TE Observations

Status
Not open for further replies.

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
mark kennedy said:
1. Where do we draw the line; special creation, the parting of the Red Sea, the miracles of Elijah and Elisha, the miracles of Christ and the Apostles, the ressurection?

We draw the line where the evidence draws it. Note that there is no evidence which falsifies anything in this list. Not even special creation. The evidence does falsify the special creation of many species(including humans), but to date allows for the special creation of the earliest species.

2. What is the gospel according to TE? I would think that the message of salvation would be of interest to any Christian claiming abherance to the Nicean creed.

Same as the gospel according to YECism--and as summarized in the Nicene Creed. Science makes no comment on the gospel. There is no evidence about the gospel one way or another. We receive the good news by faith. Not because it is validated or falsified by evidence.

Change my perception, answer the questions.

Have a nice day :)
Mark

I'd like to think I have changed your perception, but somehow I doubt it. :D
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
Is there anything in the creeds that would specifically disallow TEism?? (Am opening a separate thread for that.)

I think the content of the gospel remains basically the same. God created man in His image, man screwed up, God became man to understand this suffering and provide man a way out. I don't think TE very basically changes any of this. It poses a major challenge to modernist thinking in Christian circles but from what I see the postmodernist Christian movement that is rapidly gaining speed doesn't seem to have a problem with it. I liked Brian McLaren (hmm. I've got a feeling I'm gonna get flamed for this, lol.) and how he exposited on evolution's role in The Story We Find Ourselves In, though I find his agriculturalist-hunter/gatherer conflict reading of Cain and Abel a bit contrived.

To SBG: I don't know. I think there is a point where we have to say "Well, this may offend you, but it is demonstrably true and I have tried to say it as respectfully as possible." Maybe it is appropriate to call what someone said a lie, maybe not. I really don't know. I suppose I have a part to play in learning to be thick-skinned :p and to differentiate between my statement called a lie and myself called a liar. It takes two to tango ...
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
gluadys said:
We draw the line where the evidence draws it. Note that there is no evidence which falsifies anything in this list. Not even special creation. The evidence does falsify the special creation of many species(including humans), but to date allows for the special creation of the earliest species.

So you accept the miracles of the Bible historical fact as opposed to true myth? I mean miracles like the parting of the Red sea, the miracles of Elijah and Elisha, Christ and the Apostles and the ressurection? You would feel comfortable telling an unbeliever that these events are supported with credible evidence?



Same as the gospel according to YECism--and as summarized in the Nicene Creed. Science makes no comment on the gospel. There is no evidence about the gospel one way or another. We receive the good news by faith. Not because it is validated or falsified by evidence.

Am I to understand that you are saying this can be accepted without any proof? That is not my understanding of the Gospel record.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.​

So we are supposed to believe this why? If we cannot falsify or validate it by evidence what possible basis could we have for believing it at all?


I'd like to think I have changed your perception, but somehow I doubt it. :D

You might if you answered the questions I just asked. Now, what do you think of the miracles in the Bible, are they true myth or historical events? Also, what is the gospel and what do we base our faith in it on, if not evidence?

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
mark kennedy said:
So you accept the miracles of the Bible historical fact as opposed to true myth?

In some cases, I take an "I'll wait and see" attitude.


I mean miracles like the parting of the Red sea, the miracles of Elijah and Elisha, Christ and the Apostles and the ressurection? You would feel comfortable telling an unbeliever that these events are supported with credible evidence?

Oh, no, no, no. I said no evidence falsified these things. But no evidence validates them either, so I certainly would not say these events are supported by credible evidence when they are not. That would be a lie.

Am I to understand that you are saying this can be accepted without any proof? That is not my understanding of the Gospel record.

Yes indeed, since that is the only basis on which to accept them. Show me anywhere in the gospel record where we are asked to accept the testimony of the apostles on any ground other than faith.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.​

So we are supposed to believe this why? If we cannot falsify or validate it by evidence what possible basis could we have for believing it at all?

Faith and the grace of God.
Internal witness of the Holy Spirit
The testimony of the apostles and their successors, including the present generation of teachers in the church
and--for lack of a better term--because it makes sense to you. Because it makes sense of your experience and gives direction, purpose and meaning to your life.

In their own way these are evidence--evidence that is not seen or demonstrable-- but still effective and convincing to one who will accept the venture of faith.

I reject the premise of positivism that demands demonstrable physical evidence for mysteries of the spirit. We don't need science to buttress our faith. For our faith is in the One who is greater than science.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Numenor said:
YECs will yoke themselves with others who are charlatans and liars in order to discredit fellow believers (Kent Hovind has repeatedly used arguments he has been shown to be false). Are we any further forward in the debate? No.

I don't know that much about Kent Hovind and certainly don't yoke myself to his supposed falsehoods. I am a Democrate but that does not mean I approve of Clinton lying to a federal judge. I have been over the thread once or twice and I have yet to see any mention of Dr. Dino by a YEC. That, by the way, is one of my observations of TE. They keep bringing up this Hovind guy when they are the only ones who seem intersted in him.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
gluadys said:
Oh, no, no, no. I said no evidence falsified these things. But no evidence validates them either, so I certainly would not say these events are supported by credible evidence when they are not. That would be a lie.

So it would be a lie to say that credible evidence supported the ressurection right?



Yes indeed, since that is the only basis on which to accept them. Show me anywhere in the gospel record where we are asked to accept the testimony of the apostles on any ground other than faith.

[BIBLE]Acts 17:31[/BIBLE]



Faith and the grace of God.
Internal witness of the Holy Spirit
The testimony of the apostles and their successors, including the present generation of teachers in the church
and--for lack of a better term--because it makes sense to you. Because it makes sense of your experience and gives direction, purpose and meaning to your life.

The gospel seems a little more tangible to me, in fact it is precedented on events like the incarnation and the ressurection being historical. It is far deeper then intellectual assent, faith is being fully persuaded facts that if historical, could be affirmed or falsified by evidence. That depends of course on whether or not it is an historical fact as opposed to a true myth.

In their own way these are evidence--evidence that is not seen or demonstrable-- but still effective and convincing to one who will accept the venture of faith.

Of course you are talking about the internal wittness of the Holy Spirit that convicts us of sin, righteouness and judgment, or at least I hope so.

I reject the premise of positivism that demands demonstrable physical evidence for mysteries of the spirit. We don't need science to buttress our faith. For our faith is in the One who is greater than science.

The last part gets a heartfelt amen from me but I'm not sure if you mean scientific postivists or logical postivists. We are first of all called to believe that the one who makes the promise is faithfull, even if the message seems impossible. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness even though he laughed his head off at the promise of a son. In time Abraham's faith produced the son of promise and this miracle neither he nor his wife expected was living evidence. The Apostles did not believe Mary and Martha when they said Christ was alive, but they eventually had lunch with him and watched him ascend into heaven.

I think one thing is for sure, faith is relavant to origins theology:

[bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
mark kennedy said:
So it would be a lie to say that credible evidence supported the ressurection right?

If by evidence you mean hard, concrete, observable, scientific evidence, it certainly would be. We don't have that kind of evidence.

Peter himself tells us so in Acts 10: 40-41

....but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear, not to all the people, but to us who are chosen by God as witnesses and who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

All the rest of us, those of us who did not eat and drink with Jesus after his resurrection, are entirely dependant on the testimony of the apostles. We have nothing but faith in their testimony as the basis of our faith.

(Quickly read through all Peter's sermons in the first 10 chapters of Acts and see how in every one he mentions that the apostles are chosen witnesses.)


[BIBLE]Acts 17:31[/BIBLE]

How can you possibly call this "evidence"?! What evidence do we have that a day has been appointed? What evidence do we have that there will be a resurrection and a judgement. What is the ground of our assurance? All of these we believe, to be sure, but not on the basis of evidence.



The gospel seems a little more tangible to me, in fact it is precedented on events like the incarnation and the ressurection being historical. It is far deeper then intellectual assent, faith is being fully persuaded facts that if historical, could be affirmed or falsified by evidence.

Well sure. But "could be" affirmed and falsified is a long way from "is" affirmed or falsified. I believe both the incarnation and resurrection to be historical. And certainly the resurrection could be affirmed or falsified if we had access to the resurrection body of Jesus. But we don't. So we do not have the evidential means to affirm or falsify the resurrection. I am not sure that we even could affirm or falsify the incarnation. What tangible evidence would there be that a man is the incarnation of God?

Of course you are talking about the internal wittness of the Holy Spirit that convicts us of sin, righteouness and judgment, or at least I hope so.

Of course. And who articulates prayers for us that we can only groan, and who guides us into all Truth and affirms God as 'Abba' and so on and so forth.



The last part gets a heartfelt amen from me but I'm not sure if you mean scientific postivists or logical postivists.

Both actually.


We are first of all called to believe that the one who makes the promise is faithfull, even if the message seems impossible.

In other words, we are called to have faith. Isn't that what I have been saying?

I think one thing is for sure, faith is relavant to origins theology:

[bible]Hebrews 11:3[/bible]

Amen to that. It is one of my favorite verses. I don't know of any TE who would disagree with it.
 
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
49
✟8,655.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
Numenor said:
Of course we aren't. But that was never the intention of the OP.

You are assuming you know the intentions of Vossler when he wrote the OP. Even when Vossler has said differently, you claim otherwise. He could very well take this as you calling him a liar.

Your statement doesn't further us forward, it actually furthers us backwards.
 
Upvote 0

Numenor

Veteran
Dec 26, 2004
1,517
42
114
The United Kingdom
Visit site
✟1,894.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Conservative
I don't know that much about Kent Hovind and certainly don't yoke myself to his supposed falsehoods. I am a Democrate but that does not mean I approve of Clinton lying to a federal judge. I have been over the thread once or twice and I have yet to see any mention of Dr. Dino by a YEC. That, by the way, is one of my observations of TE. They keep bringing up this Hovind guy when they are the only ones who seem intersted in him.

So who is it that keeps buying his videos and going to his seminars? I'm interested in Hovind because he is a YEC who perpetuates lies and untruths. I can go looking for posts where people here have supported his claims if you like.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
mark kennedy said:
I have been over the thread once or twice and I have yet to see any mention of Dr. Dino by a YEC. That, by the way, is one of my observations of TE. They keep bringing up this Hovind guy when they are the only ones who seem intersted in him.

Yep, this thread is full of unsupported assertions isn't it. It started with the OP 'observations'.

There are plenty of YEC's here who bring up Hovind. I'm guessing at least once every one to two weeks. I guess we'll have to start making sure you notice.

Now, let's take another look at a few of the observations in the OP.

A TE stated that God loves everything, the animals, trees, plants and rocks, just like he loves us.

TEs stated that the feeding of the 5,000 was the miracle of sharing.

What do you think happens more often, YEC's bringing up Hovind, his website, and his offer, or TE's saying the things above?

The claim of the OP was that because no TE's said they disagreed with these views, that they must be the way TE's think.

By that logic, everytime a YEC brings up Hovind and says what a great resource he is and a YEC doesn't come out and say that he is a liar that doesn't know what he is talking about, that they agree that Hovind is a great resource.

It's faulty logic.

 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
SBG said:
You are assuming you know the intentions of Vossler when he wrote the OP.

And Vossler assumed he knew the intentions of TE's actions that went far beyond 'observation'.

What do you think the reason is that Vossler tries so hard to tie TE's to 'secularists', 'nonbelievers', and the ACLU?

Come on, be honest. What was his point and what discussion could come of it? Could it be that the use of these buzzwords that his intent was to suggest something about the faith of the TE?

What context does this statement have other than to suggest that TE's are demonstrating few of the characteristics that make someone a believer?

So even if a TE or anyone else demonstrates few of the characteristics that make someone a believer, I’m not called to judge the individual.

If I state,
So even if a YEC or anyone else demonstrates that they don't have a problem perpetuating lies to other believers, I'm not called to judge the individual.

What would you think it implies?
 
Upvote 0

shernren

you are not reading this.
Feb 17, 2005
8,463
515
36
Shah Alam, Selangor
Visit site
✟18,881.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
In Relationship
There is a difference between saying:

I felt offended by what you said; and

You intended to offend me by what you said.

This is what gluadys meant (elsewhere) by the difference between "I" statements and "you" statements. In "I" statements, the author of the post is not being blamed or accused. It could be his/her insensitive posting, it could be my own prejudices and background, it could simply be an unfortunate accident in choosing words. The cause is not as important as the effect, and together we can see how to avoid it in future. But in a "you" statement it's all the poster's fault. "You", the poster, is judged in such a statement and normally found to be wanting. But remember that one judgment reaps another ...

Mark: How would one find evidence for God??

If man is to truly have free will, is to be able to choose freely and responsibly between accepting God and rejecting God, then there can be no "magic bullet", no incontrovertible proof that can only be explained by the agency of a supernatural Being. This reminds me of a C.S. Lewis quote, about how in his whole life he had only met one single person who had ever claimed to see a ghost. The interesting thing is that this person had never believed in the existence of ghosts before that and still didn't believe in them after it! He rightly remarks that in the end, whatever we experience of nature is experienced through our five senses, and if we experience something we can't explain, at worse we can always blame the fallibility of our senses ...

The only way to know that a person exists is to get to know him or her. I know that there are six billion people in the world today, but I can't prove that empirically unless I shake six billion hands and make six billion acquaintances. In the same way, to know God exists one must know God (even if only dimly); and God being who He is the only way for us to know Him is for Him to reveal Himself to us. The Holy Spirit in us glorifies Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ reveals to us the Father: so once we have that revelation we know for certain that God exists and that He is the Christian God. But not a moment before. Even for Peter, who walked and talked with Jesus personally: Jesus said that without the Father's help and power Peter could never have acknowledged Him as the Christ. How much more us, who live 2000 years downstream in time from God's definitive Incarnation.

If man could believe in God without God's help, then who would need God's grace? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deamiter
Upvote 0

SBG

Well-Known Member
Jan 28, 2005
849
28
49
✟8,655.00
Faith
Lutheran
Politics
US-Republican
notto said:
And Vossler assumed he knew the intentions of TE's actions that went far beyond 'observation'.

What do you think the reason is that Vossler tries so hard to tie TE's to 'secularists', 'nonbelievers', and the ACLU?

Come on, be honest. What was his point and what discussion could come of it? Could it be that the use of these buzzwords that his intent was to suggest something about the faith of the TE?

What context does this statement have other than to suggest that TE's are demonstrating few of the characteristics that make someone a believer?

So even if a TE or anyone else demonstrates few of the characteristics that make someone a believer, I’m not called to judge the individual.

If I state,
So even if a YEC or anyone else demonstrates that they don't have a problem perpetuating lies to other believers, I'm not called to judge the individual.

What would you think it implies?

Vossler came right out and told everyone here that his only intentions were to share his observations and opinions that he has gained here. He even asked TEs specifically to correct anything that he stated. I don't see many corrections here, I see accusation after accusation being thrown at Vossler regardless of what he says he intended.

I am left with the opinion, that no matter what, there are some here who do not want to show mercy, grace, love or forgiveness to others here. Instead, accusations and hatred are what seems to be the preferred way of communication here.

We put on the name Christian, but we don't show anything of what it is like to be a Christian here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
T

The Lady Kate

Guest
mark kennedy said:
Am I to understand that you are saying this can be accepted without any proof? That is not my understanding of the Gospel record.


We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,

the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.

So we are supposed to believe this why? If we cannot falsify or validate it by evidence what possible basis could we have for believing it at all?

Faith, of course.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
notto said:
Yep, this thread is full of unsupported assertions isn't it. It started with the OP 'observations'.

My intrance into the thread was the unsupported assertion that Ken Ham and AIG were lieing about the meaning of 'evening and morning' in the Old Testament. I carefully researched it and found that this assertion is completely false.

There are plenty of YEC's here who bring up Hovind. I'm guessing at least once every one to two weeks. I guess we'll have to start making sure you notice.

Since you are so fascinated by the guy perhaps you should start a thread about him. I'm not just teasing, AIG has had to rebutt some of the things he said and I think it would be a good way of seperating genuine creationism and the watered down version of Hovind.

Now, let's take another look at a few of the observations in the OP.

A TE stated that God loves everything, the animals, trees, plants and rocks, just like he loves us.

TEs stated that the feeding of the 5,000 was the miracle of sharing.

What do you think happens more often, YEC's bringing up Hovind, his website, and his offer, or TE's saying the things above?

The claim of the OP was that because no TE's said they disagreed with these views, that they must be the way TE's think.

By that logic, everytime a YEC brings up Hovind and says what a great resource he is and a YEC doesn't come out and say that he is a liar that doesn't know what he is talking about, that they agree that Hovind is a great resource.


What just jumps out at me is that you ignore the points and go back to Hovind. What is more Hovind is not even mentioned in the OP. Now if you want to take on a heavy weight creationist why don't you try Henry Morris, Duane Gish or Ken Ham. I doubt that you will find it as easy.

It's faulty logic.

Logic follows a propostion and as yet you have made no postiive arguments. The only thing I can conclude about your postion is that you don't like Hovind but you talk of very little else. Other then that it sounds like you are just venting some frustration with the OP, no big deal.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The Lady Kate said:
Faith, of course.

Faith, yes of course, but faith as defined as what exactly.

[BIBLE]Hebrews 1:2[/BIBLE]

The Scriptures persude but it is the Holy Spirit that convicts. Faith is based on real evidence, the only evidence we need to understand the origin of life on planet earth.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
shernren said:
Mark: How would one find evidence for God??

How does evidence for God find us would be a better why of expressing it. How does God convince this sin cursed son of Adam who has had his mind filled with darkness. How does the God of light penetrate such an unbreakable will as the sin of my soul? If I see miracle after miracle, don't I have the will to choose to deny and ignore God's hand? I don't mean to be melodramatic but this is a theology forum and sooner or later we have to think about the noetic (a fancy word for knowledge) effects of sin. The truth could jump up and bite me on the nose and I could pretend it never happened. I'm sorry, I just liked your question and wanted to share a few things. :)

If man is to truly have free will, is to be able to choose freely and responsibly between accepting God and rejecting God, then there can be no "magic bullet", no incontrovertible proof that can only be explained by the agency of a supernatural Being.

It's not just that there is a God, but it's the righteousness of God that has been revealed to us:

[BIBLE]Romans 3:21[/BIBLE]

We now, not only know there is such a thing but we can be the righteousness of God in Christ.

[BIBLE]romans 3:22[/BIBLE]


This reminds me of a C.S. Lewis quote, about how in his whole life he had only met one single person who had ever claimed to see a ghost. The interesting thing is that this person had never believed in the existence of ghosts before that and still didn't believe in them after it! He rightly remarks that in the end, whatever we experience of nature is experienced through our five senses, and if we experience something we can't explain, at worse we can always blame the fallibility of our senses ...

The only way to know that a person exists is to get to know him or her. I know that there are six billion people in the world today, but I can't prove that empirically unless I shake six billion hands and make six billion acquaintances. In the same way, to know God exists one must know God (even if only dimly); and God being who He is the only way for us to know Him is for Him to reveal Himself to us. The Holy Spirit in us glorifies Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ reveals to us the Father: so once we have that revelation we know for certain that God exists and that He is the Christian God. But not a moment before. Even for Peter, who walked and talked with Jesus personally: Jesus said that without the Father's help and power Peter could never have acknowledged Him as the Christ. How much more us, who live 2000 years downstream in time from God's definitive Incarnation.

If man could believe in God without God's help, then who would need God's grace? :)

I have no problem with the rest of the post except that I wish I had wrote it.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.