Can you tolerate opposition?

[TwinCrier]

Is it vially important to you the the opposing view be terminated, or can you allow others to disagree with you?

 

[notto]

I voted for pluralistic. As long as Creationism doesn't try to pass itself off as science in public schools, they can preach and believe whatever they want.

As long as Creationists don't tell other Christians that they can't be Christians if they don't believe exactly as they do, then I have no problem with them remaining in the small cirlce of influence they currenlty have.

Bascially, with regards to theology, there is always pluralism both within the Christian church and between religions.

In science, there can be only one. Creationism has already been falsified so let's just leave it where it belongs in the heap of falsified theories with the flat earth, the ether, spontaneous generation, and alchemy.

 

[Remus]

"That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."
There is no requirement for the belief in creationism. I see no reason the two cannot coexist.

 

[Vance]

I would agree with the first option entirely. I think Christians can believe whatever they like about origins.

The only problem comes in when YEC's also begin teaching an "either/or" doctrine that if *their* position is not true, then the Bible is not true.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

but AiG:

While this has been going on, the majority of Christian leaders (pastors, elders, seminary professors, etc.) have not taken a stand on six literal days of creation, but have allowed for millions of years of history before man ever appeared on the earth. They have ‘unlocked a door’: to allow for man to be in authority over God’s Word, and thus to undermine the Bible as our absolute authority.

from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0104lead.asp
which is Operation Refuting Compromise

makes it a salvation issue.
on the boards.
and in the churches.
the denomination i am a member of, PCA may very well split over the issue.

from: http://www.reformed.org/creation/index.html?mainframe=chapel_on_creation.html
I believe it is fear that is driving some in our church to be interpreting the Confession of Faith so narrowly that even small deviations openly discussed and freely explored for decades are now being taken as sufficient grounds for denying men ordination. While we should have no patience for liberalism (i.e., the denial of any portion of God's Word as absolutely and inerrantly true), neither should we believe that it will aid our church to deny men the opportunity to consider what have been deemed for decades, or centuries, to be legitimate Biblical interpretations that fall within our system of doctrine. Men denied the right to argue Biblically what does fall within historic Presbyterianism will either suppress their opinions for a time or will become facile at wording answers which are true but are nonetheless intended to blur distinctions.

so even if we hold the unity and peace of the church in higher regard than our private interpretations of Gen1, the right wing will not allow that compromise.

....

 

[Vance]

Agreed, so AiG, at least would vote the second option. I am curious to see how the YEC's on this forum vote. Will they side with AiG on this one and choose number two, or will they say it is acceptable that both exist side by side.

 

[Micaiah]

My main beef here is with the way TE's feel at liberty to call into question and reject the plain intent of Scripture just because popular science has decided that God's word on Creation is incorrect. That is in spite of the obvious lack of evidence to support the 'slime to scientist' evolution.

It is not surprising that many who adopt this mode of interpretation are 'liberals' and among their ranks are those who condone homosexual marriages, and even deny the resurrection. Undermining the truth of God's word is the first step down that path.

 

[notto]

I don't reject the plain intent of Scripture. I would guess that the plain intent of scripture is to show us the power of God, show us that he created us, AND TELL US ABOUT HIS SON. I don't reject any of these things. I simply reject your notion and method of interpretation. Many scholars and historians have done the same, and with good reason.

I see you are trying to again, equate 'evolutionists' with things they are not. I know a great many conservitives who do not accept the false science of creationism.

Evolution does not undermine the truth of God's word one bit. Again, the truth of God's word is related to salvation AND HIS SON, not how he created.

I can't speak for others, but you seriously (and continuously) misrepresent my position.

 

[Vance]

My main beef here is with the way TE's feel at liberty to call into question and reject the plain intent of Scripture just because popular science has decided that God's word on Creation is incorrect. That is in spite of the obvious lack of evidence to support the 'slime to scientist' evolution.

It is not surprising that many who adopt this mode of interpretation are 'liberals' and among their ranks are those who condone homosexual marriages, and even deny the resurrection. Undermining the truth of God's word is the first step down that path.

"Strawman TE"
Micaiah here includes all the elements of a false presentation of Theistic Evolution so as to make it seem less credible are more easily attacked. Here are the false characterisations:

1. TE's "reject the plain intent of Scripture". We don't.

2. "Popular science has decided God's word on creation is incorrect." It hasn't.

3. "there is an obvious lack of support for evolution". There isn't.

4. "TE's are liberal, and can be equated with liberal teachings". Not true, and irrelevent.

5. "TE's undermine the truth of God's word." Not true.

Now, Micaiah has been told over and over that TE's do not reject any Scripture, but he continues to characterize us that way, thus calling us liars. Now, saying we interpret Scripture differently that he does is fine, and even saying that we are wrong in this interpretation is fine.

But saying that we reject Scripture, or place man's knowledge ahead of God's and such statements are attempts to say what WE believe, and only we know whether this is true. If we say it is not, then his continued statements along these lines can only be saying that we are lying.

 

[notto]

I'm wondering why Micaiah doesn't make the same accusations toward old earth creationists and gap creationists. By his standards, they reject the plain intent and teachings of the bible as well. I find his claim of non-YEC = liberal to be very dubious and self serving as well. I think the position of the pope with regards to this issue and the catholic churches position on the other issues that Micaiah addresses would directly conflict with his assertions.

 

[herev]

It is not surprising that many who adopt this mode of interpretation are 'liberals' and among their ranks are those who condone homosexual marriages, and even deny the resurrection. Undermining the truth of God's word is the first step down that path.

so in otherwords, you voted for the one without evolution, since you cant even co-exist in this thread without slinging arrows.

 

[herev]

I know a great many conservitives who do not accept the false science of creationism.

Here's one

 

[herev]

Now, Micaiah has been told over and over that TE's do not reject any Scripture, but he continues to characterize us that way, thus calling us liars. Now, saying we interpret Scripture differently that he does is fine, and even saying that we are wrong in this interpretation is fine.

But saying that we reject Scripture, or place man's knowledge ahead of God's and such statements are attempts to say what WE believe, and only we know whether this is true. If we say it is not, then his continued statements along these lines can only be saying that we are lying.

seems to me from my memory of reading the Bible (only once and obviously long ago) this has something to do with one of these:
1) false witnessing bears
2) witnessing false bears
3) bearing false witness

hmm-which is it?

Since we TE's don't believe in the Bible, can someone get theirs out and find which is the one it mentions?
Thanks

 

[gluadys]

My main beef here is with the way TE's feel at liberty to call into question and reject the plain intent of Scripture just because popular science has decided that God's word on Creation is incorrect. That is in spite of the obvious lack of evidence to support the 'slime to scientist' evolution.

It is not surprising that many who adopt this mode of interpretation are 'liberals' and among their ranks are those who condone homosexual marriages, and even deny the resurrection. Undermining the truth of God's word is the first step down that path.

You know, micaiah, if you had left out the bolded section, I would ignore this post. All the rest is your opinion and though I disagree, I consider you are entitled to hold an opinion.

But the bolded section is a claim to truth. You say there is no evidence. Scientists say there is plenty of evidence. That is something that can be verified. And I don't think any fair-minded person who takes an honest look at the evidence can deny it exists.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Micaiah has been spouting this "lack of evidence" line, without any regard to its truthfulness, for so long it makes me want to spit.

Micaiah, it's very simple.

Either:

1) Rebutt all the evidence
2) Admit you're wrong that it doesn't exist

or

3) Carry on with your dishonesty.

It's up to you. What value truth, eh?

What say every time he posts this we report his posts for being blatant lies?