Should we not be seeking unity?

[herev]

When were you not talking to me? About mhess? I jumped in because you jump all over him for nothing. You now have taken what I have said specifically to one person to mean I was talking to you.

I never thought you were talking to me about mhess.

as usual, you miss the point. I responded to mhess's post--in other words, I said something specifically to one person and that one person wasn't you. You jumped in there, uninvited. I was not jumping "all over him." I made a comment about his post, then you decided to jump in.
Now, I do the exact same thing, you make a post specifically to vance, I jump in uninvited and you imply that I have assumed you were talking to me and that I should wait until you address me specifically. Your logic in this is just as flawed as in other areas here and you simply don't like being called on them. Those who live in glass houses...

 

[SBG]

as usual, you miss the point. I responded to mhess's post--in other words, I said something specifically to one person and that one person wasn't you. You jumped in there, uninvited. I was not jumping "all over him." I made a comment about his post, then you decided to jump in.
Now, I do the exact same thing, you make a post specifically to vance, I jump in uninvited and you imply that I have assumed you were talking to me and that I should wait until you address me specifically. Your logic in this is just as flawed as in other areas here and you simply don't like being called on them. Those who live in glass houses...

I agree, you talked to mhess and not me. I never thought you were talking to me. When I was talking to someone else you answered as if I was talking to you personally. Meaning you took what I said as if I was speaking against you rather than the person I was actually speaking to. If you wanted to defend the person, as I did when you spoke against mhess, that is fine. But I didn't intend what I said to another to be taken as if it was said to you as well.

If you cannot see this or don't want to, that is fine. If you want to call my logic, illogical, or you want to call me flawed, I am ok with this. I know I am flawed and in need of redemption. Call me on anything you would like, but I will explain where I was coming from. If you don't like my explanation, well there is nothing I can do about that. So I apologize that you have so much anger towards me.

Maybe we will be able to communicate in a later time.

 

[bdfoster]

You know, I don't have a lot of time to read and post on this board, so I don't read anywhere near all the threads, just the ones that look really interesting. I didn't look at look at this thread until today. I could almost guess what it was about with a title like it has. I figured people would post a few affirmative responses, after all who could disagree with that, and that would be the end of it. But the thread didn't go away, in fact it stayed consistantly on the first page (unlike some of the threads that I started ), piling up response after response. So I finally had to see what the fuss was all about, and what did I find? Unity? Anything but! Seven pages of the most divisive, petty, bitterness I have seen anywhere on CF. And this is the Christians only side! This is seriously ugly. Now the way I read Vance's original post it can basically be sumarized in a simple statement: Creation/Evolution is not a salvation issue and is therefore not worth causing division in God's church. I think Vance has shown incredible patience responding in a civil tone to brothers who have basically said they don't want unity with him. Seven is the number of completion so let's complete this thread right now. Is C&E a salvation issue or not? If it isn't then drop it. If anybody thinks it is, say why.

 

[SBG]

I would be happy to drop this if Vance is willing to drop his continuing posts of how yec is damaging and undermining people's faith.

 

[Remus]

You know, I don't have a lot of time to read and post on this board, so I don't read anywhere near all the threads, just the ones that look really interesting. I didn't look at look at this thread until today. I could almost guess what it was about with a title like it has. I figured people would post a few affirmative responses, after all who could disagree with that, and that would be the end of it. But the thread didn't go away, in fact it stayed consistantly on the first page (unlike some of the threads that I started ), piling up response after response. So I finally had to see what the fuss was all about, and what did I find? Unity? Anything but! Seven pages of the most divisive, petty, bitterness I have seen anywhere on CF. And this is the Christians only side! This is seriously ugly. Now the way I read Vance's original post it can basically be sumarized in a simple statement: Creation/Evolution is not a salvation issue and is therefore not worth causing division in God's church. I think Vance has shown incredible patience responding in a civil tone to brothers who have basically said they don't want unity with him. Seven is the number of completion so let's complete this thread right now. Is C&E a salvation issue or not? If it isn't then drop it. If anybody thinks it is, say why.

I'm sorry bdfoster, but had it been someone else, perhaps it would have been that way. But with Vance, there's too much of a history for him to ask for unity with him.

 

[Vance]

Creationists have spent the last few decades stating boldly that those Christians who accept evolution are:

Compromisers
Lukewarm Christians
Disbelieving Scripture
Not trusting God
Trusting man's science more than God's Word
Watering down the Scripture
Creating a slipperly slope to disbelief

and, very often, as with SBG just recently, insinuating that they are not really even Christians at all! And these attacks, which are not on a position or interpretation, but entirely on their fellow Christians!

TE's, including myself, rarely if every do this. I can not recall a single incident when I have attacked another Christian personally. We do not attack people, we do not question their faith or their motivations. We simply say the doctrine is wrong, it is even dangerous and call for a presentation of that belief that would not be a stumbling block. THAT is the history.

And given this history, I find it amazing that we TE's ARE still civil and patient and, yes, Christ-like, with those who are attacking us personally, and with a degree of venom and hostility that is distressing to see among Christians.

Yes, I find the YEC teachings incorrect, and this forum is set up to express the reasons why. Yes, I find the YEC teachings dangerous in the way they are presented, and this forum is set up to express the reasons why.

I know for a fact that I, and the other TE's here, are dramatically more sinned against than sinning.

Non-Christians lurk on this forum. They can accept disputes over theological issues, over proper interpretation and even debates over whether a particular teaching is dangerous to Christian faith. These they can read without having a negative view of Christianity. This is good healthy debate and discussion.

What IS damaging for the non-Christians to see is the personal attacks and questioning of motives and even the faith of fellow Christians.

 

[SBG]

Let us make this clear. I have not called you a non-Christian Vance. Herev asked me if I was questioning your 'Christianity' and I specifically said I was not but I was questioning your theology. I have also said those who claim to be Christians. This was not intended to question ones 'Christianity' but rather to point out the fact that someone who says they are Christian are undermining other peoples faith and undermining the Bible itself.

All I know is what you say, and you say you are Christian. Your attacks on peoples faith here - especially those who said they would lose their faith if the Bible was shown to not be true - continue despite what these people say. You obviously are not concerned about these peoples faith, which not Christian like.

I have not said you are a non-Christian. I have argued against your theology and philosophy, your attacks on undermining peoples faith, your attacks on the Bible and early Church, and your misrepresentation of the Church Fathers.

Jesus said He came to turn son against his father, daughter against her mother... We are to make known those who teach falsly and you have been teaching against the teachings of the Bible, Apostles, and the early Church. Creation is just one of the subjects that you dispute, you have also said Jesus being conceived of the Holy Spirit isn't necessary, and you have said those who are preaching against Jesus' resurrection aren't that big of a concern. There are many here who follow right in line with you, not believing what is written as it is written. These views you dispute are the same atheists dispute.

You had it right, yec's are against what atheist teach and you spend a lot of time gather support from those atheists in the all members forum, posting remarks against yec's and their beliefs. I have seen you pass up opportunities to witness to people in the all members forum to side with them instead. Remus had to pm you to tell you about one such opportunity, one which you made only 1 comment to this person which was hardly anything.

These fruits you talk about, are your teachings against yec, not teachings of Jesus Christ. I have followed your posting on this forum for quite some time now, before I started posting here.

Where are all these teachings of Jesus Christ crucified on this forum as you have claimed you do?

 

[shernren]

ARGH!

ok I've vented. I'm not going to say anything about what I think others are saying about what I am saying, or lament that people are twisting my words to imply that they are twisting their words. I refuse to cast the first stone (except that, it doesn't seem to be the first. =P )

An honest question for SBG and the gang, based on this hypothetical scenario (which actually happens): a young Christian, a convinced YECist, goes out into the field of geology, works for a while, begins to find out that "hey, AiG was wrong!" and begins to see that the most consistent physical way to evaluate the evidence is by assuming that standard geology is correct and the world is really more than a few thousand years old. He has started looking at "the bad sites" like TalkOrigins etc. and is starting to assume that their version is correct, and his faith is shaking, just the way the people on the "What if..." thread said their faith would shake.

My question: how would you help him? How would you help someone who is being convinced by the evidence that Genesis 1 isn't literal? (Note only he is assuming it. I'm not saying anything about whether it actually is or not.)

 

[bdfoster]

...This was not intended to question ones 'Christianity' but rather to point out the fact that someone who says they are Christian are undermining other peoples faith and undermining the Bible itself....

...We are to make known those who teach falsly and you have been teaching against the teachings of the Bible, Apostles, and the early Church...

I don't know if this is something personal against Vance or a general complaint you have with TE. But I have read repeatedly in this and other threads that TE is undermining, or opposed to the Bible. I can understand someone who hasn't studied the issue thinking this. But there is no excuse for this kind of statement coming from someone who posts here regularly. It is simply not true that TE is "undermining the Bible itself" and you know it. The basic TE position has been explained repeatedly on this board and it should be well known to anyone who frequents this forum that most TEs believe that the Bible is the inspired, innerrant word of God, just like you. The difference of opinion is in the interpretation. I'm sorry if questiong your interpretation of scripture (not scripture itself) threatens or undermines anybody's faith. But I'm afraid this is the danger of putting too much faith in a particular interpretation of scripture; if the interpretation is threatened, your faith is threatened. I put no faith in my interpretation of scripture because I'm human. I just try to do what's right. And I really do think that the TE interpretation is better. But if it turns out to be wrong, So what? Thank God I'm saved by Jesus, not by scripture or my ability to interpret it.

 

[SBG]

ARGH!

ok I've vented. I'm not going to say anything about what I think others are saying about what I am saying, or lament that people are twisting my words to imply that they are twisting their words. I refuse to cast the first stone (except that, it doesn't seem to be the first. =P )

An honest question for SBG and the gang, based on this hypothetical scenario (which actually happens): a young Christian, a convinced YECist, goes out into the field of geology, works for a while, begins to find out that "hey, AiG was wrong!" and begins to see that the most consistent physical way to evaluate the evidence is by assuming that standard geology is correct and the world is really more than a few thousand years old. He has started looking at "the bad sites" like TalkOrigins etc. and is starting to assume that their version is correct, and his faith is shaking, just the way the people on the "What if..." thread said their faith would shake.

My question: how would you help him? How would you help someone who is being convinced by the evidence that Genesis 1 isn't literal? (Note only he is assuming it. I'm not saying anything about whether it actually is or not.)

Why does Genesis have to not literal? Calminian has presented a very good position. Adam and Eve, we assume, were created not as infants just born, but as mature beings. If God can create these two as mature beings and there is no problem with that, than God can create a universe that is also mature for the inhabitants to live on. Is that really too far fetched of an idea?

As Calminian has presented here, and I have also stated in other forums, Jesus created wine in an instant. This wine was described as the best of all wines. This wine must have been matured with an alchohol content, for the master of the wedding to say such a comment. But we know from science that in order for this wine to be that good, it must age. Jesus created wine fully mature for the ceremony, and He created the universe fully mature for mankind to live. Just as the wine would test to be older than a few minutes, so does the earth. Now, does this make Jesus a deceiver?

I have no problem with the age of earth, however old it is or tests. So geology presents to no problem for me or how I would handle this.

When someones faith is shaken, I will bring them back to Jesus Christ's testimonies, everytime.

 

[SBG]

I don't know if this is something personal against Vance or a general complaint you have with TE. But I have read repeatedly in this and other threads that TE is undermining, or opposed to the Bible. I can understand someone who hasn't studied the issue thinking this. But there is no excuse for this kind of statement coming from someone who posts here regularly. It is simply not true that TE is "undermining the Bible itself" and you know it. The basic TE position has been explained repeatedly on this board and it should be well known to anyone who frequents this forum that most TEs believe that the Bible is the inspired, innerrant word of God, just like you. The difference of opinion is in the interpretation. I'm sorry if questiong your interpretation of scripture (not scripture itself) threatens or undermines anybody's faith. But I'm afraid this is the danger of putting too much faith in a particular interpretation of scripture; if the interpretation is threatened, your faith is threatened. I put no faith in my interpretation of scripture because I'm human. I just try to do what's right. And I really do think that the TE interpretation is better. But if it turns out to be wrong, So what? Thank God I'm saved by Jesus, not by scripture or my ability to interpret it.

You are aware that this interpretation has been held since Jesus Christ, right? It isn't just mine alone, it is the teaching of Apostles as well, Church Fathers, and Jesus Christ.

No matter what the world tries to tell me, I have no choice but to follow the teachings of the Bible, Apostles, and Jesus Christ. I have no choice, for I don't follow every whim that is taught as fact and changed years later, but rather the truth found within God's Word that has never been proven wrong.

 

[gluadys]

In the first place, you have side-stepped the question.

Why does Genesis have to not literal? Calminian has presented a very good position. Adam and Eve, we assume, were created not as infants just born, but as mature beings. If God can create these two as mature beings and there is no problem with that, than God can create a universe that is also mature for the inhabitants to live on. Is that really too far fetched of an idea?

This has been thoroughly debated here. Appearance of maturity is not a problem even for TEs. What is a problem is evidence of a history which could not have occurred. And we have plenty of that in distant stars, in geology and in DNA sequences.

 

[gluadys]

You are aware that this interpretation has been held since Jesus Christ, right?

No, I am not. I think we have had ample documentation that the intepretations of the ancients were far more nuanced than a simple literal/non-literal dichotomy, and that this distinction was likely foreign to their world view to begin with.

 

[shernren]

But to put things into analogy: God has not just created Adam mature. He seems to have created Adam with a navel.

There are geological occurences that seem to indicate the actual happening of events longer than 6000 years ago. Was God a deceptive creator? Of course not!

What testimonies did Jesus give concerning the creation? Remember that He used many other stories and parables without qualifying that they were not necessarily historical. Is it possible that the creation might not have been any different?

I understand that the Church Fathers supported the literal-historicist arguments and I respect your right to hold these traditions in equal authority to Scripture. (I assume that's what you're doing.) I have two questions. Firstly, if per impossibile the Church Fathers had been ambiguous about the historicity of Genesis 1, would you have allowed leeway to consider Genesis 1 unhistorical? (I will not follow this up with actual quotations of them since I am unversed in the history of Christian theology.) Secondly, do you think the Church Fathers were speaking against the non-historicist theories only and simply because they were non-historicist, or because they were using atheistic motivations to degrade the Word of God?

 

[rmwilliamsll]

This has been thoroughly debated here. Appearance of maturity is not a problem even for TEs. What is a problem is evidence of a history which could not have occurred. And we have plenty of that in distant stars, in geology and in DNA sequences.

i've filed the conversations here under the rubric of the difference between Adam's navel and his childhood scars, that is the difference between apparent age and history. thanks for the reminder that this is an important summary of the issues.

....

 

[herev]

I agree, you talked to mhess and not me. I never thought you were talking to me. When I was talking to someone else you answered as if I was talking to you personally. Meaning you took what I said as if I was speaking against you rather than the person I was actually speaking to. If you wanted to defend the person, as I did when you spoke against mhess, that is fine. But I didn't intend what I said to another to be taken as if it was said to you as well.

If you cannot see this or don't want to, that is fine. If you want to call my logic, illogical, or you want to call me flawed, I am ok with this. I know I am flawed and in need of redemption. Call me on anything you would like, but I will explain where I was coming from. If you don't like my explanation, well there is nothing I can do about that. So I apologize that you have so much anger towards me.

Maybe we will be able to communicate in a later time.

anger, for what possible reason would I have to LET you make me angry. You have not shown yourself to be someone who is serious about discussion, or even as serious about discussing your opinion as you are in attacking others for theirs. I assure you, I hold no anger towards you at all