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

[Galle]

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.

I must disagree. Understanding others and effectively communicating with them requires that one know the intentions of others. To use a slightly silly example, if a person says, "I love you, man," you're going to treat it differently depending on whether or not he's trying to get your Bud Light. Or if someone asks me a general question about capacitance, I'll respond differently depending on if they intend to answer a particular Circuits II homework problem or if they want to improve their general knowledge of physics. Or if you're writing a document on high-pass filters, you're going to use different terminology and focus on different things depending on who your intended audience is and what you anticipate they want to do.

To use a more relevant example, if someone asks, "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" you're going to respond differently depending on what you know of the questioner and her intentions. A student who honestly asks will get a different response from a drive-by creationist who has no intention of even considering the answer. Judging another's intentions and taking them into account isn't just useful, it's absolutely necessary for any effective communication.

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.

Honesty sometimes forces uncomfortable conclusions upon us. Unflattering conclusions really do need to be considered and reaching these unflattering conclusions is sometimes necessary. Respect and disrespect can both be earned depending on one's actions. Holding a false sense of respect for others is no better than holding a false sense of disrespect.

 

[laptoppop]

I just don't think anyone here is advocating that creationism and evolution are on par as far as the evidence is concerned.

That's correct -- the evidence is much stronger for a global flood than for evolution.

 

[laptoppop]

Holding a false sense of respect for others is no better than holding a false sense of disrespect.

One can *feel* disrespect, but that does not mean that one has to act disrespectfully towards that person.

 

[Mallon]

That's correct -- the evidence is much stronger for a global flood than for evolution.

I saw that one coming from a mile away. Now if only you could somehow identify which layers in the column were deposited by the Flood.
Let's save that for another thread.

 

[mark kennedy]

.

That is what theIdi0t wrote, absolutely nothing. This is supposed to be an opening post, is it any wonder that this forum is turning into one big flame war?

As to the title of the thread, it's classic projection:

Romans 2:1 "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. "

 

[Mallon]

That is what theIdi0t wrote, absolutely nothing. This is supposed to be an opening post, is it any wonder that this forum is turning into one big flame war?

He renegged on his OP and edited his post, mark. Hence the note at the bottom:

Last edited by theIdi0t : Today at 01:05 PM.

 

[crawfish]

That is what theIdi0t wrote, absolutely nothing. This is supposed to be an opening post, is it any wonder that this forum is turning into one big flame war?

As to the title of the thread, it's classic projection:

Romans 2:1 "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. "

I think he should be given credit that he admitted his error in judgment, apologized to the offended parties, and removed the offending post.

If we can't be forgiven when we ask, there's no point in even trying to avoid a flame war.

 

[archaeologist]

let's examine this for a minute.

Noah was found righteous in the eyes of God out a whole world, he preached for 120 years (according to Peter) WITHOUT A SINGLE CONVERT yet he was saved in the ark and still chosen by God to re-start the human race. what would you declare 'his fruits' to be?

i think one needs to redefine their definition of the word 'fruit' by God's standards and not anyone human's.

 

[busterdog]

This forum used to be one of the best behaved under Theology.

I don't know whether to be proud of the OT threads, or ashamed of online Christians in general. The other forums must be pretty brutal.

 

[archaeologist]

highlighting

let's examine this for a minute.

Noah was found righteous in the eyes of God out a whole world, he preached for 120 years (according to Peter) WITHOUT A SINGLE CONVERT yet he was saved in the ark and still chosen by God to re-start the human race. what would you declare 'his fruits' to be?

i think one needs to redefine their definition of the word 'fruit' by God's standards and not anyone human's.

 

[mark kennedy]

I think he should be given credit that he admitted his error in judgment, apologized to the offended parties, and removed the offending post.

If we can't be forgiven when we ask, there's no point in even trying to avoid a flame war.

Ok, I guess I over reacted. Taking another look at the thread it would seem that things are pretty civil. I don't see any reason to stir up strife when the peacemakers are starting to make some progress.

I'll leave you guys to your discussion.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[theIdi0t]

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

I thought I should address this, since it was brought up in one of the creationist subforum threads. I never claimed creationist teachers were morally corrupt, I claimed that all the ones I am familiar with are theologically corrupt, not morally corrupt.

 

[HypnoToad]

I never claimed creationist teachers were morally corrupt, I claimed that all the ones I am familiar with are theologically corrupt, not morally corrupt.

Well, saying you can show all of their fruit is rotten to the core certainly sounds like moral corruption. But you've conveniently deleted your whole post, so we really can't see what you said, can we.

 

[IamAdopted]

What is a YEC and what is a TE?

 

[shernren]

YEC = young earth creationist.
TE = theistic evolutionist.