Removing the stumbling-block

[Plan 9]

So, did you ever look up the word: "world" in your Bible?

Did you ever think that world is the made up of word with the letter L added. L is the twelveth letter in the alphabet. We first hear about Jesus when He was twelve years old, He had twelve disciples. There are twelve hours in the day.

I do not question that the "world" is 6000 years old. My question is how old is the earth? It is kinda like the difference between a house and a home.

1 John 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Now, John. Don't be indiscreet.

 

[Vance]

I have no idea what John is talking about, but Malaka, you seem to be sticking your head in the sand when faced with the tough issues. Rather than deal with the dichotomy between what you read *about* ICR on their site and what they *say* in a court document (which is public record, btw, and quotable anywhere), you simply want to complain about the fact that the information was posted at all. You have done the same with me. Just deal with the issues presented rather than changing the subject or simply attacking the validity of the poster's religious beliefs.

You can not take public information, place it on a site and then assert that it can not be quoted without permission. That admonition can only apply to new and unique text. But, for your own comfort level, see my earlier post above as to a theory as to *why* they wrote that for the court proceeding.

 

[JohnR7]

I have no idea what John is talking about,

You do not know the difference between world and earth? Then why are we having this discussion. Or how can you have a discussion if the words you use have a different meaning to different people.

 

[lucaspa]

And, it is not the ONLY position that I can take... because I can TAKE God at His word that HE (the trinity being HE) created the world in six literal days.....

Until the Bible changes, I will continue to believe that.

1. Then you are disagreeing with Creation Science.

2. I hate to break it to you, but you are not taking God's word, but your word. After all, it is you insisting that God meant those verses to be taken literally.

3. In taking your word, you are ignoring God in His Creation. In fact, you are saying God didn't create. Because you are saying that the evidence in His Creation which falsifies a literal 6 day creation was put there by God. To ignore that evidence says God didn't create the universe.

So, to summarize, it looks to me like you are saying you are god.

I think God will forgive me if I don't worship you.

 

[lucaspa]

I bet I can guess what they will say. The game they are playing is the Creation Science/Intelligent Designer shell game. The Creation Scientists know that if they invoke the Christian God as *the* creator, they will argue themselves right out of the classroom, since our current legal/political approach is the strip all secular school teaching from any religious preferences. So, they support their Creation alternative to evolution in the form of non-religious "intelligent design" creationism, which is not anti-Christian, it just pretends to be non-religious.

But if they do that they are back in the position in the Finding of Fact: heresy. They will be admitting to the heresy.

They have two choices:
1. Deny they ever said such a thing.
2. Deny that what they said was heresy.

 

[lucaspa]

Well, when I had a little time, I went back to their site... and this is their posted doctrine... WHICH DOESN'T ALIGN WITH WHAT YOU POSTED.


http://www.icr.org/abouticr/tenets.htm

You mean it doesn't align with what they testified at the Finding of Fact at the Arkansas trial.

And since the site carries this disclaimer, I know that you didn't get your information from the site that you are criticizing.

Plan9 had it right. Go back and look at my post. I never said I got anything from their website. I said it came from the Finding of Fact at the Arkansas trial.

"Nothing on this website may be reprinted in whole or in part without obtaining permission from ICR"


Now... I have a problem with your posting.

Not really. You have just misread what I said. You have a problem with your strawman. Since the strawman isn't me, there is no problem.

 

[lucaspa]

Trust me, there are certain indiscretions in this posting that I will not resort to doing....

Enlighten me, Malaka. What indiscretions?

Remember, I said Gish and Morris testified for the Finding of Fact. And I do have their position at ICR correct, don't I?

Yes, ICR's official position is that the Creator is the God of the Bible. Yet these two gentlemen denied that in order to get YEC into a classroom.

Yes, you heard me correctly. They denied God. Now, Peter did it out of fear. What was their motivation?

Can God be served thru lies? After all, if their website is correct and Creation Science is about God, then they lied when they made the Finding of Fact, didn't they? Or, they were correct in the Finding of Fact and their website is lying.

Either way, God loses.

With friends like these, God doesn't need too many enemies.

 

[Vance]

To be fair, I don't think that the findings of fact are a denial of God, but a denial that the intelligent design concept requires the Christian God to be the Creator. They believe the designer is the Christian God, but I think they can argue, without heretical implications, that since the ID concepts are supportable regardless of which Creator you believe in, these concepts do not espouse a particular religion and are acceptable for public schools.

The problem I have with the argument is that it is entirely dishonest, since they know that everyone hearing the form of ID they promote will know that it is the Judeo-Christian God which is being espoused. In fact, this is the same group that has advocated the specifically Christian viewpoint of Creation Science be taught in schools. For them to argue that Creation Science will be truly religion-neutral is a falsehood.

The "pure" ID position may be a nice back up position, but the entire charade smacks of a shallow con game.

 

[lucaspa]

To be fair, I don't think that the findings of fact are a denial of God, but a denial that the intelligent design concept requires the Christian God to be the Creator.

The statements in the Finding of Fact were done long before ID was even a gleam in the eye of Phillip Johnson. So let's not get them confused. The Finding of Fact separates the Creator God from Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the God that showed itself in the Exodus and the rest of the Bible. Remember, the Creator does not have to even exist anymore according to the Finding of Fact.

This is just what the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies did. There was the evil god who created the universe and then the demigod Jesus who offered salvation. Look at the Nicean Creed in the Rules. Christians believe that God created and is the same God of love and salvation and the Holy Spirit. The Finding of Fact says this does not have to be so.

Now, along comes ID later and also wants, as you noted, to get into the public schools as science. They too acknowledge that the ID/Creator does not have to be the Judeo-Christian God. Nor does the ID have to have anything to do with salvation or Jesus. Also, they acknowledge that the ID deduced by ID Theory doesn't have to even be around anymore. They state quite clearly that it is up to theology to establish that the ID is the same as the Christian God.

But this again leads right back to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies. If the ID doesn't have to be Father/Son/Holy Ghost by science, that means it is permissible to argue in science class that the ID is not Father/Son/Holy Ghost. Now, that denies Christianity. However, you can also argue that you have an ID that created but that Jesus is a different entity. Marcionist heresy.

As Gilkey and Vawter pointed out, Creation Sceince (and now ID) opens up those heresies as valid after Christianty decided they were not. Christianity is going to have to fight that same old battle all over again. Those heresies almost destroyed Christianity the first time around. Maybe this time they will win.

The problem I have with the argument is that it is entirely dishonest, since they know that everyone hearing the form of ID they promote will know that it is the Judeo-Christian God which is being espoused.

Yes, it is dishonest. But, in order to make it appear that ID is religiously neutral, they are going to end up saying that the Marcionist and Gnostic viewpoints are possibly valid. And pretty soon someone will see that and we'll have to make the fight against them again.

 

[Vance]

No, I really think this analysis is wrong (I can't believe that I am actually defending something from the ICR boys!).

As Christians, they can believe as they say they do and still support the "it is a intelligent creator whether you believe it is the creator I believe in or not".

Basically, it would be like me saying:

1. I think an intelligent being created the universe, and here is the evidence to prove it, which is true regardless of the identity of the being.

2. I happen to believe (and strongly believe) that this intelligent being was the Christian God.

3. But even if you don't believe as I do that it was the Christian God, that does not mean you can toss out the evidence I presented in number one, since that evidence is not dependent upon it being the Christian God.

4. So, if the evidence of an intelligent designer is convincing and it can be presented in a religion-neutral way, it should be taught in schools. The teacher can add that some believe that this intelligent designer was the Christian God, others believe that it was some other intelligent designer.

This series of statements does not in any way imply that they don't believe fully in the Christian God. All it does is say that whether the reader believes in the Christian God or not, the evidence for an intelligent designer is still valid.

They can continue, as Christians, to assert vehemently that the intelligent designer is the Christian God, and denounce all heresies if they like and not be inconsistent with the statements above.

But, again, I think it is dishonest for the reasons stated above.

 

[Plan 9]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but couldn't one not only introduce the Christian heresies, but also the teachings of Zarathustra and Krishna?

 

[lucaspa]

Basically, it would be like me saying:

1. I think an intelligent being created the universe, and here is the evidence to prove it, which is true regardless of the identity of the being.

2. I happen to believe (and strongly believe) that this intelligent being was the Christian God.

3. But even if you don't believe as I do that it was the Christian God, that does not mean you can toss out the evidence I presented in number one, since that evidence is not dependent upon it being the Christian God.

4. So, if the evidence of an intelligent designer is convincing and it can be presented in a religion-neutral way, it should be taught in schools. The teacher can add that some believe that this intelligent designer was the Christian God, others believe that it was some other intelligent designer.

This series of statements does not in any way imply that they don't believe fully in the Christian God.

Vance, the problem is not what IDers believe, but what the idea says. This is very important. Ideas are independent of the people who advocate them. Once an idea is broached, it takes on a life of its own. It is no longer tied to any other idea or belief that I might have.

This is the danger to Christianity of the Creation Science/ID idea that there is a Creator but that Creator is not God. Let me take just the relevant sentences of Vawter's essay so that it is clearer:

"'In this sense, the term "creator" means only some entity with power, intelligence, and a sense of design. Creation-science does not require a creator who has a personality, who has the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc., which are ordinarily attributed to a deity. Indeed, the creation-science model does not require that the creator still be in existence." ... The worst thing about these unthinking and unhistorical formulations is what Langdon Gilkey pointed out at the Arkansas trial in December of 1981. The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. That those who make such formulations do not seriously intend them save as a debating ploy does not mitigate their essential malevolence."

See? Vawter and Gilkey are not talking about the beliefs of individual Creation Scientists/IDers. They are talking about the consequences of the idea they have put forward: the creator does not have to have the attributes of love, compassion, justice, etc or even be in existence.

Now, compare this to the beliefs of Christians in the Nicean Creed:
"We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,"

See, the Creator is the same as Jesus and the same as gives us salvation. The idea of the Creation Scientists/IDers is directly contrary to this. It says this may not be true! In their misguided zeal to put Christianity into public school science classes the Creation Scientists/IDers have let loose an idea that directly challenges Christianity!

This is why you must be careful of the ideas you put out there and consider the consequences! When you and I state that creationism is a danger to Christianity, that idea is out there and independent of you and I. You and I may not really believe it (we do, however), but the idea is still out there running around to be considered as valid. Whether we consider it as valid or not. That's why I am always careful to test my ideas before I put them on the boards. I don't want an idea running around out there that I know ahead of time is false. I may be wrong, but at least I have tried to see if I'm wrong before I loose what may be a monster.

But the Creation Scientists/IDers didn't do this. They loosed an idea that they personally don't agree with. But now we have to deal with the idea, not whether they agree with it. And the idea is heresy.

So, they cannot, as you assert "continue, as Christians, to assert vehemently that the intelligent designer is the Christian God, and denounce all heresies if they like and not be inconsistent with the statements above." They can't do that because they were the ones who put the heresy out there as valid.

There is an old joke: A newspaper headline screams: Good News! Science shows there is a God. Bad news! It's Woden.

Creation Science/ID is saying that the ID really could be Woden! Christianity says it can't.

 

[lucaspa]

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but couldn't one not only introduce the Christian heresies, but also the teachings of Zarathustra and Krishna?

Under the idea put forward by ID/Creation Science, yes! Since you would be mandated to talk about an ID in science class but can't identify the ID, then you could put forward arguments that the ID is Zarathustra or Krishna. Or Allah, or Satan, or Raelians, or Woden, or Zeus, etc. You could even put forward the Nietzchian idea that God is dead! After all, all the ID has to do is make the original designs, and then it could die. All are equally valid candidates according to the idea.

 

[Vance]

Lucaspa said:
"But the Creation Scientists/IDers didn't do this. They loosed an idea that they personally don't agree with. But now we have to deal with the idea, not whether they agree with it. And the idea is heresy.

So, they cannot, as you assert "continue, as Christians, to assert vehemently that the intelligent designer is the Christian God, and denounce all heresies if they like and not be inconsistent with the statements above." They can't do that because they were the ones who put the heresy out there as valid."

This is the part where we disagree. I understand the danger of promoting a concept that would *allow* for differing interpretations, but this is not putting the heresy out there *as valid* itself.

All they are saying is that there is a common denominator which can be believed by differing groups - an Intelligent Designer. This is not the same as advocating any different beliefs or even promoting the idea that anyone should follow different beliefs. It is simply recognizing that a belief in an intelligent designer *can* be held by those who believe in a different designer. This is a true statement and we can not ignore that point.

Now, I still do think it is disengenuous and dishonest, but I really don't think it is heresy.

 

[Plan 9]

Under the idea put forward by ID/Creation Science, yes! Since you would be mandated to talk about an ID in science class but can't identify the ID, then you could put forward arguments that the ID is Zarathustra or Krishna. Or Allah, or Satan, or Raelians, or Woden, or Zeus, etc. You could even put forward the Nietzchian idea that God is dead! After all, all the ID has to do is make the original designs, and then it could die. All are equally valid candidates according to the idea.

Including Q. There's a charming thought.

 

[lucaspa]

Including Q. There's a charming thought.

Or Q. Altho he's not much worse than Woden or Marduk.

There's a cartoon of a god-child holding the galaxy in his hands. The god-parents are behind him. You can tell they are gods because of the lightnings playing about their heads and the togas each is wearing. Anyway, the parent-gods say to the child-god: "Now that you've had your little joke ..."

Or the Borg. They designed humans as a better drone. An even more charming thought.

 

[lucaspa]

This is the part where we disagree. I understand the danger of promoting a concept that would *allow* for differing interpretations, but this is not putting the heresy out there *as valid* itself.

It isn't? IDers are saying that science is the way to decide truth. And this way of deciding truth tells you there is an ID. BUT, science won't tell you who the ID is, what attributes it has, or whether it still exists. So, any ID that produces design is a valid ID as far as ID Theory is concerned. That leaves the way wide open for Marcionist and Gnostic heresies.

All they are saying is that there is a common denominator which can be believed by differing groups - an Intelligent Designer. This is not the same as advocating any different beliefs or even promoting the idea that anyone should follow different beliefs. It is simply recognizing that a belief in an intelligent designer *can* be held by those who believe in a different designer. This is a true statement and we can not ignore that point.

1. The ID is not supposed to be "believed", but is supposed to be demonstrable by science. It's not a belief for IDers, but a fact.

2. Christians have decided that the belief in a creator who is not the same entity as Jesus and the god of salvation is a wrong belief. The creator is the same as the god of love and salvation.

3. IDers are saying, however, that they can't show that the ID is that god of love and salvation. Therefore, it is possible that the ID is not that god. It is possible that the creator is separate from Jesus and salvation.

And now we have the way wide open for the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies. ID says it is possible. Christianity says it is not possible. And thus, as Vawter says, "The concept of a creator God distinct from the God of love and mercy is a reopening of the way to the Marcionist and Gnostic heresies, among the deadliest ever to afflict Christianity. "

ID is saying that it can't stop those heresies. That those heresies are compatible with ID. Christianity could easily tear itself apart because of IDer selfishness and failure to think of the consequences of what they say. They want ID in public classrooms. To do that they will sacrifice a necessary tenet of Christianity.

Come to think of it, one IDer, Behe, claims that all genetic information was put there in the beginning and there has been no influence of the IDer since. This advocates the idea that the creator did its job and then left.