always apologizing

[FallingWaters]

Why do YEC's always have to be apologizing for making our statements from a YEC point of view? I really wish YEC's could have their own forum where we wouldn't have to be "corrected" all the time by TE's and OEC's.

 

[chaoschristian]

Why do YEC's always have to be apologizing for making our statements from a YEC point of view? I really wish YEC's could have their own forum where we wouldn't have to be "corrected" all the time by TE's and OEC's.

You do, and you just posted in it.

Or are you suggesting another sub-forum seperate from even OEC's?

If TEs are coming into the Creationist sub-forum and posting 'corrections' then we TEs need to police that and ask the offending members to please stop.

I like being to fellowship in here, so I hope your not suggesting that even that be considered off-limits!

Now, perhaps I can understand the source of your frustration. We are not always as respectful of each other in the main forum as we are taught to be.

If we can focus on the ideas and avoid language that points to the person, then we can improve the tone of the forum.

 

[vossler]

Why do YEC's always have to be apologizing for making our statements from a YEC point of view? I really wish YEC's could have their own forum where we wouldn't have to be "corrected" all the time by TE's and OEC's.

I don't feel the need to apologize, but I don't like the idea of having to defend my views in a subforum where that shouldn't be happening. Rather than do so, I just don't post because if I was looking for a 'discussion' of that type I would be in the OT forum.

Why TEs feel the need to come here and correct us is beyond me, but they always seem to do so. I don't ever go into the TE subforum and post, I figure that's their area and I'm not going to intrude. I wouldn't have a problem posting a fellowship post, it's just that I've got enough things to keep me busy that I don't need to go where I'm not really wanted anyways.

 

[vossler]

If TEs are coming into the Creationist sub-forum and posting 'corrections' then we TEs need to police that and ask the offending members to please stop.

Easier said than done. I know that you and many other TEs don't post corrections here, but there are a significant minority who do.

I like being to fellowship in here, so I hope your not suggesting that even that be considered off-limits!

I don't believe FallingWaters is looking to curtail fellowship, but anytime someone posts something that is in direct conflict to the YEC position that individual isn't posting in fellowship.

I don't post nearly as often as I used to in the OT for the simple reason that there is such a high value placed on science compared to Scripture itself. I love science but when it begins to supercede Scripture I need to step away.

 

[FallingWaters]

hey Vossler

I wish I could say what I really believe but that would just offend people. Oh well, any fool can start an argument, right?

 

[laptoppop]

One thing that bothers me is the tone of discourse in the OT section. For example, on a recent thread this was posted: " I guess I find it rather disheartening that no YECist takes their beliefs seriously enough to defend even such a basic challenge."
I find it instructive that the poster used combative language "defend" and "challenge".

I'm not saying that some TEs are the only ones -- some YECs are the same way. It just gets tiresome to me.

Also, the evolutionists have a huge numerical advantage in terms of researchers. It is much easier for them to identify and raise points of interest.

Finally, there is often a basic disconnect. In a couple of threads I have been able to get folks to admit that the scientific method by design precludes any supernatural action by God. Of course that means that any explanations or theories based primarily on that methodology will also preclude God's hand at work. It seems that there is a basic disconnect concerning who is the final arbitrator -- current popular scientific theory, or the scriptures. Many TEs end up taking a position that because different people have different opinions regarding the scriptures, you shouldn't rely on them at all concerning physical reality / history / science.

God is Creator & Lord. He is alive, interested in His creation, and loves us. He has acted in historical times. He has specifically given us the scriptures as an explicit revelation of Himself and His purposes and will. He is God -- we are not. We may not command Him to do something so that we can "prove" how He did it. He may often use natural ways of accomplishing His purposes -- but need not always use such ways -- the choice is His, not ours.

 

[vossler]

One thing that bothers me is the tone of discourse in the OT section. For example, on a recent thread this was posted: " I guess I find it rather disheartening that no YECist takes their beliefs seriously enough to defend even such a basic challenge."
I find it instructive that the poster used combative language "defend" and "challenge".

I saw that too. It's just another example of "if you don't have science to back up your interpretation of Scripture then it's not valid," POV.

Many TEs end up taking a position that because different people have different opinions regarding the scriptures, you shouldn't rely on them at all concerning physical reality / history / science.

Yes, it's the worldview that science doesn't require interpretation and is therefore 100% accurate, while Scripture does, therefore it can't be relied upon.

God is Creator & Lord. He is alive, interested in His creation, and loves us. He has acted in historical times. He has specifically given us the scriptures as an explicit revelation of Himself and His purposes and will. He is God -- we are not. We may not command Him to do something so that we can "prove" how He did it. He may often use natural ways of accomplishing His purposes -- but need not always use such ways -- the choice is His, not ours.

Amen brother, Amen.

I wish I could say what I really believe but that would just offend people. Oh well, any fool can start an argument, right?

If you can't say what you believe in a Christian Forum specifically set up for your beliefs then I don't know where you can. Let's face it, you can sometimes offend people by telling them that you love them, so we can't let that keep us for doing so.

Besides, who says you've got to stick around once you start an argument?

 

[Pats]

I often find it discouraging when I see debate posts in this forum, since that's not its purpose.

But I do have friends in this forum and I hope you guys don't mind my non-debate posts here.

 

[laptoppop]

I would say that fellowship posts, especially from you, are always welcome!

 

[chaoschristian]

I would say that fellowship posts, especially from you, are always welcome!

You just want to get a ride on that bike.

 

[Floodnut]

Why do YEC's always have to be apologizing for making our statements from a YEC point of view? I really wish YEC's could have their own forum where we wouldn't have to be "corrected" all the time by TE's and OEC's.

Actually this part of the Chirsitan Forums web-site is supposed to be for YEC believers only, but the blantant evolutionists and TEs have no qualms about coming here to invade and ask "Friendly questions."
Make your statements without apology and simply click on "REPORT" when the unethical invaders from the TE Cult come in here.

 

[laptoppop]

From Erwin's stick message at the top of this forum:
Rules of this forum:

1. Only Creationist members may debate in this forum.

2. Non-creationist members may post fellowship posts in this forum but any debate posts will be removed.

I.E., its cool for TEs to come and post in here, but not to debate. The same goes for the TE forum. Also technically, I believe this forum is for all "creationists" -- YEC and OEC. However, if a TE comes in to debate, that's different.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

I have no problems with the fellowship posts that TEs sometimes make here. I do have problems though when they post things that are said to be fellowship posts but they certainly are not. I specially find it interesting when they start out the post saying something like "this isn't a post to start a debate but..."

 

[laptoppop]

I have no problems with the fellowship posts that TEs sometimes make here. I do have problems though when they post things that are said to be fellowship posts but they certainly are not. I specially find it interesting when they start out the post saying something like "this isn't a post to start a debate but..."

 

[chaoschristian]

I think specifically what Floodnut if referring to is when TEs come into the forum and ask questions along the lines of 'If you think the flood was global then please explain xyz.' These questions are more appropriately reserved for the general OT forum, and the majority of us follow that rule.

Again, while we may have our differences, I would like to think that it is possible for us to police our language and our actions in such as way that we can both debate the merits of our respective povs AND stay in fellowship through our faith in Christ.

 

[FallingWaters]

Besides, who says you've got to stick around once you start an argument?

LOL! Great idea.

 

[laptoppop]

Actually, cc, there have been a few cases of a lot stronger than that -- but the mods have been great about cleaning it up. Kind of like removing graffitti from a wall so it doesn't encourage more. If you don't mind me asking - is there a mirror image problem over in the TE forum?

 

[FallingWaters]

Actually this part of the Chirsitan Forums web-site is supposed to be for YEC believers only, but the blantant evolutionists and TEs have no qualms about coming here to invade and ask "Friendly questions."
Make your statements without apology and simply click on "REPORT" when the unethical invaders from the TE Cult come in here.

Well, apparently there's a new animal called an OECer which is also a Creationist and so has a right to be here, but in my opinion, any idea that suggests the universe's age is in the millions or billions instead of thousands is a [oops you know what... I think that's against forum rules]. (There. I said it.)

 

[laptoppop]

Its important to recognize that there are caring, believing Christians who hold varying views on this particular topic -- often tied with the way they interpret the scriptures. I do not see any compelling reason to accept an old age for the earth, but the OEC / Gap theory position is the least objectionable to me. They would render Gen 1:2 as "the earth *became* formless and void" (which has some limited support in the Hebrew). As I understand it, most gap theory supporters still support a literal Adam and Eve, a global flood, etc.

 

[FallingWaters]

I understand what you're saying. <insert smilie with duct tape over mouth>