Is it Open Season on Us Now?

[KerrMetric]

..calling a class of people "con men" in general.

I did no such thing.

 

[Melethiel]

In case anyone is wondering, I'm planning on laying low for a while until ya'll sort the rules out. However, too much debate starts happening here, and I'll split the posts out into Origins.

 

[laptoppop]

In case anyone is wondering, I'm planning on laying low for a while until ya'll sort the rules out. However, too much debate starts happening here, and I'll split the posts out into Origins.

Glad to see you still around. It gives me more time to show you how conservative Bible interpretation and catastrophic geology (YEC) fit together wonderfully.

 

[busterdog]

Well jump right in my man, it's open season on Creationists now!



I asked TEs again and again where they stood on the subject of miracles and they did not show the slightest interest in addressing the issue. Here are a few since you decided to invade the Creationist subforum:

Moses - The flaming bush Ex 3:2
The transformation of Moses' rod into a serpent Ex 4:3, 4, 30; 7:10, 12
Moses' leprosy Ex 4:6, 7, 30
The plagues in Egypt Nu 16:46-50
The pillar of cloud and fire Ex 13:21, 22; 14:19, 20 Daily for 40 years, day and night
Passage through the Red Sea Ex 14:22
The destruction of Pharaoh and his army Ex 14:23-30
Sweetening the waters of Marah Ex 15:25
Manna Ex 16:4-31... daily for almost 40 years
Quails Ex 16:13
The defeat of Amalek Ex 17:9-13
The transfiguration of the face of Moses Ex 34:29-35
Water from the rock Ex 17:5, 7
Thundering and lightning on Mount Sinai Ex 19:16-20; 24:10, 15-17; De 4:33
Miriam's leprosy Nu 12:10-15
Judgment by fire Nu 11:1-3
The destruction of Korah Nu 16:31-35; De 11:6, 7
The plague Nu 16:46-50
Aaron's rod buds Nu 17:1-9
Water from the rock in Kadesh Nu 20:8-11
The scourge of serpents Nu 21:6-9
The destruction of Nadab and Abihu Le 10:1, 2
Balaam's donkey speaks Nu 22:23-30
The preservation of Moses De 34:7
The Jordan River divided Jos 3:14-17; 4:16-18
The fall of Jericho Jos 6:20
The Midianites destroyed Jud 7:16-22
Hailstones on the confederated kings Jos 10:11
The sun and the moon stand still Jos 10:12-14
Dew on Gideon's fleece Jud 6:37-40
Samson's strength 16:3, Jud 14:6; 29, 30
Samson supplied with water Jud 15:19
The falling of the god Dagon 1Sa 5:1-4
Even nursing cows return the ark of the covenant (walking away from their calves) 1Sa 6:7-14
The plague of hemorrhoids on the Philistines 1Sa 5:9-12; 6:1-18
The destruction of the people of Beth-shemesh 1Sa 6:19, 20
Thunder 1Sa 12:16-18
The death of Uzzah 2Sa 6:1-8
The plague in Israel 1Ch 21:14-26

(Naves Topical Textbook)

Did any of this actually happen?




Except for you they pretty much ignore miracles. You make big blustering remarks about how you believe but you said yourself that the figurative interpretation of Genesis doesn't stop until some time in 2 Kings. So you believe in some miracles, most of the rest don't even want to talk about them. That sounds more like Hegelian philosophy then Christian theology to me. It does not impress me when someone tells me they are a Christian, Judas was a Christian. It does not impress me when they say they believe in God, so does the Devil.



So anyone who believes in the historicity of Genesis is stupid and if you believe the Hebrew narratives are actually historical accounts your not worth talking to. Bear in mind I didn't bust into Theistic Evolution to insult and belittle you in the name of unity in order to shun conversations with you. You did that and you are typical of the divisive and contentious spirit that is secular humanism.



Biology, cosmology and geology have no objective basis for their a priori naturalistic assumptions. Like all evolutionists you are blind to the fact that evolution as natural history is a myth. Unlike you I actually read the scientific literature and they lie through their teeth about the evidence. Not in the papers mind you, they couldn't get away with that. They lie to people like you and you believe it because you don't know how to research their work.

I have news for you buddy, I am immune to your venom and I'm not impressed with superficial professions of divisive and contentious psuedo-theologians.

Have a nice day
Mark

Mark,

My impressions:

1. The new rules are pretty much the same as the old, with some wiki format changes.

2. There are a number of TEs breaking the old and new rules, but I assume that this will pass with time.

3. The charge of atheism is a mixed bag. Not everyone is willing to come out of the bushes and really say what they think about this stuff. Some have and don't deserve it. Others are more cagey. I share some of your suspicions, but I am not sure you can push this too hard just on the basis of suspicions. If someone is unwilling to accept a literal resurrection, in a very technical sense, "atheism" is probably the wrong term, though I think your argument and use of the term is a fair one in that respect. Paul was willing to draw the line there also.

4. Christians are a disappointing crowd. I still like to read your posts, but I am not optimistic about many conversions or even concessions following your Church militant posture, though I believe you are up to the task of defending doctrine.

By the way, have a look at the following:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56612

[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+2]Pope: So, you're not Catholic? Then you're not in true Church[/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=Palatino, Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+1]Benedict ignites holy war of words by stating other groups 'defective'[/SIZE][/FONT]

I am going through my own sectarian struggle in a way in my Church.

So, I am particularly sensitive at the moment to Christian schism. I found it odd to see these things coming out at the same time as the CF changes. This is a tough time for the Church generally. Perhaps the Church is taking a few lashes for its unrepetence. All I would counsel on that point is to listen very carefully to the Spirit, with these things in view.

 

[archaeologist]

Well jump right in my man, it's open season on Creationists now

i just wonder if the mods get some sort of perverted entertainment at the expense of creationists & christians?

i posted the same thing in my report after the latest round of attacks laid against me.

one also wonders if they went to this majority rule concept so they would not be responsible and lay the blame onto the rule makers. that isn't leadership but an abdication of one's duties.

 

[laptoppop]

Just to be clear -- this new methodology came from Erwin, not the moderators. Many of the moderators have been as upset as the rest of us -- a significant number have left. The ones still here are doing their best to cope with the rough transition.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark,

My impressions:

1. The new rules are pretty much the same as the old, with some wiki format changes.

I agree with that, you can pretty much say anything you like as long as you don't question whether or not someone else is a Christian. Nevermind what they believe, if they say they are a Christian then they are a Christian, that's the rule.

2. There are a number of TEs breaking the old and new rules, but I assume that this will pass with time.

Don't count on it, if anything they are going to be a lot bolder in how they undermine Biblical theism.

3. The charge of atheism is a mixed bag. Not everyone is willing to come out of the bushes and really say what they think about this stuff. Some have and don't deserve it. Others are more cagey. I share some of your suspicions, but I am not sure you can push this too hard just on the basis of suspicions. If someone is unwilling to accept a literal resurrection, in a very technical sense, "atheism" is probably the wrong term, though I think your argument and use of the term is a fair one in that respect. Paul was willing to draw the line there also.

Mostly unbelievers are agnostic and there is a whole lot of that in Christian seminaries. It has some tell tell signs, for one thing they will shy away from anything remotely supernatural. Fundamentalism is anathema to them and they push a social gospel claiming that it does not matter if the Bible has any basis as history.

I've see a lot of this and it's not that hard to spot.

4. Christians are a disappointing crowd. I still like to read your posts, but I am not optimistic about many conversions or even concessions following your Church militant posture, though I believe you are up to the task of defending doctrine.

By the way, have a look at the following:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56612

Any more I don't have a lot of interest in making converts and I'm certainly not expecting them to concede anything. I think there is a reason they are so determined to keep a certain class of Christian out of modern academics and science. I don't know if your interested but this is a little from my view of Church history.

For a couple of hundred years the Church was persecuted for not worshiping the gods of Rome (Polycarp was burned at the stake for atheism). Despite that converts were made of barbarians and Romans alike, Constantine was aware of this when he Christianized his empire. By the fifth century the Roman empire had fallen into disarray and Christian scholars were instrumental in laying the groundwork that became a kind of Republic.

This became a religious-political system that made Christianity a political as well as a cultural force. The RCC and Orthodox churches carried the most weight in the political systems and Christians who did not conform had to stay quiet or there were consequences. The Protestant Reformation changed that dramatically and the Whigs wrestled power away from the RCC. On the shores of the New World a reform ideal of a Republic became a Constitutional Republic.

Throughout these many centuries it was obvious to the status quo that when mobilized Christians could bring about dynamic change. Creationism is just one expression of Biblical theism, the status quo is very aware that the majority of Christians favor the Scriptures over their view of science. This threatens their ivory tower world and they are adept at making their influence known.

Creationism has the power to overturn the status quo just like translating the Scriptures into common language did. Making science more accessible to common people is the prize, I have always believed that.

I am going through my own sectarian struggle in a way in my Church.

So, I am particularly sensitive at the moment to Christian schism. I found it odd to see these things coming out at the same time as the CF changes. This is a tough time for the Church generally. Perhaps the Church is taking a few lashes for its unrepetence. All I would counsel on that point is to listen very carefully to the Spirit, with these things in view.

I don't think the church is going through anything new, the Gospel has never been a popularity contest. I don't know what your personal struggle is in your church but I it works itself out. Division in Churches can lead to splits and that's ugly.

I came on here looking for a Bible study and the fact is I have been very disappointed with what I've found. The creation/evolution thing is very interesting but I'm not going to be converted to a modernist mindset. I'm certainly not going to join in this effort to evangelize and convert fundamentalist Christians into it.

For now I'm content to defend Biblical Christianity from the many skeptics and scoffers CF welcomes with open arms. I'm hoping eventually I'll get enough motivation to find a board that is more into Bible study.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[archaeologist]

I am going through my own sectarian struggle in a way in my Church.

So, I am particularly sensitive at the moment to Christian schism. I found it odd to see these things coming out at the same time as the CF changes. This is a tough time for the Church generally. Perhaps the Church is taking a few lashes for its unrepetence. All I would counsel on that point is to listen very carefully to the Spirit, with these things in view.

don't be afraid of a schism as the r.c.c. stands alone and no rela christian church is part of its organizzation.

one of the keys signs we see that tells us that this pope is taking that religious organization down the wrong path is the claim to apostolic succession.

such a claim is not scriptural nor is it a criteria that Christ or the apostles laid down for the church to be of God.

that whole act is staking a claim to what the r.c.c. does not possess nor can ever hold.

Just to be clear -- this new methodology came from Erwin, not the moderators. Many of the moderators have been as upset as the rest of us -- a significant number have left. The ones still here are doing their best to cope with the rough transition.

don't care, i have been victim to something they could have stopped long ago and my patience has worn out.

 

[busterdog]

don't be afraid of a schism as the r.c.c. stands alone and no rela christian church is part of its organizzation.

one of the keys signs we see that tells us that this pope is taking that religious organization down the wrong path is the claim to apostolic succession.

such a claim is not scriptural nor is it a criteria that Christ or the apostles laid down for the church to be of God.

that whole act is staking a claim to what the r.c.c. does not possess nor can ever hold.

Whether the current discord is new or it isn't, one thing is for sure, being "saved" is a pretty narrow definition of redemption. Has the Chruch been saved from the worst of human error? Maybe only the absolute worst, damnation, and only then on an individual and perhaps spotty basis.

All this crappy talk here on CF and the idiocy of Pope Benedict's retread on the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans is not some problem "out there", but it is endemic to just about everything we do in the Church. What the Pope is doing I try to avoid personally and in my immediate circle, but its bloody hard to keep this Caddy out of the ditch.

I just think it is all very sobering. We are the Church. So how do we look? Not so hot.

 

[crawfish]

Whether the current discord is new or it isn't, one thing is for sure, being "saved" is a pretty narrow definition of redemption. Has the Chruch been saved from the worst of human error? Maybe only the absolute worst, damnation, and only then on an individual and perhaps spotty basis.

All this crappy talk here on CF and the idiocy of Pope Benedict's retread on the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans is not some problem "out there", but it is endemic to just about everything we do in the Church. What the Pope is doing I try to avoid personally and in my immediate circle, but its bloody hard to keep this Caddy out of the ditch.

I just think it is all very sobering. We are the Church. So how do we look? Not so hot.

"We have met the enemy, and he is us"

Good post. Sobering, depressing, but good.

 

[busterdog]

"We have met the enemy, and he is us"

Good post. Sobering, depressing, but good.

Well, luckily it is not up to us to save this world, or the Church or ourselves. My Redeemer lives. While He has his work cut out for Him, everything I read says He is more than able to deal with CF or the RCC or me.

 

[archaeologist]

Well, luckily it is not up to us to save this world, or the Church or ourselves. My Redeemer lives. While He has his work cut out for Him, everything I read says He is more than able to deal with CF or the RCC or me.

who do you think God uses to carry out His will and 'save' the world? is it all done miraculously while we believers sleep?

it is up to those 'who are called by His name' to follow His leading and participate; if they don't--- who will?

the true believer has to live his/her life the way God wants, must do things which demonstrates the love of God to all, and so on.

God has chosen to work through those who are called by His name and they must shun all secular thinking, desires and so on if they want to make a real impact for God.

the very act of Jesus calling His disciples and training them shows that we believers are to be involved in His 'saving' of the world and that God gives the intsrtuctions and we carry them out humbly.

 

[archaeologist]

who cares what the pope decrees. he is not of God nor does he represent what God says.

we believers have the Bible, the Holy Spirit and Jesus to guide us and tell us what are God's requirements and there is not one verse in the scripture that says apolstolic succession is the requirement to be God's people or church.

since there is no scriptural support for such thinking we know that what the pope says is false and meant to deceive those who are lost and unaware of the truth.

we know from revelations that there is a false religion wrecking havoc on the people and many point to the r.c.c. and such edicts lends credibility to their point.

the pope is wrong.

 

[theIdi0t]

who do you think God uses to carry out His will and 'save' the world? is it all done miraculously while we believers sleep?

it is up to those 'who are called by His name' to follow His leading and participate; if they don't--- who will?

the true believer has to live his/her life the way God wants, must do things which demonstrates the love of God to all, and so on.

God has chosen to work through those who are called by His name and they must shun all secular thinking, desires and so on if they want to make a real impact for God.

the very act of Jesus calling His disciples and training them shows that we believers are to be involved in His 'saving' of the world and that God gives the intsrtuctions and we carry them out humbly.

I'm surprised to say, but I agree with you archie.

I guess evolutionary "satanist" and creationist can have mutual goals.

 

[archaeologist]

I guess evolutionary "satanist

even they have some truth--ha ha

 

[Gamezilla]

Read ExpatChristian's thread, "How can thinking Christians challenge the anti-intellectual assault" in the main Origins area. Is this not just plain hate speech?

Just from the title, fundamentalists and creationists are "not thinking", and we are "anti-intelectual". Then in the main body, our views are "preposterous" and "vulgar". We "suspend God-given faculties". With the exception of "vulgar", this all simply states, "they're stupid".

Then, Expat gives two options:

1. Let fundamentalists/creationists influence the nation's children, so they are raised in an "intellectually imporverished" (again - code for "stupid") environment

2. Lump fundamentalists/creationists in with "Islamic fanatics".

Other than "terrorists", I'm not sure what else "Islamic fanatics" is supposed to refer to.

I don't see anything to his post other than fundamentalists/creationists are stupid and should be treated as terrorists.

Now, the thread has currently been "locked for staff review", but if anyone else sees this as offensive as I do, I would encourage you to PM the staff and voice your opinion on it.

The people that post this tripe are very self-righteous. I know a lot of people like this (even family members), and if you don't agree with their hopeless way of thinking, then your stupid and ignorant. Personally, I think this kind of junk comes from insecurity. Let them say what they will, because they will know the truth when Jesus descends from Heaven.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

don't be afraid of a schism as the r.c.c. stands alone and no rela christian church is part of its organizzation.
....

So Catholics are not Christian Archie? Is that what you are saying?

 

[busterdog]

So Catholics are not Christian Archie? Is that what you are saying?

I had to read it twice. What he is saying is quite similar in spirit, but the opposite of what the Pope said -- that the real Churches are not under RCC authority.

I disagree with him, since I think there are true Churches within the RCC. But I also believe the RCC teaches the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans, in attempting to impose its priestly authority on all believers, and which God hates.

But, his statement plainly allows for many catholics to be true Christians.

My point: 1. archie's statement should be read carefully; and 2. I like to be clear that I consider my Catholic brothers to be true brothers, though I have a few problems with the RCC.

 

[busterdog]

The people that post this tripe are very self-righteous. I know a lot of people like this (even family members), and if you don't agree with their hopeless way of thinking, then your stupid and ignorant. Personally, I think this kind of junk comes from insecurity. Let them say what they will, because they will know the truth when Jesus descends from Heaven.

You can leave.

 

[archaeologist]

But, his statement plainly allows for many catholics to be true Christians.

we all know that there are exceptions,{jews for Jesus, Catholic christians and that God is in charge of who gets into heaven} and this breaks down to doctrinal issues; yet those who seek to generalize and omit the data of specifics only cause trouble and look to ridicule the poster and the point being made and have nothiing credible to say.

the pope has no authority to declare who or what is the true church. such belief that he can is delusional and puts one on dangerous ground as God knows His own and His own recognize His voice.

the pope is a humanly recognized church leader but there is a big difference between that recognition and being a true man of God.