Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[Bradskii]

That was going to be my next question.

Then it's answered in the post above yours.

 

[BPPLEE]

I'd like to think I do. So if 'an authority' tells me to do something that the authority says is right then I have to decide if indeed it's right. So 'doing right' is obviously the correct thing to do. Doing what an authority tells you to do doesn't necessarily align with that.

Doing the right thing is not always easy and can be costly. Believe me I know

 

[Mr Laurier]

They would have massacred me too.

Cortez might.
Tudor though?

 

[Mr Laurier]

If you say so.

No.
Whether or not I say so.

What if a person in authority tells you to do the right thing?

I would first need to verify that it is indeed right.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Doing the right thing is not always easy and can be costly. Believe me I know

I know too.
Sometimes doing the right thing means opposing people who have power. It means shouting the truth through a storm of lies. And it means refusing to deny and recant, no matter how savage and violent the punishment.

 

[AV1611VET]

Cortez might.
Tudor though?

Yes, Tudor.

Wherever the Reformation prevailed, Baptist sentiments sprang up with it. So it was in England. In 1534, when Henry VIII. assumed the headship of the English Church, he issued two proclamations against heretics. The first referred to certain persons who had presumed to dispute about baptism and the Lord’s Supper, some of whom were foreigners: these were ordered to depart the realm within eight or ten days. The second stated more explicitly that foreigners who had been baptized in infancy, but had renounced that baptism and had been re-baptized, had entered England, and were spreading their opinions over the kingdom. They were commanded to withdraw within twelve days, on pain of suffering death if they remained.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

I would first need to verify that it is indeed right.

Using what standard of verification?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Yes, Tudor.

Wherever the Reformation prevailed, Baptist sentiments sprang up with it. So it was in England. In 1534, when Henry VIII. assumed the headship of the English Church, he issued two proclamations against heretics. The first referred to certain persons who had presumed to dispute about baptism and the Lord’s Supper, some of whom were foreigners: these were ordered to depart the realm within eight or ten days. The second stated more explicitly that foreigners who had been baptized in infancy, but had renounced that baptism and had been re-baptized, had entered England, and were spreading their opinions over the kingdom. They were commanded to withdraw within twelve days, on pain of suffering death if they remained.

SOURCE

ah.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Using what standard of verification?

It depends on circumstances

 

[Astrid]

I know too.
Sometimes doing the right thing means opposing people who have power. It means shouting the truth through a storm of lies. And it means refusing to deny and recant, no matter how savage and violent the punishment.

Standing up for what is right is a lot harder than
just being stubborn about recanting.

The really hard part is being willing and able to
recognize when you yourself may be the one
who is on the wrong side.

Creationists being the topic of the thread, its not irrelevant
to note that they consider it a highest virtue to never ever
admit to the slightest error.*

* this is seemingly invariable in any matter of science
that contradicts their beliefs.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists being the topic of the thread, its not irrelevant to note that they consider it a highest virtue to never ever admit to the slightest error.

Why isn't that taught as standard doctrine, then?

I've been a Christian and Bible student for forty years this December, and I've never heard that taught.

Is there a name for this strange doctrine?

Egoism? parsimony? grandeurism? what?

And do we back it up with Scripture?

Since you seem to know it so well, perhaps you can give is a verse or two? or three?

 

[ottawak]

Why isn't that taught as standard doctrine, then?

I've been a Christian and Bible student for forty years this December, and I've never heard that taught.

Is there a name for this strange doctrine?

The literal inerrancy of scripture.

 

[AV1611VET]

The literal inerrancy of scripture.

I see.

So literal inerrancy doesn't correct wrong thinking about the Bible?

For example:

1. Joe believes in a local flood.
2. Moe believes in a worldwide flood.
3. Both believe in literal inerrancy.
4. If Moe convinces Joe that the Flood was worldwide, does Joe have to abandon literal inerrancy?

 

[ottawak]

I see.

So literal inerrancy doesn't correct wrong thinking about the Bible?

In my experience, it inceases and encourages wrong thinking about the Bible.

 

[AV1611VET]

In my experience, it inceases and encourages wrong thinking about the Bible.

I like what was pointed out to me once:

Adam and Eve only had one proscription (prohibition) to obey: Don't eat from the Tree of Knowledge.

Satan caused her to question that inerrant word ("Yea, hath God said?").

And the rest is history.

 

[ottawak]

I like what was pointed out to me once:

Adam and Eve only had one proscription (prohibition) to obey: Don't eat from the Tree of Knowledge.

Satan caused her to question that inerrant word ("Yea, hath God said?").

And the rest is history.

God's command to not eat the fruit of the tree was delvered in writing???

 

[BPPLEE]

In my experience, it inceases and encourages wrong thinking about the Bible.

Augustine said "I most firmly believe that the authors [of scripture] were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the [manuscript] is faulty or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.”
The definitive statement on inerrancy was drafted in 1978, when three hundred conservative evangelical theologians, biblical scholars, pastors, and laity met in Chicago and produced the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” This statement has been adopted by the Evangelical Theological Society as defining the doctrine of inerrancy. In the document’s “short statement,” it makes this claim regarding the meaning of biblical inerrancy:

"Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives."
Article 13 of the Chicago Statement offers this denial:

"We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations."
That's a pretty big loophole.
Let's be grateful for Article 19: “We deny that such confession [of inerrancy] is necessary for salvation.”
John Wesley, during the eighteenth-century evangelical revival he led, adopted as the official doctrinal statement of Methodists related to scripture the following:
"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

 

[ottawak]

Augustine said "I most firmly believe that the authors [of scripture] were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the [manuscript] is faulty or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.”

Exactly. And I regard literal inerrancy as a failure to understand.

The definitive statement on inerrancy was drafted in 1978, when three hundred conservative evangelical theologians, biblical scholars, pastors, and laity met in Chicago and produced the “Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” This statement has been adopted by the Evangelical Theological Society as defining the doctrine of inerrancy.

That's great for conservative Evangelicals, but don't forget that conservative Evangelicalism is only a small slice of Christendom as a whole.

In the document’s “short statement,” it makes this claim regarding the meaning of biblical inerrancy:

"We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations."
That's a pretty big loophole.

There go the creationists under the bus.

Let's be grateful for Article 19: “We deny that such confession [of inerrancy] is necessary for salvation.”

They not only threw the creationists under the bus, now they're backing up to run over them again.

John Wesley, during the eighteenth-century evangelical revival he led, adopted as the official doctrinal statement of Methodists related to scripture the following:
"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."

Sola Scriptura. What else would you expect from a Protestant?

 

[BPPLEE]

Exactly. And I regard literal inerrancy as a failure to understand.
That's great for conservative Evangelicals, but don't forget that conservative Evangelicalism is only a small slice of Christendom as a whole. There go the creationists under the bus.
They not only threw the creationists under the bus, now they're backing up to run over them again.
Sola Scriptura. What else would you expect from a Protestant?

I think you are using a big umbrella for everyone you call creationists.

 

[ottawak]

I think you are using a big umbrella for everyone you call creationists.

I call anyone a creationist who believes that a literal reading of Genesis trumps science...

"We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations."

...and who denies (as creationists usually do in this forum) all of those "denials"

"