Reasons for the "Average" guy not to visit

[vossler]

As, what I consider myself, an average guy with average intelligence, what would I think when coming upon the origins or theology area of this forum. After reading and sometimes participating in many of the threads here I can see how an average person (like myself) would not want to participate in most of the discussions held here.

Here are some observations on why I feel I can say this.

1. If you are not a historian, geologist, biologist or some other sort of ian or gist you will be led to feel you cannot begin to understand our origins.

2. Most threads pit the ian's or gist's against the average guy.

3. An average guy like me will probably never truly understand an origin argument based on anything posted here.

4. Very little if anything here facilitates the Great Commission, which was for all Christians to fullfill.

5. Many of the "discussions" or "threads" are nothing more than one person standing on their soapbox and proclaiming their knowledge in order to inflict it upon others.

6. Love and kindness are not exhibited to the degree one would expect in a "Christian" forum.

Last, but certainly not least:

7. You can be called a "blasphemer" and be "reported" to other "Christians" for calling the Bible the Word of God.

Obviously this isn't an all encompassing categoric classification of what transpires here. However, it is, I believe, more true than false. I also know there are some regular posters here who are probably more Christ like and loving, patient etc. than the "average" Joe, so this isn't meant to condemn this site or any specifc poster. It was just an observation to be thrown in with all the other worthless ones perpetuated here.

 

[Calminian]

Hmm. I would tend to agree with you that we need to watch ourselves in this type of forum. There are situations when the line is crossed. I know I'm guilty on occasion. But having said that I'm not sure what's worse, an occasional outburst of frustration, or a condemnation of the forum in general without offering any specifics. I'm not sure the average guy would/should do that.

But I will agree the average guy probably isn't interested in discussions like these. But it seems you are, which makes you about as weird as all of us. So let's hear your thoughts. I for one will try to be as constructive as possible. I'm sure the rest will as well.

 

[Calminian]

1. If you are not a historian, geologist, biologist or some other sort of ian or gist you will be led to feel you cannot begin to understand our origins.

I've heard this before but not here. Can you back this up with any quotes.

2. Most threads pit the ian's or gist's against the average guy.

Not sure what this means. Maybe someone else does.

3. An average guy like me will probably never truly understand an origin argument based on anything posted here.

Boy I strongly disagree there. I don't think there is a better way to learn then reading the arguments of two opposing viewpoints. I had no clue what some of the issue were until I participated in forums like these. I'm curious if others feel the same.

4. Very little if anything here facilitates the Great Commission, which was for all Christians to fullfill.

Not sure I get your point. Seems like your saying theology in general shouldn't be studied or discussed because it's not a direct act of evangelism. If discussing theology is bad then hobbies like golf must be anathema.

5. Many of the "discussions" or "threads" are nothing more than one person standing on their soapbox and proclaiming their knowledge in order to inflict it upon others.

Of course, it can happen and has.

6. Love and kindness are not exhibited to the degree one would expect in a "Christian" forum.

What can I say. Christians aren't perfect.

7. You can be called a "blasphemer" and be "reported" to other "Christians" for calling the Bible the Word of God.

This happened to you? That of course would be out of line.

Obviously this isn't an all encompassing categoric classification of what transpires here. However, it is, I believe, more true than false. I also know there are some regular posters here who are probably more Christ like and loving, patient etc. than the "average" Joe, so this isn't meant to condemn this site or any specifc poster. It was just an observation to be thrown in with all the other worthless ones perpetuated here.

No doubt things need to improve. Having said that I'm not sure your above points are all that helpful.

 

[Vance]

Vossler:

I definitely can see where you are coming from. What I think is important is separating the true message of Genesis that we ALL accept fully, and which can be understood by the least educated (as God intended) and which is necessary for salvation, from the details of the processes by which God created the universe, and the timing of that creation process. For the latter, the debate over "which way God did it" often does require some specialized knowledge, or at least dedicated investigation. Similarly, while we can agree on the primary message, whethe these Scriptures should be read as strict literal history (and thus lead back to the six day and science issues) also sometimes requires some deeper investigation.

Remember, Augustine admitted right up front, that these Creation accounts are NOT plain and simple, and there ARE different possible readings. Here is what he said:

"37. In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture [and remember, he IS speaking of Genesis here], different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.."

He also said that when we read a particular text, often two people will agree that there is a particular spiritual or theological truth, based on our faith, but may differ as to whether a literal fact was meant as well. We should, then, agree on the theological truth. As for the literal truth, there is nothing wrong with accepting this as well, unless and until there is evidence which shows that it can not be the true reading. When that happens, we know that the literal, material interpretation was never part of Scripture to begin with.

This is from Book 1, Chapter 19 of his book on Genesis:
"38. Let us suppose that in explaining the words, "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and light was made," one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of spiritual light in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until unerring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion proposed by man in his ignorance. . . . "

and again, he says about Genesis:

"40. With these facts in mind, I have worked out and presented the statements of the Book of Genesis in a variety of ways according to my ability; and, in interpreting words that have been written obscurely for the purpose of stimulating our thought, I have not rashly taken my stand on one side against a rival interpretation which might possibly be better. I have thought that each one, in keeping with his powers of understanding, should choose the interpretation that he can grasp. . . ."

and, lastly, he says:

"At the outset, you must be very careful lest you take figurative expression literally. What the apostle says pertains to this problem: “for the letter killeth, but the spirit quikeneth.” That is, when that which is said figuratively is taken as though it were literal, it is understood carnally [carnalia]. Nor can anything more appropriately be called the death of the soul than that condition in which the thing which distinguishes us from beasts, which is understanding, is subjected to the flesh in the passing of the letter" [hoc est, intelligentia carni subjicitur sequndo litteram] (On Christian Doctrine 3. 5).

Now, Augustine was a pretty smart guy, but you can see that he did NOT find this stuff easy or clear, so I can't image that we should be dogmatic about such stuff either.

Oh, and if you think this forum is too specialized, check out the "Queit Thread" over in the Creation and Evolution forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1155768-the-quiet-thread.html

and Glenn's latest:

http://www.christianforums.com/t141...s-yec-leaders-never-show-their-followers.html

 

[vossler]

I've heard this before but not here. Can you back this up with any quotes.

This is just an observation of mine, not a statement made by someone here.

Not sure what this means. Maybe someone else does.

This refers to the first observation.

Boy I strongly disagree there. I don't think there is a better way to learn then reading the arguments of two opposing viewpoints. I had no clue what some of the issue were until I participated in forums like these. I'm curious if others feel the same.

There aren't usually two strong opposing views. One is usually strong and well presented by scientific data where the other is theological and always called into question. It's an apples and oranges thing. It's tough because this is a theology forum that presents itself more like a scientific one.

Not sure I get your point. Seems like your saying theology in general shouldn't be studied or discussed because it's not a direct act of evangelism. If discussing theology is bad then hobbies like golf must be anathema.

See above...and aren't we called to go out and preach the gospel and make disciples. I just don't think we're being very effective at it here.

What can I say. Christians aren't perfect.

Sure, but shouldn't they be better than, say, non-believers.

This happened to you? That of course would be out of line.

Yes.

No doubt things need to improve. Having said that I'm not sure your above points are all that helpful.

I didn't have high expectations that my comments would be all that helpful. I'm not sure what my motivation was, except that I've known a lot of great posters who no longer post for some of the reasons I stated above.

 

[Vance]

Also remember that this is not strictly an "evangelism" forum, but a debate and discussion forum covering a very specific issue. People come here for the pros and cons of this very specific issue. There are other forums for other specific issue, and some even for evangelizing.

I post here so that people can be educated that they CAN still accept that Scripture is true and believable and trustworthy, even if they accept evolution and an old earth.

I also engage in the general discussion of the pros and cons of evolution, the age of the earth and the flood generally, since it is of interest to christians and is the subject of the forum.

 

[vossler]

What I think is important is separating the true message of Genesis that we ALL accept fully, and which can be understood by the least educated (as God intended) and which is necessary for salvation, from the details of the processes by which God created the universe, and the timing of that creation process. For the latter, the debate over "which way God did it" often does require some specialized knowledge, or at least dedicated investigation. Similarly, while we can agree on the primary message, whethe these Scriptures should be read as strict literal history (and thus lead back to the six day and science issues) also sometimes requires some deeper investigation.

Yes...Yes...Yes you're getting my point!

Vance, you're definitely not one of the folks who gets up on his soapbox and tries to force his knowledge down anyones throat. You do an admirable job of being fair and open minded. One thing I will say about you though; do you have a job , because the amount of time that you devote to this place is incredible. Wow!!!

 

[vossler]

Also remember that this is not strictly an "evangelism" forum, but a debate and discussion forum covering a very specific issue. People come here for the pros and cons of this very specific issue. There are other forums for other specific issue, and some even for evangelizing.

I post here so that people can be educated that they CAN still accept that Scripture is true and believable and trustworthy, even if they accept evolution and an old earth.

I also engage in the general discussion of the pros and cons of evolution, the age of the earth and the flood generally, since it is of interest to christians and is the subject of the forum.

I couldn't agree more...well said.

 

[Calminian]

See above...and aren't we called to go out and preach the gospel and make disciples. I just don't think we're being very effective at it here.

Nor is it intended to. It seems like you’re basically saying no theological discussion can take place unless it is somehow evangelistic. I don’t understand that. Yes we’re are told to preach the gospel and I do. But does that mean I can’t also enjoy a theological discussion with other christians?

Sure, but shouldn't they be better than, say, non-believers.

Trust me I've been to non christian forums. It's better....not perfect.....but better.

I didn't have high expectations that my comments would be all that helpful. I'm not sure what my motivation was, except that I've known a lot of great posters who no longer post for some of the reasons I stated above.

Some just aren't cut out for this stuff.

 

[Vance]

Yes...Yes...Yes you're getting my point!

Vance, you're definitely not one of the folks who gets up on his soapbox and tries to force his knowledge down anyones throat. You do an admirable job of being fair and open minded. One thing I will say about you though; do you have a job , because the amount of time that you devote to this place is incredible. Wow!!!

Yes, I have a job. I am an attorney at a small firm (where I do estate planning and probate (which provides some EXCELLENT witnessing opportunities), and pretty much set my own schedule and come and go as I like. What I do is check the forum, respond or post as needed, then get some work done. Then I take a break and check the forums again, etc.

Lately, I have had a bit more time since I finished up a few major estate tax returns, etc. I also have a GREAT paralegal.

 

[vossler]

Nor is it intended to. It seems like you’re basically saying no theological discussion can take place unless it is somehow evangelistic. I don’t understand that. Yes we’re are told to preach the gospel and I do. But does that mean I can’t also enjoy a theological discussion with other christians?

Look, I'm not criticizing discussion, no where have I stated anything like it. I gave my observations why an "average" guy wouldn't want to visit here and stated that little of what takes place here fulfills the great commission. Is this forum intended to specifically do that, no, probably not, but then again I'm sure it wasn't intended to work against it either. When Christians can't keep a loving attitude and open mind with fellow Christians it hurts our witness. If you think we're (Christians) the only ones who check out what's going on here you're sadly mistaken.

 

[Vance]

Look, I'm not criticizing discussion, no where have I stated anything like it. I gave my observations why an "average" guy wouldn't want to visit here and stated that little of what takes place here fulfills the great commission. Is this forum intended to specifically do that, no, probably not, but then again I'm sure it wasn't intended to work against it either. When Christians can't keep a loving attitude and open mind with fellow Christians it hurts our witness. If you think we're (Christians) the only ones who check out what's going on here you're sadly mistaken.

I agree with this completely.

 

[Calminian]

..but then again I'm sure it wasn't intended to work against it either. When Christians can't keep a loving attitude and open mind with fellow Christians it hurts our witness. If you think we're (Christians) the only ones who check out what's going on here you're sadly mistaken.

This is quite a lofty accusation. I don't believe this forum hinders the gospel. If I did I wouldn't participate. The people here are not perfect, no doubt. If they were I wouldn't fit in. But they're not as evil as you're making them sound. Debates need to be spirited IMO. For the most part that's all I see happening here. Yes of course things get over the top at times, but I've not seen anything so out of line I wanted to leave the forum. Honestly vossler I don't see this as being as destructive to the gospel. I suggest you stick around for a while and see if you don’t change your view. Until then I’ll do my part to keep things as civil as possible.

 

[thekawasakikid]

Umm.

I'm not sure that we were commanded ONLY to enact the Great Commission and I don't think that God would disapprove of individuals debating their opinions, interpretations and conclusions of study to further test their understanding...

On the subject of whether Christians should be 'better' than non-Christians, my feeling would be - why should they be? All have sinned. Christians, I would suggest, should wish to be more Christlike, but then that should be the rule for the new convert as it is for the octogenarian whose life has been lived within the Church.

While I have a Zoology undergraduate degree, I've been out of the field for so long I'd say I was nearer to the 'average joe' than the ians and gists. Nonetheless, I still feel this board is useful, despite some of the less attractive qualities it exhibits.

But then, I imagine we could say that of most walks of life, including certain elements of Church life...

 

[herev]

[QUOTE=vossler]

There aren't usually two strong opposing views. One is usually strong and well presented by scientific data where the other is theological and always called into question. It's an apples and oranges thing. It's tough because this is a theology forum that presents itself more like a scientific one.

[/QUOTE]

Don't assume too much.
Some of us are not trained scientists, but rather trained theologians, who do argue from a theological framework and have not one ounce of trouble accepting Theistic Evolution.