posts of mine.

Zug! <---did you ever read Mark Twain's diatribe on the German language?

Can't say that I have. What are the cliff notes?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Thread closed for staff review.