Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
I'm trying to understand your position here. Do you believe God created or not?
Upvote
0
Creationism (doctrine and teaching)
- Thread starter mark kennedy
- Start date
I'm trying to understand your position here. Do you believe God created or not?
Keachian
On Sabbatical
So let's set up an understanding of the terms:
Deism - Belief that there is a God and that he created, however this stems from reason and the God is no longer involved
Theism - Belief that there is a God and he is both creator and sovereign of creation, this belief stems from revelation, in Christian theology the greatest revelation of God comes in the form of the Incarnation of God as Jesus, Son of Joseph from Nazareth, called the Christ.
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
Hello again ProgMonk!
I thank you for your post. I believe that was the understanding I was working from but I'm confused on a point. Why would a theistic evolutionist, deny the label of creationist? By your own definitions, you must believe God is the creator to be a Christian right? So why the animosity and the use of the word "creationist" as an insult to insinuate ignorance? (Not saying you do that, only pointing out the issue in general). God is the creator, no matter how He created. I wear the label of "creationist" with pride as my affirmation of this truth.
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Hello again ProgMonk!
There are a number of factors that I'm aware of, there is the fear of being seen as ignorant on the part of the TE they may also be wanting to shift the conversation to the Cross. There is a sector of YEC who want to limit the use of the term creationism to ex nihilo creation. And then there are also a people in the minority who claim TE but are actually deists.
There is a growing use of the term Evolutionary Creationist instead of TE which I think is good.
Upvote
0
Metal Minister
New Year, Still Old School!
I don't care for the separation of Christians into these sub groups in terms of creation. Except for an extreme minority, all creationists (from YEC to TE) believe evolution occurs. The only difference is how much, so calling oneself an "evolutionary creationist" is a misnomer. Why is it such a difficult thing for Christians to acknowledge the creator? I sometimes get the feeling that many are trying to play both sides of the fence as it were. That they want to find acceptance in both Christianity and in secular society.
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Sometimes they are used in parallel, sometimes interchangeably. In Genesis 1 bara is used in absolute terms. There is no real conflict between asah, bara or yastar, the thing is bara is used only of God.
I thought your were some kind of a Creation evolutionist? Any way...
I know what I said and it's true that Theistic Evolutionists always go for the ad hominem. No matter when the discussion starts it's coming, sooner or later, one way or another, you guys have to make it personal and as scathing as you can make it.
Notice not many Creationists are responding to the thread but they did respond to the poll? Want to know why? It's because of the inevitable personal attacks that are leveled against anyone who happens to be a Creationist.
First of all you personalized it, I never said all you do is attack me, I said your arguments are never without ad hominem arguments, and they never are. That doesn't mean thats all you do. There are a couple of TEs who have no interest in Scripture or science who do nothing but attack Creationists, you just don't happen to be one of them.
That's not a contradiction, Darwinism itself is rarely argued without resorting to fallacious reasoning at some level. The sad fact is that this view is antithetical to Christian theism and the militant Darwinians know this. They're using you, it's as simple as that.
Social darwinism was one of the things that came out of Darwinism, it's transcendent, it's not limited to evolutionary biology. My definition of Darwinism is 'the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means', a definition i have based on what they teach:
Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.(D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial)
In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
It's clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe (MIT Biology)
There are two definitions for evolution being used, now you even want to equivocate two definitions for creation. The truth is that Darwinian evolution is mutually exclusive with any and all theistic reasoning. Not because I say so but because they are explicit from 'ole flycatcher' to the militant Darwinians of our day:In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
It's clear, for example, that to the extent that Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth. Darwinian Evolution is a logic which is applicable to all life forms and all biosystems that may exist in the universe (MIT Biology)
Richard Dawkins - Militant Atheism - TED - YouTube
He describes Darwinism as corrosive to religion, saying people like the Pope who support evolutionism are deluding themselves. I agree.
That's absurd, natural selection is an effect not a cause. Darwinism does have at it's core natural selection and Darwin did believe it was the primary means by which new species arose. I prefer to get my definition from Darwinians themselves. Just as I like to get my definition of Theistic Evolution from the TEs at large and not the handful of TEs on here that want to equivocate the term 'creationism' with Darwinian naturalistic assumptions they way they have commingled it the scientific definition of evolution.
Superficial but yea, that's a fairly accurate description of it's history. However, Darwin cites Larmark and his theory is called natural selection, often referred to as survival of the fittest.
Yet another superficial definition of Darwinism that is itself not incompatible with Creationism, young earth or otherwise. Nothing about universal common descent or the unbridled animosity to any suggesting of God being the direct cause or even the Designer. Your definitions are not a correction, they are a diversion.
When defining Darwinism I always cite and quote Darwin himself, something your google cut and paste definitions don't do. I also cite and quote Darwinians and evolutionary biologists as authoritative sources. What I am doing since I have been challenged throughout the thread is to provide the definitions for evolution and creation which I have done repeatedly.
What I am demonstrated again and again is that there are two definitions for evolution that evolutionists like to equivocate as if they were the same thing. Theistic evolution and Biblical Creationism are clearly in opposition as your constant attacks on creationists will attest. Never are your responses without some harsh criticism of Creationists and just ask yourself, are you ever as remotely antagonistic toward atheistic materialists who consider your support 'deluded'?
<edit>
Have a nice day
Mark
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Keachian
On Sabbatical
Hmm, accept what Dawkins says of theism, someone who has shown throughout his works attacking theism that he understands less about theism than the average Christian, nope I don't think that's what we should do.
It is far more problematic in my mind the adamant siding of some YEC with Atheists that theism is some form of deism and that theistic evolution should be treated as such. Than what in my opinion is the Biblical response to situations such as these, "Oh cool it works like that; all glory to God, praise him for his marvelous working in creation."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Quotes are shortened for post character count limits.

After all, back in post #35, you specifically stated:
And see, now I’m extra confused. The specific words used (bara, asah, yastar) don’t seem to matter much. The timescale doesn’t matter much (as you said you’re not making the 24 hour day a salvation issue). The Sun, moon, and stars don’t have to be made on the day it lists them as being made, they just have to start SHINING on that day according to what you have said, so that doesn’t matter much. When I brought up the order, all you did was tell me I was sounding like a skeptic instead of doing sound exposition, said nothing else, so I assume the order doesn’t matter either.
What DOES matter? That the power of God was exercised? Nobody in here has denied that. But saying “Creationism means belief that the creative power that only God has was exercised” is very different from saying “Creationism is God acting in time and space, creating living creatures fully formed by divine fiat, as described in precise detail in Genesis 1”, which is what you stated. Which is it? Which precise details are the ones that are actually needed for it to be creationism? They’re not timescale, order, the actual words meant... which precise details are they?
And why isn’t it an attack to say ‘So and so always devolve into attacks’ WITHOUT PROVIDING EVIDENCE OR EXAMPLES, and using it as a blanket statement?
By the way, are they ad hominem ATTACKS or ad hominem arguments? After all, an attack like “Mark Kennedy is a doo doo head” is very different from saying “Mark Kennedy is wrong about issue X BECAUSE Mark Kennedy is a doo doo head.” Note I am not actually calling you a doo doo head, but bringing it up as an example.


See, the definition of Darwinian you give is pretty much philosophical naturalism. Since all science operates by METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, no science could actually be using your definition because no branch of science makes the metaphysical claim that nothing supernatural exists.
edit>
Metherion
Mm hmm. So, how does this interact with your previous claim about the three specific terms meaning creation in Genesis and their individual, specific, precise details if they’re interchangeable and when one vs another is used doesn’t really mean much?

After all, back in post #35, you specifically stated:
followed by a list of example verses. So... which is it? Does the difference matter, or are they interchangeable?mark kennedy said:
And see, now I’m extra confused. The specific words used (bara, asah, yastar) don’t seem to matter much. The timescale doesn’t matter much (as you said you’re not making the 24 hour day a salvation issue). The Sun, moon, and stars don’t have to be made on the day it lists them as being made, they just have to start SHINING on that day according to what you have said, so that doesn’t matter much. When I brought up the order, all you did was tell me I was sounding like a skeptic instead of doing sound exposition, said nothing else, so I assume the order doesn’t matter either.
What DOES matter? That the power of God was exercised? Nobody in here has denied that. But saying “Creationism means belief that the creative power that only God has was exercised” is very different from saying “Creationism is God acting in time and space, creating living creatures fully formed by divine fiat, as described in precise detail in Genesis 1”, which is what you stated. Which is it? Which precise details are the ones that are actually needed for it to be creationism? They’re not timescale, order, the actual words meant... which precise details are they?
I am a theistic evolutionist, also known as an evolutionary creationist, who believes God created, and that He used evolution, and did not create in such a way that investigation into His universe would yield falsehoods.
Uh huh. So, where are the examples of ad hominems? I mean, I’ve been talking to you alone this whole time. Where are the attacks I’ve been making?
And why isn’t it an attack to say ‘So and so always devolve into attacks’ WITHOUT PROVIDING EVIDENCE OR EXAMPLES, and using it as a blanket statement?
Considering I’m only talking to you, the attacks must be coming at you. Considering you just said the other creationists were staying out of the thread, but you weren’t, BECAUSE OF THE ATTACKS, said attacks must be coming at you. Where are they?
By the way, are they ad hominem ATTACKS or ad hominem arguments? After all, an attack like “Mark Kennedy is a doo doo head” is very different from saying “Mark Kennedy is wrong about issue X BECAUSE Mark Kennedy is a doo doo head.” Note I am not actually calling you a doo doo head, but bringing it up as an example.
So, where are the examples of the attacks they have levelled at you? Even if you put them on your ignore list because of nothing but attacks, you should at least tell us who they are and what threads full of attacks prompted putting them on your ignore list so you can’t SEE the posts to bring up examples of the attacks.
Actually, it’s not what is taught, it’s an alternative statement of philosophical naturalism, which is not what your quote from the preface says anyways.
Which definitions for creation am I trying to equivocate between? I don’t recall giving any, or equivocating, or any such thing.


Actually, you got your definition from a twisting of the PREFACE of a book that doesn’t say what you keep claiming it does. The definition ‘darwinists’ use is the one commonly used, and repeatedly linked, to differentiate evolution by natural selection, the modern synthesis, Lamarckian evolution, Neo-Darwinian evolution, and the like.
See, the definition of Darwinian you give is pretty much philosophical naturalism. Since all science operates by METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, no science could actually be using your definition because no branch of science makes the metaphysical claim that nothing supernatural exists.
Do you suppose the fact that the other (proper) definition is quite widespread and used in such things like scientific literature might be a sign you’re misdefining something?
Actually, the way I have been seeing it, it there is a part of the theory of evolution you disagree with, and have made it out to be an entirely different field with metaphysical assumptions specifically so you can deny it. See, UCD isn’t a metaphysical assumption, it’s a conclusion from the evidence brought forth from such things as DNA and fossils.
edit>
Metherion
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
How is it that the Nicene Creed, John 1:1, Hebrews 1:1 and oh yea, Genesis 1 are never part of your argument?
mark kennedy said:
What you left out are the examples but of course you did, like all good TEs you neglect, ignore and marginalize the Scriptures by making everything about private interpretation. Do you want to know what the words mean or would you rather go right to the ad hominem?
Bara (Strong's 1254) used independently expresses creation out of nothing (Gen. 1:1, 21, 27; Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs allow a much broader range of meaning. Bara is frequently found in parallel to these verbs, such as asah, 'to make' (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13, yasar, 'to form' (Isa 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13) and kun 'to establish'. A verse that illustrates all of these words together is Isa. 45:18 (Vines):
For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.
The use of bara most relevant to our discussion are where to objects of the verb are nonpoetic, most of them occur in Genesis where...
The writer uses scientifically precise language to demonstrate that God brought the object or concept into being from previously nonexistent. material (Vines)
Look it up, none of this is based on my private interpretation. Your confused because you are getting your exposition from skeptics rather then the Scriptures. The 24 hour day and the other requisite time scales are vital but I'm not going to anathematize someone for either not understanding them or otherwise disagreeing. Again, the perspective from the beginning of Creation week is from the surface of the earth, the heavens and the earth are already created. The problem is that the earth is shrouded in darkness and covered with water:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. (Gen. 1:1,2)
Verse 1 is in absolute terms, this is the original creation. In verse 2 the earth has been created but darkness and water (the deep) covers the face of the earth. The sun, moon and stars have already been created (bara) now God is preparing the earth to be inhabited in the first three days of creation. 'Bara' is not used again until this verse:So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. (Gen. 1:21)
If confronted with these questions what would you answer:“Or who shut in the sea with doors,
When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
When I said,
‘This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!’ (Job 38:8-11)
More importantly the description here dovetails perfectly with the Genesis account of creation, clearly indicating that the right answer is God. Not natural laws acting as an instrument of God's providence but God is acting directly, doing what only God can do. When it burst forth and issued from the womb;
When I made the clouds its garment,
And thick darkness its swaddling band;
When I fixed My limit for it,
And set bars and doors;
When I said,
‘This far you may come, but no farther,
And here your proud waves must stop!’ (Job 38:8-11)
The difference here is that the philosophy you are defending so vigorously never allows for God to act in time and space, as agent of special creation by divine fiat. That what it matters.
<edit>
Grace and peace,
Mark
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Dawkins considers religion to be a viral mythology living off the rest of society like a dangerous parasite. I think his attitude is classic projection since Darwinism has always mingled among the sciences requiring high maintenance while providing nothing in the way of practical value.
I think as long as he can get away with using this caricature of religion people will be blind to the fact that Darwinians are the true mythographers.
What exactly is 'Theistic evolution' if it's not deistic? As a matter of fact, Intelligent Design attributes to God or some other nebulous intelligence, credit for designing and in some way building but little else. Christianity has always promised that God is not only Creator in the historic sense but that you can and must be born again. Just as God brought light from darkness in Genesis we are promised revelation and more then that, the promise of the Gospel is that we become new creatures in Christ.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Nope.
No list of miracles includes natural events.
A nice, breezy idea though.
Perfect for a Unitarian Universalist church.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Tacking on cliff-notes version of the entire Bible serves no real purpose.
I know, the guy in the robes says otherwise.
The reason being that death entered the world though Adam.
And what is death but life plus the passage of time?
So time entered the world when Adam sinned.
So Creation did not take place in what we know as time.
That solves all the problems about young and old, the time frames are incompatible.
Glad to help.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Tacking on cliff-notes version of the entire Bible serves no real purpose.
I know, the guy in the robes says otherwise.
The reason being that death entered the world though Adam.
And what is death but life plus the passage of time?
So time entered the world when Adam sinned.
So Creation did not take place in what we know as time.
That solves all the problems about young and old, the time frames are incompatible.
Glad to help.
In the beginning, God... (Genesis 1:1)
What is time but a measurement of when something begins until it ends.
So, when God spoke into our time and space, time began
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Rain/Ice melt Flooding
Plague of frogs
Plague of gnats
Plague of flies
Cattle dying
Plague of hail
Plague of locusts
Childbirth
Earthquake (Geological evidence of two that shook Jerusalem 29-33AD)
Upvote
0
Deism is the belief that God ceated then, "meh."
Theism is that the God of creation is pesonally involved in His creation. Although everyone in this thread has indicated the personal involvement of God thoughout our time and space, God created + Jesus equals theism. As I have indicated though, the posters throughout this thread have stated continual involvement with His creation.
Upvote
0
mark wrote:
Of course not, because I'm using actual definitions, instead of making them up like you do.
"admit"? I've pointed out for a long time, over and over to you that these words (like most words) have multiple definitions. I've also shown how you are, and have been, equivocating between different defintions.
Again mark tries to attack by using the word "admit", as if my posting of the definitons of these words (done to expose his equivocation) was someing that needed to be "admitted".
Here are the defintions, again, for reference:
ev·o·lu·tion
noun 1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. Universal common descent (UCD)
6. The biological descent of humans from non-human ancestors.
Creationist:
Which are all compatible with the understanding that God created through universal common descent, using Darwinian evolution.
So now mark is open to disposing of mosaic authorship?
Deception, by mark pushing his made up definitions. Darwinism does not include metaphycial naturalism, and common descent is not an assumption.
Word salad?
unlike you, who trolls the boards insulting Creationists and nothing else
The scientic understanding of evolution includes common descent. Maybe consider taking a college class before continuing to disagree with the experts about something you don't understand?
Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. ...The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
In our case, we all share the common ancestors of Adam and Eve, who share common anscestor with other mammals, who share common ancestors with fish, and so on.
And my definition of creationist is indeed both Christian and Biblical, and fits the scripture verses you posted.
While I disagree that I leaave out essential meanings, I agree that I leave out the abject equivocation and duplicity (which can be found in your posts).
What a sad attempt at a dodge. You stated above you reject people who don't fit your literal interpretation of Genesis as non-Christian, even if they see God as the creator. Which method God used to create is not "essential doctrine".
Of course you are. Your franken-definiton based on an outdated quote-mine and your own imagination.
No, you haven't. That's why I had to repeatedly clarify the definitions, even in this post.
So then you agree you are using "evolution" to mean UCD? Nice to know, since you said that you don't dispute evolution. Maybe next time avoid the equivocation by stating that you don't dispute adaptation, but that you are a UCD denier.
Of course - that's why I've been clear about which is being used.
Metherion pointed this out - that you:
1. relentlessly try to sneak metaphysical naturalism into the definition of Darwinism, by pointing to a cherry-picked and irrelevant quote from over 150 years ago.
2. Try to exclude UCD from the definitions of evolution, as if you've never taken a college class on evolution. .... um, hey, you may not have taken a college class on evolution....
3. Exclude believers from the body of Christ because of your personal hang ups.
3. Insist that your interpretation of Genesis is "essential doctrine", even though it is neither universal nor the only traditional view.
Oh really? And what is that "clear standard" is not "mark's own personal interpretation"?
Sure my definitions are different. My defintions are based on modern understandings, dictionary defitions, are inclusive to the body of Christ, and are useful in constructive conversation. Your appear to be made up by you, for the purpose of excluding Christians and confusing the discussion.
Statements like these are useful flags to show where mark has no rational response, and would rather use venom than actually try to come up with one.
Papias
Of course not, because I'm using actual definitions, instead of making them up like you do.
"admit"? I've pointed out for a long time, over and over to you that these words (like most words) have multiple definitions. I've also shown how you are, and have been, equivocating between different defintions.
How could that be when I've listed defintions in previous posts? Here, I'll summarize them for us:
Papias wrote:
The two definitions for "creationist" mark is equivocating between are:
"evolution denier" and,
"anyone who believes God created, even through evolution "
Papias wrote:
The two definitions for "creationist" mark is equivocating between are:
"evolution denier" and,
"anyone who believes God created, even through evolution "
Again mark tries to attack by using the word "admit", as if my posting of the definitons of these words (done to expose his equivocation) was someing that needed to be "admitted".
Here are the defintions, again, for reference:
ev·o·lu·tion
noun 1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. Universal common descent (UCD)
6. The biological descent of humans from non-human ancestors.
Creationist:
- "UCD, or non-human to human descent denier" and,
- "anyone who believes God created, even through evolution definitions 3, 5 or 6. "
Which are all compatible with the understanding that God created through universal common descent, using Darwinian evolution.
So now mark is open to disposing of mosaic authorship?
Deception, by mark pushing his made up definitions. Darwinism does not include metaphycial naturalism, and common descent is not an assumption.
unlike you, who trolls the boards insulting Creationists and nothing else
A subject you would seem to know very little about. That would be typical, evolutionists are convinced by arguments of credulity which are uncompromised dogma.
So to further clarify the creationist defintions:
- "UCD, or non-human to human descent denier" and,
- "anyone who believes God created, even through evolution definitions 3, 5 or 6. "
The scientic understanding of evolution includes common descent. Maybe consider taking a college class before continuing to disagree with the experts about something you don't understand?
Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. ...The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.
In our case, we all share the common ancestors of Adam and Eve, who share common anscestor with other mammals, who share common ancestors with fish, and so on.
And my definition of creationist is indeed both Christian and Biblical, and fits the scripture verses you posted.
While I disagree that I leaave out essential meanings, I agree that I leave out the abject equivocation and duplicity (which can be found in your posts).
I have defined Creationism as doctrine and as diametrically opposed to Darwinian naturalistic assumptions and consistant with the scientific definition. How about this definition?
Thank you for being clear. However, coupled with your oft repeated statement here:
means that you are excluding most Christians from the body of Christ. Not just the TE's, but OECs, day agers, gap creationists, progressive creationists, excluding even church fathers like Augustine and Origen who disagreed with a literal interpretation of Genesis. You tell all these Christians, many of whom consider themselves creationists of one type or another, that you don't consider them Christian.
Such a vicious dismissal of so many of our brother and sister believers as "non-Christians" shows that you are more concerned about pushing your interpretation than you are about helping spread the Gospel and strengthen the body of Christ. It shows that you care more about pushing your interpreation than you do about actual doctrinal issues. Hint - the method that God used to create is not a salvation issue.
I don't think that's helpful. I'll openly proclaim that I accept all different type of creationists. In fact, someone who believes in a flat earth, or in geocentrism, can be a saved and accepted Christian. Those, just like the method God used to create, are not salvation issues.
Thank you for being clear. However, coupled with your oft repeated statement here:
means that you are excluding most Christians from the body of Christ. Not just the TE's, but OECs, day agers, gap creationists, progressive creationists, excluding even church fathers like Augustine and Origen who disagreed with a literal interpretation of Genesis. You tell all these Christians, many of whom consider themselves creationists of one type or another, that you don't consider them Christian.
Such a vicious dismissal of so many of our brother and sister believers as "non-Christians" shows that you are more concerned about pushing your interpretation than you are about helping spread the Gospel and strengthen the body of Christ. It shows that you care more about pushing your interpreation than you do about actual doctrinal issues. Hint - the method that God used to create is not a salvation issue.
I don't think that's helpful. I'll openly proclaim that I accept all different type of creationists. In fact, someone who believes in a flat earth, or in geocentrism, can be a saved and accepted Christian. Those, just like the method God used to create, are not salvation issues.
No your not, your arguing in circles.
No, you haven't. That's why I had to repeatedly clarify the definitions, even in this post.
So then you agree you are using "evolution" to mean UCD? Nice to know, since you said that you don't dispute evolution. Maybe next time avoid the equivocation by stating that you don't dispute adaptation, but that you are a UCD denier.
.
Of course - that's why I've been clear about which is being used.
No one agreed to your frankendefinitions except you.
Metherion pointed this out - that you:
1. relentlessly try to sneak metaphysical naturalism into the definition of Darwinism, by pointing to a cherry-picked and irrelevant quote from over 150 years ago.
2. Try to exclude UCD from the definitions of evolution, as if you've never taken a college class on evolution. .... um, hey, you may not have taken a college class on evolution....
3. Exclude believers from the body of Christ because of your personal hang ups.
3. Insist that your interpretation of Genesis is "essential doctrine", even though it is neither universal nor the only traditional view.
Oh really? And what is that "clear standard" is not "mark's own personal interpretation"?
Sure my definitions are different. My defintions are based on modern understandings, dictionary defitions, are inclusive to the body of Christ, and are useful in constructive conversation. Your appear to be made up by you, for the purpose of excluding Christians and confusing the discussion.
Statements like these are useful flags to show where mark has no rational response, and would rather use venom than actually try to come up with one.
Papias
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I believe in a Spiritual connection. But the god of this world is Satan, so The Father has no direct connection with Sin. It's just not possible for the two to exist together. But through the Spirit, God is the master of those who accept his rule. Satan is the master of the rest.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
