since we aren't to debate in there...

[herev]

I got this quote from a post in the creationist forum:

"I'd rather be found guilty of wrongly defending God (literal) than be found guilty of wrongly defending an idea concieved of men."

Now the poster is usually very civil and there is nothing against him intended here , I promise, but it really got me to thinking...

I made up my mind a long time ago that it wouldn't bother me if those who hold to creationists views taught their belief--as long as it was done with supporting scripture--AND as long as they didn't belittle my faith in the process.....

But this thought process could get me to change my mind--it hasn't but it could!

Anyway, the way I read this post, When he faces God, he (and many other creationists) would rather be found guilty

of teaching falsehoods about God that were supportive of creationism, than to be found guilty of teaching falsehoods about God that were supportive of TE beliefs.....

hmmm. Let's assume for the moment that God would judge someone guilty for not understanding his method of creation (which I personally doubt), but we'll assume it here.

Why would God cut creationists some slack if they were wrong in their views and not cut us the same slack if we are wrong in our views? Does God really care why, if we are teaching falsehoods about him that we genuinely believe?

Just thinking out loud.....

 

[PotLuck]

LOL!!

Look at it from the other direction, not God's and I think you may see where I was coming from.

 

[PotLuck]

So I do like your method though. Can't debate in there so you copy/paste it somewhere else to make debate legal?
Why not just copy what you don't agree with out to here then have at it as normal?
Well, seems you found yourself a workable loophole.

 

[herev]

So I do like your method though. Can't debate in there so you copy/paste it somewhere else to make debate legal?
Why not just copy what you don't agree with out to here then have at it as normal?
Well, seems you found yourself a workable loophole.

Am I that transparent

shame on me, but really it was a thought that I want to talk about on both sides here, sorry to do that to you--I like your attitude Potluck

 

[PotLuck]

Destroys the reason for the forum.
I'm not going to debate it. You view as you wish.
Have a good time with it because quite frankly I don't give a hoot what anyone thinks.
Meat's on the table. Go for it.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

Herev, I personally am interested in the truth. I don't oppose Darwinism because I want err on the side of a literal Genesis - I do so because of genuine issues. This part of your statement interests me the most. Maybe it's the little pictures that make it seem more heartfelt

Why would God cut creationists some slack if they were wrong in their views and not cut us the same slack if we are wrong in our views? Does God really care why, if we are teaching falsehoods about him that we genuinely believe?

God knows the heart of men. How do you think God will treat men who taught that Jesus is not God, if they genuinely believe that He wasn't? Those of us who believe in His deity consider it a most damaging thing to teach, but men may be convinced to the uttermost depths of their heart that He is not God.

I'm not giving an answer here - it's a question I haven't considered. Perhaps God, knowing their hearts, will judge them accordingly. Perhaps He holds them accountable independant of whether they truly believed or not. I do know that Jesus said teachers would be judged more harshly...but perhaps He meant in this life.

I don't know. Just adding some thoughts.

 

[herev]

Thanks for your honest and polite reply

Herev, I personally am interested in the truth. I don't oppose Darwinism because I want err on the side of a literal Genesis - I do so because of genuine issues.

I believe that and accept that.

This part of your statement interests me the most. Maybe it's the little pictures that make it seem more heartfelt

I do like smilie faces--pictures are worth 1000 words. (err. that might not be literal, so let's not quibble over how many words it really is worth )

God knows the heart of men.

Agreed

How do you think God will treat men who taught that Jesus is not God, if they genuinely believe that He wasn't?

I think if they genuinely don't believe he was God, their salvation is already in jeopardy, but more importantly, what I am suggesting is that on both sides of the isle, we believe that Jesus is God, no? So here, we have two people (you and I) who are saved by faith in Jesus Christ (I don't doubt your salvation and I hope you don't doubt mine!) who teach a different interpretation about our origins and God's method of creating. (similar to different ideas on explaining the meaning of the Tower of Babel or who God was speaking of or to when he says "WE" in that passage or in the creation accounts. Since it is not integral to our salvation, why would God judge us for that? And why would he judge us differently--that is the crux of my point.

Those of us who believe in His deity consider it a most damaging thing to teach, but men may be convinced to the uttermost depths of their heart that He is not God.

Agreed, but again, Jesus' deity is an issue that is integral to our salvation as it pertains to whom we have our faith in--a man or God. Theistic Evolution vs. Creationism is not (IMHO) germaine to our salvation.

I'm not giving an answer here - it's a question I haven't considered.

AGain, thanks for your honesty and attitude.

Perhaps God, knowing their hearts, will judge them accordingly.

perhaps

Perhaps He holds them accountable independant of whether they truly believed or not.

Perhaps

I do know that Jesus said teachers would be judged more harshly...but perhaps He meant in this life.

agreed
So how do we, you and I--on both sides of the same coin, come to some understanding that neither of us KNOWs as a fact (to assume so on either part would take away the need for faith) whether or not Genesis 1 and 2 are literal or not--so we both pray, study, seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit--and still believe differently--all the while without condemnation for the other?

I don't know.

me either
God Bless

Just adding some thoughts.

Thanks again, I shall be thinking on this for some time, I believe--perhaps its time for me to go see my Systematic Theology professor again and seek council from someone wiser than I.

 

[herev]

I am sorry, sir

Destroys the reason for the forum.

I don't agree. But I will respect your opinion. I have witnessed over and over again my TE brothers posting in your area, and I was attempting to be more sensitive to all of you, but it appears that I have offended, and I hate that--I never intended to.

I'm not going to debate it. You view as you wish.

No, if it bothers you this much that it offends so easily, I won't.

Have a good time with it because quite frankly I don't give a hoot what anyone thinks.
Meat's on the table. Go for it.

You can rest assured it won't happen again.
AGain, I aplogize--have a good day.

 

[TwinCrier]

The statement clearly starts with "I" and is someone's opinion. How can you debate someone's opinion? You may or may not share that opinion, but that is not a debate. I'm sure everyone feels strongly about what they believe about the origin of mankind, but we can't all be right.... we may all be wrong, but we aren't all correct.

 

[seebs]

The statement clearly starts with "I" and is someone's opinion. How can you debate someone's opinion?

I can't debate whether or not it's their opinion, but I can debate whether or not it's a good or well-informed opinion, or whether it's consistent with sound doctrine.

You may or may not share that opinion, but that is not a debate. I'm sure everyone feels strongly about what they believe about the origin of mankind, but we can't all be right.... we may all be wrong, but we aren't all correct.

Certainly.

 

[herev]

The statement clearly starts with "I" and is someone's opinion. How can you debate someone's opinion? You may or may not share that opinion, but that is not a debate. I'm sure everyone feels strongly about what they believe about the origin of mankind, but we can't all be right.... we may all be wrong, but we aren't all correct.

I agree we cannot debate whether something is someone's opinion, but we can debate what the opinion is about, and we can also debate the logical theological consequences of such an opinion. I was actually wanting input. The reason I said, "since we can't debate in there" was because to question one's opinion in such a sub-forum could appear as debate--and certainly would lead to debate, which I then would not be able to contribute to.

 

[KleinerApfel]

I don't see why a comment should not be lifted out of another forum and used here, to trigger further discussion, debate or whatever.

If we creationists want to hear only the opinions of others with similar views; that's what our sub-forum is for.

If we don't want to also read the concurrent debate which is open to all over here; we don't have to come here!

I am impressed with your patience Herev.

Blessings, Susana

 

[herev]

I am impressed with your patience Herev.

Blessings, Susana

thanks!!
May the Peace of Christ be with you!

 

[Erwin]

This main forum is specifically for debate - the subforums are specifically for fellowship and "internal debate" if you know what I mean.

 

[Apollo Rhetor]

I do have an issue with quoting comments from the subforums. That person posted there to discuss amongst Christian YEC's something. They chose that forum for their own reasons. When you quote them here, they are either unaware that they need to defend their opinions - or are forced to enter into discussion with people whom they may (or may not) have tried to avoid by choosing to post on the subforum.

It would annoy me no end if I made a post on the Christian C&E forum and had it lifted out and critiqued on the open to everyone forum...depending on the nature of the conversation.

Still, I have no good reason to prevent them. I print my words and know they will be public, I make that choice. It would just annoy me. I wouldn't want to commit the time it takes to defend it on that forum I hadn't intended it for.

I was going to defend you herev, about it being no problem to take it to here for discussion, but I'm having second thoughts as above.

And no, I don't question your salvation For reasons that you may not agree with that are unimportant. My current theology/understanding includes you as a brother in Christ.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I'm afraid it's impossible, really, Tyreth.

When someone posts documentable nonsense on the CO forum, someone is bound to want to address it, and the only way they can do so is by doing so here.

Even if we had a rule saying this couldn't be done, how would it be enforced? All one has to do is start a thread and not comment that it was inspired by something said on CO.

These are often emotive topics. When someone posts in CO how, say, the amount of moon dust on the moon proves it's only 6000 years old, a scientist will burst if he can't address the fact that this is simply, and demonstrably, incorrect.

 

[Micaiah]

This main forum is specifically for debate - the subforums are specifically for fellowship and "internal debate" if you know what I mean.

While you're here Erwin, care to share with us your views on 'origins'. Are you a TE, YEC, or NGTS*






(*Not Game To Say!).

 

[herev]

I do have an issue with quoting comments from the subforums. That person posted there to discuss amongst Christian YEC's something. They chose that forum for their own reasons. When you quote them here, they are either unaware that they need to defend their opinions - or are forced to enter into discussion with people whom they may (or may not) have tried to avoid by choosing to post on the subforum.

It would annoy me no end if I made a post on the Christian C&E forum and had it lifted out and critiqued on the open to everyone forum...depending on the nature of the conversation.

Still, I have no good reason to prevent them. I print my words and know they will be public, I make that choice. It would just annoy me. I wouldn't want to commit the time it takes to defend it on that forum I hadn't intended it for.

I was going to defend you herev, about it being no problem to take it to here for discussion, but I'm having second thoughts as above.

And no, I don't question your salvation For reasons that you may not agree with that are unimportant. My current theology/understanding includes you as a brother in Christ.

thanks for the input, as i said, it was not intended to hurt potluck, he's been very gracious. I guess it never occurred to me, for I wouldn't be offended unless one chose to use a post in here and want to debate it in say parenting--the two are non-related. That's a tactic of Genez and it does infuriate. But since I understand what it is like to be infuriated, I apologize to all for any insult.
God bless brother

 

[Beowulf]

I see he's from Salt Lake City. That's not far from here.
The mormon culture here isn't exactly happy with some of the things christians say around here. they are quick to point out what they feel are mistranslations in the bible and are quick to judge a bible believer of wrongly preaching the bible (defending God) as it's written. (I've also been called a son of perdition by doing so *found guilty*) At the same time Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, etc. taught things against the bible. (ideas of men) Smith even wrote his own version of the bible though the mormons don't use it.

That phrase isn't new. It's not heard very often anymore but it's certainly not new.

 

[GodSaves]

I believe what Potluck was meaning is this: He would rather be found guilty of sticking to scriptures then be found guilty of adding current teachings of the world into the Bible. In Proverbs it specifically teaches not to add to the scriptures.

Please make note: I was trying to add clarification, not enter a debate. You disagree, then fine. Out of respect for Potluck I suggest refraining from a debate on his thoughts. It will only end up ridiculing him, a fellow believer.