Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Perhaps you don't have enough faith to accept the fact that reality may conflict with your accepted view of bible interpretation, and that lack of faith forces you into a state of denial.
Truth be told, I don't question your faith. Faith can be wrongheaded.
Oh you are free to believe what you want, though you shouldn't make wild claims about surface text that are contradicted by the surface text, but my point was not to debate you beliefs in that post but to point out you were dragging these old debates up to distract from issues of people using their subforum to backbite people who can't reply on that board.
Interesting though that you want to mischaracterise crawfish as having 'intractable assumptions'. In the discussions I have read TEs seem quite willing to change their views if that is where the evidence leads, in fact many of the TEs here are former YECs who have changed their views because the evidence simply does not support YEC. So much for having intractable assumptions. But YECs seem almost proud that no amount of evidence could change their views. Perhaps the YECs we meet here are still YECs because it is their views that are intractable.
So, you are not taking a position then on whether you understood my post?
Which is exactly why the mocking of the creationist forum is so absurd. You can pull out anything you want and post it in OT.
Agreed, that's the best I can hope for when I post. Unfortunately I rarely sense anything nearly that productive though.Productivity is not always measured in persuasion. Sometimes it's enough that the level of discussion is raised or the direction of discussion is set in a particular way that is conducive to persuasion (or at the very least mutual understanding and charity).
I certainly would concur with that.Willtor said:I suspect that TEs read the Creationist subforum because it is the only place where most YECs post, and also many of the things that are said in there would never be said out here.
We're all tempted, I know I'm plagued by temptations all the time. I wish I could say I respond appropriately more often than not, I really don't know though. Yet it's how we respond to temptation that says more about us than most anything else. Sadly, my own past has shown me many times to be a poor example.Willtor said:I don't think that anybody thinks that you or anybody else has two faces. Rather, it seems like for many people who post in there but not out here, the things they believe are so delicate that they can't withstand the light of day. This is the very definition of "profane myths and old wives' tales." (I Tim 4:7) Now, this could be a totally mistaken analysis. Perhaps things are not what they appear to be from the outside. But you can see why some TEs would be tempted to go into the subforum and pull things out.
I hate to say it but this really seems a bit childish, no one has mentioned you or anyone else by name and so therefore there is no cause for concern. If anything you should look at from the perspective of what God says about things like this. There's the part where Jesus says for us to turn the other cheek. I think if you truly feel as though someone struck you at the core of who you are, this would be an appropriate response. All I can say is that if it is necessary for me to take into consideration how you or anyone else may feel about everything I say then nothing critical would ever be said. Having said that I'm sure my use of the word childish probably offended you.
I personally have no problem if TEs wish to 'talk behind creationists' backs in their forum or any other forum. It wouldn't matter to me what was said because all that matters to me is what God and His Word says. Now if you were to single out a specific brother without notifying him first then I think a potential problem exists. However, nothing even remotely like that has occurred here.
Actually quite a few.
Again, quite a few.
Once again quite a few.
You got me here, probably very few.
More than you probably could imagine.
None that I know of.
You'll probably be surprised to know that I don't disagree with a single thing you said here.
When people are as diametrically different as TEs and Creationists, it's very rare for either to come to any better understanding of the other. This thread, at least for me, is a case in point.
If you're looking to exercise your rights in this then I say go ahead and be offended.Richard Dawkins has never mentioned me by name; he doesn't even know who I am. Yet I have every right to be offended and concerned by his numerous misrepresentations and oversimplifications of Christianity and Christians, don't I?
See this statement just proves why I find these exchanges fruitless. You apparently have no idea what my motivations are and you would undoubtedly make the same claim for me. I have never stated or implied that the TE primary motivation in how they read Genesis or anything else is nothing more than human pride. The very statement is, to be blunt, absurd. If it were true then I can assure you I would have nothing to do with you and this dialog.shernren said:Like it or not, if you hold forth that theistic evolutionists' primary motivations in deciding to read the text the way they do is nothing more than human pride or demonic deception, you should not be surprised that we will be offended and concerned.
Once again you are way off the mark. Words like 'always' will rarely assist in these assessments. Even if you substituted it with sometimes I would totally disagree. I've never for a moment believed that TEs ever wanted to show that sin wasn't real. The thought never crossed my mind.shernren said:I can see that this thread has not helped you much in understanding either, but I would say it's not simply because we are so opposite that communication or mutual comprehension is impossible. Let me boil this conversation down to its essentials.
vossler sets out a hypothesis that a TE reading of Scripture is always motivated by sinful human pride wanting to show that sin isn't real.
Let's be honest here. I'm not ought to demonize anyone, if you should feel that is the case then maybe you should be checking your conscience. As a Christian I'm just as susceptible to being deceived as you are. As a matter of fact I have been deceived and probably will be again. The whole idea about bringing claims of deception out is to cause each of us to look at ourselves and ask "Am I deceived?" Obviously one has to be willing and able to seriously consider such a claim. I pray for and welcome that others would be Christ like enough to point out any deceptions I may be under.shernren said:Why don't you understand TEs? Because we don't fit your theories. Because your simple boxes of "me (and everyone who's with me on God's side)" vs. "the evil atheistic world (and everyone who's chosen their side by accepting evolution" don't have room for us. Because you can't quite demonize us the way you think you ought to be able to.
Given the dialog above, is it any wonder why I think we can't ever connect and understand one another? However misguided it may be, your will obviously believe what you wish to believe. Please let's end this fruitless dialog. So as a means to an end I will let you have the last word; to the victor goes the spoils.shernren said:Maybe you don't understand us simply because understanding us wouldn't allow you to be right about us the weaselly deceived underminers of God's authority - and about your own position as surely the stalwart defender of all that is good and holy and true. Be that way, then.
See this statement just proves why I find these exchanges fruitless. You apparently have no idea what my motivations are and you would undoubtedly make the same claim for me. I have never stated or implied that the TE primary motivation in how they read Genesis or anything else is nothing more than human pride. The very statement is, to be blunt, absurd. If it were true then I can assure you I would have nothing to do with you and this dialog.
Once again you are way off the mark. Words like 'always' will rarely assist in these assessments. Even if you substituted it with sometimes I would totally disagree. I've never for a moment believed that TEs ever wanted to show that sin wasn't real. The thought never crossed my mind.
Humanity has had no problem since then following their example, thereby proving that Adam and Eve's faithlessness was not an aberration but a trait of every human heart, including ours. We’re constantly, each and every one of us, looking for ways or things that either put us in control or promote the idea we are knowledgeable. Rather than submitting ourselves to our Creator and putting our faith in Him, we’re always looking for ways to gain ‘control’ over our lives and our surroundings. I myself can attest to that.
So Adam and Eve chose to follow the faithless Satan rather than the faithful God. Satan was able to persuade them to focus on what they could see rather than what God said. This strategy was so successful that Satan has consistently used it on humanity ever since, with evolution being one of his best examples.
The problem TEs have however is what to do with Adam and Eve. If they were created as God said then everything else they believe about Genesis falls apart. So by making these first humans mythological figures or allegorical TEs are then able to side step this obvious problem and justify their disobedience.
What my diversion into OT has once again demonstrated to me is that evolutionists are a very difficult bunch to get through to. I think to a certain extent they realize the shaky ground upon which they tread and that's why they become so defensive by twisting and contorting what's been said about them in order to portray it in a manner that takes the focus off of the true issues. Then an attempt to make inpart some of the guilt they feel of being wrongly judged, the conversation then goes off in another direction where we can divert the focus from the real issue. Instead this now becomes a personal attack rather than the loving rebuke it was.
A Scripture came to mind as I was thinking about all this. It is 2 Timothy 4:3-4.For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.I believe evolution fits this description as well as anything does. People want to hear what pleases them, they will not want to have their sin exposed. I know I certainly didn't when I was trapped in my own sin. They will only listen to those with whom their desires agree. They will set themselves up to their own standard and then find others to validate them instead of the Word of God. When that doesn't work they will even find ways to twist God's Word to support what it is they wish believe.
Make of this what you will.
So when someone you disagree with uses the Bible to support his points, that's not being Biblical - that's "only hearing what pleases them" and "twisting God's Word to support what it is they wish to believe".
Is creationism really about the Bible after all?
Thanks for the generalisation. What exactly is it you are trying to get through to us?Vossler said:What my diversion into OT has once again demonstrated to me is that evolutionists are a very difficult bunch to get through to.
To an extent you are right. A purely literal reading of scripture would be far simpler and possibly theologically safer. However, we also believe it would be scientifically wrong and science is the study of God's works. Also others are trying to portray our ground as shaky by suggesting a non literal reading of Genesis leads to a non literal reading of the gospels for example.Vossler said:I think to a certain extent they realize the shaky ground upon which they tread
What was a loving rebuke? Are you talking about the thread you made in your subforum in which you explicitly prevented us from posting?Vossler said:and that's why they become so defensive by twisting and contorting what's been said about them in order to portray it in a manner that takes the focus off of the true issues. Then an attempt to make inpart some of the guilt they feel of being wrongly judged, the conversation then goes off in another direction where we can divert the focus from the real issue. Instead this now becomes a personal attack rather than the loving rebuke it was.
What exactly are the passions that lead us to believe in evolution? We believe it because the scientific evidence supports it. Perhaps we are passionate about science but, again, science is studying God's works.Vossler said:A Scripture came to mind as I was thinking about all this. It is 2 Timothy 4:3-4.
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.I believe evolution fits this description as well as anything does. People want to hear what pleases them,
What sin am I trying to hide? How exactly do you think I am trapped when Christ died to save me? I think the misconceptions in this paragraph make it clear why you are having a difficult time getting through to us.Vossler said:they will not want to have their sin exposed. I know I certainly didn't when I was trapped in my own sin. They will only listen to those with whom their desires agree. They will set themselves up to their own standard and then find others to validate them instead of the Word of God. When that doesn't work they will even find ways to twist God's Word to support what it is they wish believe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?