If I was judging by their fruits, I would never be a YEC

[theIdi0t]

.

 

[HypnoToad]

Open season.

 

[Melethiel]

Open season.

More like "barely held in check free-for-all"
*points to all the threads attacking TE*

 

[Critias]

Show me your good fruits, and allow me to show you that they are rotten to the core.

Romans 3:23
"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"

Romans 3:10
'As it is written: "There is no one righteous, not even one;"'

You can show that my fruits are rotten to the core, and I'd agree that I am a sinner and am not righteous. Definitely not news to me.

 

[crawfish]

I don't see how a thread that starts like this can possibly be productive.

It's important to separate the theology from the person. There are good and bad people on all sides of this issue. Let's not let a few bad eggs ruin our view of the "Christian-ness" of a larger group of people.

 

[Mallon]

Yeah, I don't see how any good can come from this thread.
What's with all the seething hostility lately? It's no wonder some of the YECs here feel like martyrs for their cause, given threads like this one. That said, I'd be careful before you point the finger, XianJedi.

 

[theIdi0t]

Yeah, I don't see how any good can come from this thread.
What's with all the seething hostility lately? It's no wonder some of the YECs here feel like martyrs for their cause, given threads like this one. That said, I'd be careful before you point the finger, XianJedi.

I see that my post was in the wrong and perhaps it's only so long, even if you are a believer that you can take someone's attacks before you respond yourself. If your theology is always in question by another, then I guess it's only natural for you to question that individuals theology, but I guess an eye for an eye doesn't make it right, even when it is the natural response.

 

[crawfish]

Yeah, I don't see how any good can come from this thread.
What's with all the seething hostility lately? It's no wonder some of the YECs here feel like martyrs for their cause, given threads like this one. That said, I'd be careful before you point the finger, XianJedi.

I don't like the animosity I see from some TE's. Give, that, though:

1) I, and other TE's have publicly stated our disapproval of the subjects in many of the threads mentioned in your "open season" thread.

2) There are some highly antagonistic and belligerent creationists on these boards who have offended many TE's, and I have not seen a YEC berate them yet.

3) I and others on this board have made many nice/uplifting posts at times, and they are normally ignored like the plague. The antagonistic posts can fuel pages of dialogue.

4) If the posts of some TE's have been combative, keep in mind that they have been precipitated by the contentious posts of some of the "drive-by creationists", and a few others.

I'm not one to blame you for "hiding" in your own forum. I understand that everybody is different; some live for arguments, some get drained by them. However: if you want to keep a higher level of discourse, you need to make sure it happens from your end as well; you expect us to discipline our own, you need to do so as well.

I'm all for mutual respect and understanding.

 

[HypnoToad]

If your theology is always in question by another, then I guess it's only natural for you to question that individuals theology

Questioning theology is one thing. Saying, basically, all teachers of creationism must be morally corrupt is another.

 

[Melethiel]

Yeah, I don't see how any good can come from this thread.
What's with all the seething hostility lately? It's no wonder some of the YECs here feel like martyrs for their cause, given threads like this one. That said, I'd be careful before you point the finger, XianJedi.

I second this. This forum used to be one of the best behaved under Theology. What's with all the vitriol lately? This goes for both sides.

 

[laptoppop]

I don't like the animosity I see from some TE's. Give, that, though:

1) I, and other TE's have publicly stated our disapproval of the subjects in many of the threads mentioned in your "open season" thread.

2) There are some highly antagonistic and belligerent creationists on these boards who have offended many TE's, and I have not seen a YEC berate them yet.

3) I and others on this board have made many nice/uplifting posts at times, and they are normally ignored like the plague. The antagonistic posts can fuel pages of dialogue.

4) If the posts of some TE's have been combative, keep in mind that they have been precipitated by the contentious posts of some of the "drive-by creationists", and a few others.

I'm not one to blame you for "hiding" in your own forum. I understand that everybody is different; some live for arguments, some get drained by them. However: if you want to keep a higher level of discourse, you need to make sure it happens from your end as well; you expect us to discipline our own, you need to do so as well.

I'm all for mutual respect and understanding.

Just a couple of points - I've corrected folks around here lots of times, both publicly and privately. I could be wrong, but from my perspective, I've seen more creationists self-policing than TEs. Its probably like doing the dishes -- everyone feels like they've done more dishes than the others.

Second - the use of the word "hiding" is a word loaded with negative meaning. The word "fellowshipping" would avoid the negative spin.

 

[HypnoToad]

Second - the use of the word "hiding" is a word loaded

No kidding. It's like even in calling for "mutual respect", he still takes a swing at YEC's. The TE's have their own forum also, are they "hiding" as well?

 

[Galle]

I don't see how a thread that starts like this can possibly be productive.

It's important to separate the theology from the person. There are good and bad people on all sides of this issue. Let's not let a few bad eggs ruin our view of the "Christian-ness" of a larger group of people.

I second this. This forum used to be one of the best behaved under Theology. What's with all the vitriol lately? This goes for both sides.

I agree that this sort of thread is unlikely to be productive, but at the same time I think you're both drawing incorrect parallels. Homeopaths and legitimate doctors each call the other side quacks, so they both must be the same, right? Well, no, obviously they aren't. Those who claim that vaccines cause autism are opposed to researchers who deny this claim and some rather nasty insults get thrown around. Does this mean both groups are equally vitriolic? Again, no. Holocaust deniers and conventional historians each accuse the other side of pushing a dishonest agenda for racist purposes. There must be good and bad people on both sides, and those who are bad must be equally bad and for the same reasons, right? No, no one would be stupid enough to say that.

The fact of the matter is that while two "sides" might say similar things about each other, it would be incredibly lazy to conclude that these two sides are therefore the same. First, you have to look at the motivations. Side A and side B might each accuse the other of lying, but if you look and see that A is propagating known falsehoods and are simply accusing B out of spite, then an outside observer cannot honestly claim that the two are the same. Secondly, you have to look at the specific insults. Getting called a Nazi who uses hate-speech is distressing, as is getting called dishonest. That does not mean the two are the same. Thirdly, you have to look at the complaints. If side A complains in response to being corrected or contradicted while side B complains because they're being called Nazis, then it's clearly dishonest to equivocate the two groups.

I can appreciate the calls for moderation for both sides here in this particular debate. But at the same time, trying to equivocate the two groups and their complaints is rather incorrect. It's related to the belief that all claims and ideas are equally valid, that if one group says that 2+2=4 and another says that 2+2=17, well, the true answer must lie somewhere in the middle. It's an excuse to not seriously examine the issue and to give an inaccurate appearance of impartiality.

 

[crawfish]

No kidding. It's like even in calling for "mutual respect", he still takes a swing at YEC's. The TE's have their own forum also, are they "hiding" as well?

I wasn't trying to insult you. That's why there were quotes around the word "hiding". I used that word because that was the behavior as perceived by those who were critical of the action, and it was more fitting given the context of what I was posting. The truth was, that statement is more critical of those who criticize you than of you. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

 

[Mallon]

It's related to the belief that all claims and ideas are equally valid, that if one group says that 2+2=4 and another says that 2+2=17, well, the true answer must lie somewhere in the middle. It's an excuse to not seriously examine the issue and to give an inaccurate appearance of impartiality.

Nobody here is advocating that approach, though, Galle. We are calling for mutual respect and "speaking the truth in love." It is entirely possible to disagree and do it in a patient and respectful tone. We are all Christians here, afterall.

 

[crawfish]

I can appreciate the calls for moderation for both sides here in this particular debate. But at the same time, trying to equivocate the two groups and their complaints is rather incorrect. It's related to the belief that all claims and ideas are equally valid, that if one group says that 2+2=4 and another says that 2+2=17, well, the true answer must lie somewhere in the middle. It's an excuse to not seriously examine the issue and to give an inaccurate appearance of impartiality.

There are a few facts we must accept:


1) Creationists are going to be disturbed by TE's non-traditional view of scripture.

2) TE's are going to be disturbed by creationists' use of the bible to define scientific truths.

Because this involves our fundamental view of what God is, what God does and what our purpose is, of course we're going to have conflicts. However: it is not our purpose to judge each other's intentions. Let God be the judge; present your opinions, dispute the opinions of others, and do it in an honest, respectful way. Very little true conversion is going to take place here; the best we should hope for is a little better understanding of our fellow Christians.

 

[crawfish]

No kidding. It's like even in calling for "mutual respect", he still takes a swing at YEC's. The TE's have their own forum also, are they "hiding" as well?

For the record - we might be, if anyone ever posted there.

 

[Galle]

Nobody here is advocating that approach, though, Galle. We are calling for mutual respect and "speaking the truth in love." It is entirely possible to disagree and do it in a patient and respectful tone. We are all Christians here, afterall.

I quite agree that mutual respect is desirable. My only objection is that although this respect may break down many times, we should not act as if every instance were equally valid or invalid or done for equal reasons. Nor should we believe every complaint of disrespect is equally true. In short, evolutionists and creationists may both complain about their treatment at the hands of the other group. But we shouldn't take this to mean that both groups are equally "guilty".

 

[Mallon]

But we shouldn't take this to mean that both groups are equally "guilty".

We are both guilty of not speaking the truth in love, as per Paul's instructions (Ephesians 4:15). That much I'm sure of. I agree largely with what you are saying, but I just don't think anyone here is advocating that creationism and evolution are on par as far as the evidence is concerned.

 

[Melethiel]

I quite agree that mutual respect is desirable. My only objection is that although this respect may break down many times, we should not act as if every instance were equally valid or invalid or done for equal reasons. Nor should we believe every complaint of disrespect is equally true. In short, evolutionists and creationists may both complain about their treatment at the hands of the other group. But we shouldn't take this to mean that both groups are equally "guilty".

In my case, I was speaking with regard to the rules of this forum, since it's my "job" (highly underpaid ) to enforce them. I was also speaking to the general tone of posts that I have observed lately. I was not speaking about the validity of the various criticisms or propagating one viewpoint over another, since I pull myself out of discussions whenever it seems like moderation might be necessary.