Willtor said:I suspect that nature is seamless. Apart from the miraculous, I suspect that God has not "left holes" in nature where nature is unable to function. I believe that nature moves itself as God moves it, and I disbelieve a dualism that either gives nature autonomy or makes God into a puppeteer. If nature includes natural mutation, natural crossover, and natural selection, then I believe that our acknowledgment of this is glorifying to God.
Pats said:Please explain how ignoring questions about God by TEs is related to some YECs coming accross preposterous looking.
Another important point here, what looks and sounds preposterous is truly in the ear of the listener. To some, Jesus resurecting from the dead, or being the only begotten son of God is preposterous. In that case, I'm not affraid to look preposterous.
You're appealing to magic here to support an unfounded assertion about the universe. No kind of miracle would create the universe in under 10,000 years but then leave evidence that the earth is older.I'm equally unafraid to consider the possibility that the Creation was a miraculous event for wich there can be no scientific verification. I don't know for sure, I wasn't there.
We agree on this.Any person of any theology pronouncing to others that they are going to Hell is not evangilism, and it's not even close to what I'm susggesting as whitnessing opportunities.
I do this all the time. My faith icon is prominent whenever I don't explicitly state that Christians don't all feel that way.The thing is, if/when a YECist said something like, the world is 6,000 yrs old or throw the Bible out, that's where a TE could explain to the nonbeliever that not all Christians feel that way and why.
This is my opinion of sharing faith in a forum like that. If you don't share it, then you're better off not doing it. I'm just surprised by the amount of people who apparently seem they'd rather not do it at all.
I am glad you feel that way.Agreed. This is no way to talk to people.
Jesus came for the lost, not for the believer but for the nonbeliever. Hopefully, most Christians understand that.
you said:it's not a 4 winged fly from a fish...it's a mutated fly from a ..... fly
it's not a bacteria from a turtle...it's a bacteria mutated into a .... bacteria
it's not a soybean from a turnip....it's a soybean genetically altered into a ....soybean plant...
WOW!!!!
Gwenyfur said:there we go twisting words...
surely you can understand a bloody concept! and for once stay on subject and not sarcastically twist every bloody line you read to yoru own ends!
The concept of a species giving offspring that are of a difference species *IS* included in that wiki definition of evolution...
So are you really going to sit there and type another lie about your theory's definition?
I would disagree with this approach. No where in Scripture are we called to send someone to another, especially someone with a different theology, in order that they may become Christians. It isn't our job to 'convince' someone scientifically or any other way of the virtues of Christianity, but only to preach the Word. The rest is the Holy Spirit's job.Pats said:I have a friend who is very scientifically minded but open to the existance of an undefined god. I feel illequiped to whitness much further to him. I think he'd benefit a great deal from talking with a TEist. This was part of the original conversation. I would rather see him become a brother in Christ with a different theology than mine, than remain a nonbeliever.
The story we're told to preach is the Word. Nothing more, nothing less!consideringlily said:God says my ways are not your ways. If the universe is telling a story that it is billions of years old it is because God created it that way.
I don't know how you can say that a Christian stating the universe to be less than 10,000 years old in some way discredits Christianity. It's the exact opposite! Only an earth and universe of less than 10,000 years can be biblically supported.consideringlily said:St Augustine said that many nonbelievers are versed in the ways of the universe. For a believer to tell them something like the universe is 10,000 year old discredits Christianity.
Do you eat pork, shellfish, drink milk with a ham and cheese sandwich?vossler said:The story we're told to preach is the Word. Nothing more, nothing less!
According to your interpretation.vossler said:I don't know how you can say that a Christian stating the universe to be less than 10,000 years old in some way discredits Christianity. It's the exact opposite! Only an earth and universe of less than 10,000 years can be biblically supported.
vossler said:I would disagree with this approach. No where in Scripture are we called to send someone to another, especially someone with a different theology, in order that they may become Christians.
It isn't our job to 'convince' someone scientifically or any other way of the virtues of Christianity, but only to preach the Word. The rest is the Holy Spirit's job.
vossler said:I don't know how you can say that a Christian stating the universe to be less than 10,000 years old in some way discredits Christianity.
It's the exact opposite! Only an earth and universe of less than 10,000 years can be biblically supported.
We don't bring anyone to Christ, only the God the Father does!The Lady Kate said:We are called to bring others to Christ... but sometimes we are not up to the task.
If we're not up to the task spiritually that's one point, but not to be up to the task scientifically is quite another.The Lady Kate said:Wouldn't common sense tell us that we should approach people on a level they are familiar with?
Pats said that this particular person has a strong background in science. Pats has already admitted that she does not. Since Pats doesn't have the backgound to effectively witness to this person, wouldn't the prudent course of action to be to seek help from someone who does?
The preparation consists of telling him the Good News, no other requirements exist.The Lady Kate said:I do agree, only the Holy Spirit can "convince" someone, but we still have a duty to prepare a person for Him, as best as we can.
Well, I'm glad we got that cleared up!The Lady Kate said:Because it's not?
Because zealous insistance that black is white and day is night might turn away more people than it draws?
I mean it is the only one that can be supported without having to read into, change, or otherwise manipulate the Scriptures.The Lady Kate said:You mean literally supported.
vossler said:If we're not up to the task spiritually that's one point, but not to be up to the task scientifically is quite another.
This line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me; are you saying that if I am a teacher then only a fellow teacher can reach me for Christ?
Help me to understand where you get the idea that one should be of a similar background in order to effectively preach the Gospel!
The preparation consists of telling him the Good News, no other requirements exist.
I mean it is the only one that can be supported without having to read into, change, or otherwise manipulate the Scriptures.
Well then I suppose most preachers are out of their element.The Lady Kate said:Where did I say "only"? But you must admit that a fellow teacher would probably have a much easier time of it than someone who had never set foot in a classroom... having a common background helps when communicating anything, including and especially the Gospel.
No it doesn't really for me, but if it does for you well then I suppose that's good.The Lady Kate said:In order to more effectively preach the gospel... does that help?
The 'terms' are the gospel and all of us should be able to transmit them without science or anything else added.The Lady Kate said:Please tell me it makes sense to witness to people in terms they can understand.
More in the know of what? Obviously if someone doesn't know the language, customs and history of another nation we would be well served with some help. Are you saying that non-believers should be treated the same?The Lady Kate said:All I meant to say was that it would be hard for you to communicate with someone whose discourse is going to go over your head, so what reason exists to not seek assistance from others more in the know?
If I was going to do missionary work on the island of Bora Bora, wouldn't it help to know the language, customs, and history? And if I didn't, wouldn't it help to find someone who did?
vossler said:Well then I suppose most preachers are out of their element.
No it doesn't really for me, but if it does for you well then I suppose that's good.
The 'terms' are the gospel and all of us should be able to transmit them without science or anything else added.
More in the know of what? Obviously if someone doesn't know the language, customs and history of another nation we would be well served with some help. Are you saying that non-believers should be treated the same?
KerrMetric said:The message of the Gospel is going to not get a good hearing if the person delivering it is telling the geology student they are conversing with that geology is bunk and a Global Flood happened a few thousand years ago. That is a fact. The Gospel is going to be lumped with UFOlogy and Crop Circles.
Saint Augustine said:Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
We obviously have two completely different views of theology and most everything else.The Lady Kate said:No, they are in their element... at the pulpit. For the most part, preachers don't go door-to-door, rather, they speak before gatherings of people already receptive to the message.
If we were all gifted orators capable of preaching the pure Gospel without any outside frame of reference, then this would be true.
However, God in His wisdom did not make us all as gifted speakers as this. If I can somehow use science, literature, art, history, music, or last night's episode of The Daily Show as a vehicle for helping someone understand a little more about my faith, why should I not use them?
Is the Gospel somehow tainted because I used something worldly to help people understand it?
If the nonbeliever comes from a different background or different way of thinking, absolutely!
If I'm going to try to communicate a message of "This is what being a Christian has done for me, and what I believe it can do for you," shouldn't I know a little more about that person... who they are, where they come from, what they believe in?
Wouldn't it be presumptuous of me not to?
vossler said:We obviously have two completely different views of theology and most everything else.
What I don't understand is nothing ever comes from our discussions, yet you continue to initiate them. Why?
Sure, you're free to respond as you see fit. I just didn't see how it benefited anyone. I certainly don't glean anything from our circular discussions. It certainly isn't time well spent.The Lady Kate said:Why not? When you make a statement on these boards, am I not allowed to respond to it?
Whatever smidgen or tidbit of information that someone could glean from it can't hardly be worth the effort that goes into it. We're usually admonished to cease and desist.The Lady Kate said:And I would hardly say that "nothing" ever comes from these discussions... I'm sure the lurkers and other posters have picked up something interesting from our little exchange.
vossler said:Sure, you're free to respond as you see fit. I just didn't see how it benefited anyone. I certainly don't glean anything from our circular discussions. It certainly isn't time well spent.
Whatever smidgen or tidbit of information that someone could glean from it can't hardly be worth the effort that goes into it. We're usually admonished to cease and desist.
Pats said:I have a friend who is very scientifically minded but open to the existance of an undefined god. I feel illequiped to whitness much further to him. I think he'd benefit a great deal from talking with a TEist. This was part of the original conversation. I would rather see him become a brother in Christ with a different theology than mine, than remain a nonbeliever.
vossler said:I would disagree with this approach. No where in Scripture are we called to send someone to another, especially someone with a different theology, in order that they may become Christians. It isn't our job to 'convince' someone scientifically or any other way of the virtues of Christianity, but only to preach the Word. The rest is the Holy Spirit's job.
vossler said:I mean it is the only one that can be supported without having to read into, change, or otherwise manipulate the Scriptures.
In your example above, we really don't know so therefore we make a logical inference, whereas the evolution theory is anything but that. We can't and shouldn't always say "we don't know" when plausible explanations exist.Pats said:I don't want you to take this the wrong way, as I am just a humble student, but don't YECist do exactly this? Cain married who? It doesn't say... so, instead of saying, "we don't know," YECs say it was his sister. That's just one example. It seems to me most theologies presuppose information that is not spelled out clearly.
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?