Why are we so hard on YECs?

[Scotishfury09]

Well, Jesus sure did provide the evidence to Thomas now, didn't he?

Either the physical evidence points to this or the physical evidence doesn't? Which is it?

If you believe the physical evidence does not point to 6 day creation, or a 10,000 year old earth, but you believe in the Genesis account regardless, then we are not in a dispute, my argument is with those who claim it does, and are hesitant in showing us the evidence.

If it does point to it, then why are you unwilling to show me the scars when you are more than capable of doing so?

The point of the story is that Thomas shouldn't have needed the proof. He should have had faith. In John 20:29 Jesus says, (talking to Thomas) "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I am not the person that is capable of showing you the scars. Even though I understand the importance of geological records and the theories and everything else, I find that scripture is more important. Other people in this forum are more capable to show you flood models and the like.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

The point of the story is that Thomas shouldn't have needed the proof. He should have had faith. In John 20:29 Jesus says, (talking to Thomas) "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

I am not the person that is capable of showing you the scars. Even though I understand the importance of geological records and the theories and everything else, I find that scripture is more important. Other people in this forum are more capable to show you flood models and the like.

Then AiG is Thomas?

Are not AiG and most YECist in here constantly trying to justify their belief in God by showing how all this "evidence" points to it?

If you are right and looking for evidence is wrong, then why do AiG, ICR, and all the other groups even exist?

 

[hithesh]

Now that's a statement I've always felt was applicable to most TEs, it reaffirms my belief that everything is relative to a TE.

Well, it's definitely not relative to the doctrine of other men.

But let's think of this for a minute. No two individuals view the entire word of God the same, I bet even among your closest YEC friends you will find differences.

Just because two people differ in their view of the word of God, this does not necessarily mean that one is opposition to the Word, and the other isn't, or one is right and the other is wrong.

If I have a view of the Word, that I know to be in opposition to the common understanding, I bring my take on it, to various places, such as these forums, to explore what led me to believe this, and if I've led myself in error.

When I was younger, I used to assume that the word of God, spoke about "pre-tribulation" rapture all over, seeing as how many times the idea was sold in the Church of my youth. As I grew older, and had a better understanding of the Word, I found that not even one verse in the Word supported this doctrine, and that numerous verses opposed it, and warned against it.

Now, instead of just sitting there with this understanding, I took it to this forum, and presented why I believe in "post-tribulation" rapture. I was surprised to find so many others that believed as I did, but more importantly I saw that the opposition was weightless. So I didn't just lean on my "own" understanding, I explored it to the furthest end possible, to see if it was true.

My other option would have been to accepts man's doctrine, without question, without testing it's spirit.

 

[hithesh]

The point of the story is that Thomas shouldn't have needed the proof. He should have had faith. In John 20:29 Jesus says, (talking to Thomas) "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Well, he didn't rebuke Thomas, for requesting it.

I am not the person that is capable of showing you the scars. Even though I understand the importance of geological records and the theories and everything else, I find that scripture is more important. Other people in this forum are more capable to show you flood models and the like.

Well, you can either show one of two things, the evidence (or someone else can), or you can show me how believing in Genesis as allegorical, places me one step closer to Ghenna, or away from the light.

If you can't show either, then way the need to prove YEC to others?

 

[vossler]

Well, it's definitely not relative to the doctrine of other men.

Just the Word of God.

But let's think of this for a minute. No two individuals view the entire word of God the same, I bet even among your closest YEC friends you will find differences.

On core doctrines that's possible but I haven't found that to be true.

Just because two people differ in their view of the word of God, this does not necessarily mean that one is opposition to the Word, and the other isn't, or one is right and the other is wrong.

No, another option is they both could be wrong.

Now, instead of just sitting there with this understanding, I took it to this forum, and presented why I believe in "post-tribulation" rapture. I was surprised to find so many others that believed as I did, but more importantly I saw that the opposition was weightless. So I didn't just lean on my "own" understanding, I explored it to the furthest end possible, to see if it was true.

No you leaned on other peoples understanding instead of the source of all understanding. That's the big difference!

My other option would have been to accepts man's doctrine, without question, without testing it's spirit.

No your other option would have been to rely on God.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Then AiG is Thomas?

Are not AiG and most YECist in here constantly trying to justify their belief in God by showing how all this "evidence" points to it?

If you are right and looking for evidence is wrong, then why do AiG, ICR, and all the other groups even exist?

I believe regardless of what science tells me; however, if that's all that anyone ever did it wouldn't get very far, I understand that. I didn't say looking for evidence was "wrong" I'm saying that the faith is what should be first and foremost.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Well, he didn't rebuke Thomas, for requesting it.

No, but it's kind of inferred that he prefers the faith of the other disciples.

Well, you can either show one of two things, the evidence (or someone else can), or you can show me how believing in Genesis as allegorical, places me one step closer to Ghenna, or away from the light.

If you can't show either, then way the need to prove YEC to others?

I don't want to go into tremendous detail, but I think that once you start believing that Genesis should be taken as allegorical it starts to open up so many other possibilities to scripture thus making it our own reason and not God's.

 

[hithesh]

No, but it's kind of inferred that he prefers the faith of the other disciples.



I don't want to go into tremendous detail, but I think that once you start believing that Genesis should be taken as allegorical it starts to open up so many other possibilities to scripture thus making it our own reason and not God's.

Ah, so who decides what is God's will? If you believe in pre-trib rapture, who decided that for you? The word of God?

 

[Scotishfury09]

Yes, the Word of God did. I've read different commentaries and books about the subject, but I don't just assume what the person is saying as truth. I read the scripture and formulated a considerable amount of it on my own. I usually take a very literal view of the scripture and find that it matches with pre-trib, but this isn't eschatology. If you'd like to discuss that, I would be more than happy to in eschatology.

 

[hithesh]

Just the Word of God.
[...] No you leaned on other peoples understanding instead of the source of all understanding. That's the big difference!

I see the word God as one simple message: "Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

And the rest of the Word has to be understood as revolving around this.

I will not separate the two commandments, nor will I believe in an understanding of the word, that speaks of one, but leaves out the other.

I believe the Sermon of the Mount is to be taken as literal, and that the laws and the prophets have ended, and it is the Sermon of the Mount (the expounded version of the laws) that need to followed, since Christ says that house built on this, is the one that stands, do you? I believe we are called to live a life renouncing worldly wealth, and possession, because Christ seems quite hostile to these things? do you?

I believe in post-tribulation rapture?
And that the secrets of the Kingdom of God, are not all revealed?

Do those who disagree with this interpretation lean on their own understanding, their own flesh? or do they lean on the Word of God?

My understanding of people who say, "you should lean on the Word of God", is that they are actually inferring that I lean on their understanding.

On core doctrines that's possible but I haven't found that to be true.

The core doctrine of the Word of God is the gospel.

No, another option is they both could be wrong.

Well, of course they could be.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I believe regardless of what science tells me; however, if that's all that anyone ever did it wouldn't get very far, I understand that. I didn't say looking for evidence was "wrong" I'm saying that the faith is what should be first and foremost.

And what makes you any different from a TE in that?

Do you feel that because we read the Bible differently than you we have less faith?

We both have faith in God. We both accept Christ. The largest difference is the acceptance of the idea that literal truth is greater that spiritual truth by the YEC side.

Oh, and what exactly does science tell you about God? I want journal references here, not hearsay. I have personally seen a few journal entries specifically about God, but those are mostly in psychology journals, not something I consider hard science.

I have seen nothing about God written in most other journals, if there is such items you could show me? If there are not than how could you say that science said anything about God for you to have to disbelieve?

 

[busterdog]

And what makes you any different from a TE in that?

Do you feel that because we read the Bible differently than you we have less faith?

We both have faith in God. We both accept Christ. The largest difference is the acceptance of the idea that literal truth is greater that spiritual truth by the YEC side.

Oh, and what exactly does science tell you about God? I want journal references here, not hearsay. I have personally seen a few journal entries specifically about God, but those are mostly in psychology journals, not something I consider hard science.

I have seen nothing about God written in most other journals, if there is such items you could show me? If there are not than how could you say that science said anything about God for you to have to disbelieve?

Enough.

 

[busterdog]

I noticed a few YECs in the "creationist" thread, seeming to feel bummed, that they are not taken seriously, that they are spoken to, harshly, and that they are constantly put down often.

From my own perspective, I have no problem with YECs, my father and mother are YECs, most of my friends are YECs, and most of them know that I am a (TE), and they don't attempt to steer me differently, because they know that they don't understand the science, and the evidence for evolution, so debating science with me, to prove (YEC) would be pointless to them, since their belief has nothing to do with science.

What does anger me, is the skewing of the evidence, to distort reason, to play on people's lack of understanding, because if you distort someone's reason in one thing, the more dubious their reasoning becomes in other things.

What does anger me is (YECs) who try to argue against the position of (TEs), without taking time to understand the position they are opposing. "I only understand a little about evolution", is a position of ignorance for someone whose arguing against it.

Perhaps the biggest thing to anger me, is association. Every supposed minister of God, who preaches false doctrine, who robs their parishioners have always been YECs, or portray themselves as YECs. Every Christian that falls for these wolves in sheep's clothing, have all been YECs, and I am inclined to blame this on the dumbing down of reason, that prevents us from discerning the harlot from the saint.

One analogy for the Holy Spirit or people moved by the Spirit is that this is like the water behind a dam. The dam doesn't hold the water back forever, but only until the water can go around it.

 

[Smidlee]

I noticed that american YECs tend more towards republicans.

Or the other way around... the Republician party tend more toward American YEC, gun rights, high gas prices,etc.

 

[hithesh]

VOSSLER i am still waiting on your response?

Just the Word of God.
[...] No you leaned on other peoples understanding instead of the source of all understanding. That's the big difference!

I see the word God as one simple message: "Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

And the rest of the Word has to be understood as revolving around this.

I will not separate the two commandments, nor will I believe in an understanding of the word, that speaks of one, but leaves out the other.

I believe the Sermon of the Mount is to be taken as literal, and that the laws and the prophets have ended, and it is the Sermon of the Mount (the expounded version of the laws) that need to followed, since Christ says that house built on this, is the one that stands, do you? I believe we are called to live a life renouncing worldly wealth, and possession, because Christ seems quite hostile to these things? do you?

I believe in post-tribulation rapture?
And that the secrets of the Kingdom of God, are not all revealed?

Do those who disagree with this interpretation lean on their own understanding, their own flesh? or do they lean on the Word of God?

My understanding of people who say, "you should lean on the Word of God", is that they are actually inferring that I lean on their understanding.

On core doctrines that's possible but I haven't found that to be true.

The core doctrine of the Word of God is the gospel.

No, another option is they both could be wrong.

Well, of course they could be.

 

[laptoppop]

I see the word God as one simple message: "Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

And the rest of the Word has to be understood as revolving around this.

I will not separate the two commandments, nor will I believe in an understanding of the word, that speaks of one, but leaves out the other.

These are the two greatest commandments, and certainly we are to keep them in front of us, obey BOTH of them, as we seek to become more like Christ.

The statement I'd disagree with is "the rest of the Word has to be understood as revolving around this". They are the two greatest commandments, and it is good to keep them in mind while reading Scripture, but they are not a keystone for all of Scripture. I would suggest the Gospel, in particular the incarnation, as a more appropriate keystone. The amazing love-- God becoming Man in Jesus -- giving in love even to the point of death -- rising in victory and power. THIS is the key around which Scripture revolves. As you read the history of Israel, you can see God setting up the stage for Jesus. As you read the New Testament, Christ is glorified.

So, while the two greatest commandments are wonderful - Jesus is life itself.

 

[Mallon]

In response to the OP, I am now coming to realize how wasteful and fruitless debating the issue of evolution vs. creationism really is. Young Earth Creationism is a position rooted in fundamentalism, and no amount of objective evidence could ever shake that belief. I have heard three YECs here in as many days say as much. "If Genesis wasn't meant to be read literally, then neither are the gospels," I've heard them say. Even YEC leader Kurt Wise has admitted to as much when he said that no amount of evidence could ever lead him to distrust his literal interpretation of Genesis. AiG takes the same position when they adamantly insist that all evidence must be interpreted in light of a surface reading of the Genesis text.

So where does debating get us? Nowhere. Fundamentalism is a brick wall. I don't know how many times I have pitted my 5 years of combined geological and biological training in university against claims of a global flood, invisible barriers to heritability, or the inexistence of transitional fossils, only to be completely ignored. If you dare have the tenacity to contradict an evolution-denier with an education you paid through the nose for (with both time and money), you are brushed aside with a simple Bible verse quoting God's foolishness as being greater than man's wisdom, or if you're lucky, you might have your very Christianity brought into question. I guess iron only sharpens iron when the would-be adversaries are in complete agreement with one another.

So am I starting to ask myself, 'Why bother anymore?' The evidence for evolution is as clear to most of the world as the evidence for the sphericity of the earth, and I don't pay those who would deny the latter any mind. If YECs want to be left behind, preaching spiritual allegory as science as Luther and his predecessors did, then so be it. If they want to continue pretending the fossil record represents the effects of a devastating global flood, then so be it. They will be rightfully ignored in the world of science until they can offer up something more than just logical fallacies and rhetoric in lieu of evolution. Let's not pretend: evolution is a monster of a theory, with literally thousands of independent lines of evidence in complete agreement with each other. I just did a search on Web of Science for "evolution" and the search engine had to quit at 10,000 pages of results. A similar search for "creationism" yields just 66 pages, seemingly all of which are critical in nature. The theory of evolution is in no danger. It does not need to be defended. It speaks for itself. And I feel less and less need or desire to defend the theory from empty claims. If creation science is as robust and well-supported as it claims to be, then I’m sure it will be just a matter of time before we see it taught in classrooms and practiced in labs the world over. In the meantime, I will continue putting evolutionary science to work in my lab, searching for patterns and processes to life’s distant past – and all the while maintaining my devotion to Christ and his cause.

 

[laptoppop]

I am truly disappointed in you, Mallon. Does your silence mean you agree with the thoughts concerning YECs and crooks and deceivers?

 

[Mallon]

I am truly disappointed in you, Mallon. Does your silence mean you agree with the thoughts concerning YECs and crooks and deceivers?

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=32580385&postcount=113

 

[shernren]

I just had a chat on MSN with a dear Christian junior, who is 16, in her second last year of secondary school. She asked me what I thought about evolution. I told her. Over the next fifteen minutes she repeated to me nearly every other anti-evolutionist canard I've seen and refuted here - "So you believe that man evolved from monkeys? Doesn't the Bible say that every animal reproduces after their kind? Isn't the Bible a fairytale? What about Jesus' genealogy?"

She was disturbed, though she tried to hide it. She told me that she had never seen anyone with my views before, certainly not among her peers and seniors who were under my care. And for the first time the importance of my work here really hit me. Over the past few weeks some of my Christian friends have been asking me (coincidentally) what I think of evolution. All of them find my position unnatural and disturbing.

Busterdog, you complain that none of us will admit that we struggle with the Bible. Why should we? You have not seen how much I wrestled and grappled with the ideas I present here when I first learned (as my bewildered friends did) of this strange new viewpoint on origins called "Theistic Evolution" two years ago. Everything I know about how to read the Bible and how to align my knowledge of Scripture with my knowledge of science has been wrestled into place. Even now I wrestle with the beliefs of relatively more liberal evolutionists here, especially over the question of the individuality and primacy (rather than the universality as some would propose) of Adam and Eve. And quite frankly, the fact that much of my worldview is now firmly in place is none of your business. I have worked hard, thought hard, and prayed hard for my views, and if you have a problem with the fact that this has paid off with a theological viewpoint that fits me well, that's your problem, not mine.

But a large part of me has treated this as an intellectual curiosity, something to exercise my mind with in between classes and social life (what little I have, considering my healthy fear of alcohol). It has been something I have enjoyed wrestling with, and it has been worthwhile working on. But today I can see how important it is to have wrestled all this into place. For as I did, I did so in the midst of a community that was supportive of my endeavors and who had went ahead of me. That was a luxury and a privilege given by the grace of God. It may not be a privilege given to everyone.

And the conversation I had brought to mind the younger people whom I had brief care of during my days in leadership in my school's Christian Fellowship. I realize now that I am going to lose some of them to evolution for the sheer reason that they have never thought about it. They pick up a morsel here from AiG and a crumb there from a bad sermon and conclude that evolution is bunk and Genesis ought to be taken literally and if they have any problems they can just run to a creationist website, no problem. They will go through life entirely ignoring the question of origins for quite a while and for some of them they will never have to consider it. But others are going to bang into a wall of evidence twenty feet high and eight feet thick with so little time and space to react that even if they do pick themselves up, they will be limping from the crash for a long, long time. A friend one year my senior discovered evolution, rejected creationism, and took the wrong turn into atheism when I was in my last year of school. I couldn't understand what he had done then. Now I do.

They're not just random people who happen to have too much free time on their hands and who happen to gather around an online watering-hole every once in a while and shoot to the wind. They're friends whom I cared for, prayed with, cried over, and led in my meager capacity for years. And it is fairly possible that some of them are going to lose their souls because they thought creationism was a solution, like a keepsake gun hidden under the pillow only looked at once in a while and all rusted and immobile when the enemy actually comes. Do you creationists want to see me struggle? I will have to struggle with the possibility of losing souls. Is that enough, or should I add on the enormous, unbearable burden of disagreeing with you?

If I can help it (though it is all in the hands of God) I will not lose anyone whom God has brought me to care for in my limited, human capacities. To that end I will hone my abilities and gifts as far as I possibly can: to delve into the creationist mindset as far as I can reach so that I know how to root it out as quickly and painlessly as possible should the need ever arise. If that necessitates a little frankness every once in a while, so be it. I can only pray that I will be usable when God wishes me to be used, no more, no less.