Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[BPPLEE]

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"

"

I believe there are many views of the creation story in Genesis that could be valid.

 

[Bradskii]

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."

So we have this:
'Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault...'

Followed by this:
'We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.'

A loophole? That bus that @ottawak said the creationsts were thrown under? If drove through that loophole. You could have driven a whole fleet of buses through it. I didn't know there was a 'standard of truth'. Who knew it was relative, eh?

Why not a simple 'You don't have to take it literally'.

 

[BPPLEE]

So we have this:
'Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault...'

Followed by this:
'We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.'

A loophole? That bus that @ottawak said the creationsts were thrown under? If drove through that loophole. You could have driven a whole fleet of buses through it. I didn't know there was a 'standard of truth'. Who knew it was relative, eh?

Why not a simple 'You don't have to take it literally'.

Yes Wesley's statement is much simpler basically that what you need to know about salvation is found in the Bible

 

[Bradskii]

Yes Wesley's statement is much simpler basically that what you need to know about salvation is found in the Bible

And that's a reasonable position.

 

[BPPLEE]

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.

I don't feel that way. No one else has to accept my beliefs and trying to force them to is counterproductive

 

[ruthiesea]

If you say so.What if a person in authority tells you to do the right thing?

Then there is no moral or ethical conflict.

 

[Astrid]

I don't feel that way. No one else has to accept my beliefs and trying to force them to is counterproductive

Thats sensible of you.
But what does it have to do with what I said?

 

[BPPLEE]

Thats sensible of you.
But what does it have to do with what I said?

That creationists never admit errors. I've been wrong about several things

 

[AV1611VET]

That creationists never admit errors. I've been wrong about several things.

I sometimes think unbelievers think we should advertise our errors.

Wear a lanyard or something around our necks with our corrections listed.

I'm sure Heaven right now is populated with those who, at one time, believed (or didn't believe) this, that, and ten other things.

 

[BPPLEE]

I sometimes think unbelievers think we should advertise our errors.

Wear a lanyard or something around our necks with our corrections listed.

I'm sure Heaven right now is populated with those who, at one time, believed (or didn't believe) this, that, and ten other things.

Like a scarlet letter?

 

[Astrid]

That creationists never admit errors. I've been wrong about several things

That creationists never admit errors. I've been wrong about several things

Ok, i didnt see that in your comment about not forcing ideas.

If you have accepted it that any of your creationist ideas
were wrong, you are a rare gem. Ive never seen it hapen.

Do you have an example in mind? That would be
intetesting, if you dont mind?

 

[AV1611VET]

Like a scarlet letter?

There you go!

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you have an example in mind? That would be
intetesting, if you dont mind?

Do you want him to list his traffic tickets as well?

 

[BPPLEE]

Ok, i didnt see that in your comment about not forcing ideas.

If you have accepted it that any of your creationist ideas
were wrong, you are a rare gem. Ive never seen it hapen.

Do you have an example in mind? That would be
intetesting, if you dont mind?

I was wrong about what I had read about radiometric dating and how the fossil record came to be for a couple and there is more than one way Genesis can be interpreted

 

[Astrid]

I was wrong about what I had read about radiometric dating and how the fossil record came to be for a couple and there is more than one way Genesis can be interpreted

As I said then, a rare gem.

For my curiosity, how did / do you now think the fossil record came to be?

 

[BPPLEE]

As I said then, a rare gem.

For my curiosity, how did / do you now think the fossil record came to be?

I don't think a global flood adequately explains the fossil record. It's more complicated than that

 

[Astrid]

I don't think a global flood adequately explains the fossil record. It's more complicated than that

Half right, but a good start

 

[BPPLEE]

Half right, but a good start

Not sure what you mean by half right but I'm not changing my views to please others. Some of the things I had been led to believe were wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Some of the things I had been led to believe were wrong.

Strange question: Should I believe your corrections too, so I won't be wrong?

 

[ottawak]

Strange question: Should I believe your corrections too, so I won't be wrong?

Knowing a previous belief to be wrong doesn't make the present belief necessarily correct.