Is it Open Season on Us Now?

[laptoppop]

I guess its ok to call us deliberate con men now too.

 

[archaeologist]

I guess its ok to call us deliberate con men now too

doesn't matter. they are just proving that they do not have the truth.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Don't worry guys. It is people like idiot that God used originally before I was a YEC to help me to become one. Poor arguments, attacks on Christians and just utter nonsense showed me that error of the TEC view. The YEC has science, the Bible and a great community on it's side.

 

[busterdog]

Don't worry guys. It is people like idiot that God used originally before I was a YEC to help me to become one. Poor arguments, attacks on Christians and just utter nonsense showed me that error of the TEC view. The YEC has science, the Bible and a great community on it's side.

In an odd kind of way that makes sense. I always thought that one of the greatest arguments for the truth of the Bible was Islam, and particularly the Palis and world-wide effort to appease them, even if it meant taking Jerusalem away from the Jews.

I don't think our particular cause is really that salient. But it does seem to be one gauge of how one is seeking and motivation to continually ask God to lead the right way.

One thing that is pretty clear is that being in a place where you have to endure such nonsense is not a great place to be for fellowship.

The idea that your are validated by criticism us a dangerous one. But looking around, I see a time of clarifying divisions in the Church and the world. Maybe we are getting ready for sheep and goats time.

By the way, do you have anything in common with http://www.project86.com/index_rival_factions.html? Do you both get your name from the same place? Project 86 is a great Christian band.

 

[theIdi0t]

And today it continues.

See the threads, "If I was judging by their fruits ...," by Idiot, and, "Is God a scientist?" by Expat.

Idiot's basically says any teacher of creationism must be morally corrupt, and Expat's basically says science is God.

It would be more comforting of some of the other TE's here would speak up against this kind of garbage, but so far they stay silent.

Even though the rules now permit me to post in this subforum, I don't plain to raid the threads here, but I felt this particular post needed a response, since my name is mentioned.

I never claimed creationist teachers were "morally corrupt", I claimed they were theologically corrupt, at least all the one's I am familiar with. This corruption spreads much further that just their "creation" advocacy but infects much of their theology surrounding Christianity.

But like I said "theologically corrupt" and "morally corrupt" are two vasty different things, and I just wanted to make that clear.

 

[HypnoToad]

Even though the rules now permit me to post in this subforum, I don't plain to raid the threads here, but I felt this particular post needed a response, since my name is mentioned.

I never claimed creationist teachers were "morally corrupt", I claimed they were theologically corrupt, at least all the one's I am familiar with. This corruption spreads much further that just their "creation" advocacy but infects much of their theology surrounding Christianity.

But like I said "theologically corrupt" and "morally corrupt" are two vasty different things, and I just wanted to make that clear.

You claimed if you were shown any of their fruit, you could show it to be "rotten to the core". You stated nothing limiting it to theology. It was only after you were called out on it that you went to this "it was only theology" claim.

 

[theIdi0t]

You claimed if you were shown any of their fruit, you could show it to be "rotten to the core". You stated nothing limiting it to theology. It was only after you were called out on it that you went to this "it was only theology" claim.

Well, I apologize for any misunderstanding, and that is one of the reasons why I deleted the post to begin with. But I can assure you I never meant to imply "morally corrupt". I wouldn't even call ministers that I deplore such as those who preach prosperity Gospel, as being "morally corrupt". So even if my original post might have led you to assume that "morally corrupt" is what I was implying, I can assure you that this was not my intention.

 

[Tonks]

I guess its ok to call us deliberate con men now too.

Negative. The report function still works.

 

[laptoppop]

Well, I apologize for any misunderstanding, and that is one of the reasons why I deleted the post to begin with. But I can assure you I never meant to imply "morally corrupt". I wouldn't even call ministers that I deplore such as those who preach prosperity Gospel, as being "morally corrupt". So even if my original post might have led you to assume that "morally corrupt" is what I was implying, I can assure you that this was not my intention.

Thanks!

 

[laptoppop]

Negative. The report function still works.

It wasn't clear that it was a violation under the old rules -- and with the new more "tolerant" direction, its not at all clear that name calling of creationists in general or creationist organizations is a violation.

 

[Melethiel]

It wasn't clear that it was a violation under the old rules -- and with the new more "tolerant" direction, its not at all clear that name calling of creationists in general or creationist organizations is a violation.

We're as clueless as you are.

Ya'll are in charge of the rules now.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

By the way, do you have anything in common with http://www.project86.com/index_rival_factions.html? Do you both get your name from the same place? Project 86 is a great Christian band.

Yes, years ago I picked my name because of the band. Since then the lead singer has stated some things I disagree with but I still think they are musically great and find it easier to just keep the same nick I have had for years.

 

[laptoppop]

We're as clueless as you are.

Ya'll are in charge of the rules now.

Daddy! She called me clueless! (grin)

 

[Melethiel]

Daddy! She called me clueless! (grin)

*gives self 50 lashes with wet noodle*

 

[KerrMetric]

It wasn't clear that it was a violation under the old rules -- and with the new more "tolerant" direction, its not at all clear that name calling of creationists in general or creationist organizations is a violation.

Since it was my comment being discussed (the con men thing) let me clarify.

The intent of that comment is that I feel many people posting on here get their "information" (or should I say disinformation) from some sources where I think the people are con men. It actually, believe it or not, was not an implication the poster I was quoting from at the time was himself being a con man.

By the way - I do not believe calling groups like AIG and ICR "names" was ever a violation. Those groups were not posters on here and just like calling Elvis or Ronald Reagan a name was never considered a violation on other boards.

Bye

 

[mark kennedy]

I'm going back to full debate mode at least as long as I finish out my tour here. I'll be honest with you, I had always kindled the hope that it was possible to embrace Christian Theology and TOE. Presently I am of the opinion that they are mutually exclusive.

The genuine article of faith as it relates to history and science is anathema to the secular clerics of our day. I am still interested in fellowshipping with creationists in this forum and hope we can keep the mockers of the common forum out of the creationist sub-forum. I'll wait and see what happens but I will not discuss Theology with atheists.

I will be very interested in how the creationists will want to keep things in here. I'm hoping the regulars can come to a consensus and keep this sub-forum open for creationists.

I'm disappointed with CF for what it's done and I'm not terribly optimistic about what the end result will be. I am open to whatever the regulars on here think is best for the sub-forum but right now I'm gearing up for debate.

I'll be around, you can be sure of that.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Edited to add: With the above post I have the answer to the question of whether mockers are going to be allowed in the sub-forum. Let's rock and roll.

 

[theIdi0t]

.

 

[laptoppop]

I'm going back to full debate mode at least as long as I finish out my tour here. I'll be honest with you, I had always kindled the hope that it was possible to embrace Christian Theology and TOE. Presently I am of the opinion that they are mutually exclusive.

There is a fine line we have to walk. We must be careful to separate the beliefs and systems from the people. It is crucial to continue to state that someone can be a true Christian, and be mistaken in their theology and science. I have never met anyone from here, but I do believe that we have some solid brothers and sisters who are mistaken in this area, but with whom we share a love of Jesus and salvation by grace through faith. We do not want to have someone not listen because they feel personally insulted.

However, I have also come to the point where I believe that the TOE and liberal theology (such as higher criticism, calling the first part of Genesis a myth, etc.) to be deliberate lies from the Father of lies, who is out to deceive all he can. I see people as in a state of logical tension - of cognitive dissonance. Down deep, there is illogic in their positions, but they don't really realize it consciously.

The genuine article of faith as it relates to history and science is anathema to the secular clerics of our day. I am still interested in fellowshipping with creationists in this forum and hope we can keep the mockers of the common forum out of the creationist sub-forum. I'll wait and see what happens but I will not discuss Theology with atheists.

Amen, and I think the best thing is to just ignore folks that come into this area looking for an argument. Just post as if they aren't here, or address their issue down in the OT area. Attention will encourage them. (I know, I gotta take my own advice )

I will be very interested in how the creationists will want to keep things in here. I'm hoping the regulars can come to a consensus and keep this sub-forum open for creationists.

I'm disappointed with CF for what it's done and I'm not terribly optimistic about what the end result will be. I am open to whatever the regulars on here think is best for the sub-forum but right now I'm gearing up for debate.

I hope it works out too. I don't have much hope right now - but we'll see.

I'll be around, you can be sure of that.

Very glad to hear it. I'm giving it a try, but I'm not sure right now.

Edited to add: With the above post I have the answer to the question of whether mockers are going to be allowed in the sub-forum. Let's rock and roll.

I hear you. I honestly believe that he will regret calling godly men and women whom he has never even met "con men" because they hold a position that he does not. I believe that Jesus covers all of our sins, and that heaven is pure joy, but I also believe he will know the evil of the slander he commits now.

 

[Melethiel]

Down deep, there is illogic in their positions, but they don't really realize it consciously.

I think this is an interesting point. Down deep, there is illogic in much of Christianity. A person being both man and God? Death bringing life? Bread and wine being the Body and Blood of the Saviour?
Lutherans are taught to embrace tension, and not to swing too far in any direction.

 

[busterdog]

I hear you. I honestly believe that he will regret calling godly men and women whom he has never even met "con men" because they hold a position that he does not. I believe that Jesus covers all of our sins, and that heaven is pure joy, but I also believe he will know the evil of the slander he commits now.

Note the focused rebuke of a position, as opposed to calling a class of people "con men" in general.