Badfish said:
At least this view is consistent with the word, you by accepting evolution with nothing Holy to back it up
God's Creation is not holy? Why.
teaching other Christians that YOU seem to know how God created,
We are saying that this is what GOD tells us how He created. However, don't creationists do the same thing? Tell other Christians that YOU seem to know how God created?
man you need to take a step back and pray and make sure you're not teaching heresy, if God didn't tell you, then you have no reason to promote TE.
Hmm. You apparently aren't aware that YECers promoted heresy.
"In the final issue I would like to address the question of out-and-out heresy, potentially the destruction of the whole Christian enterprise through the ham-handed activities of well-intentioned but historically and theologically illiterate Christians. In the "Findings of Fact" filed by the Defendants in the Arkansas Case prior to adjudication, a truly deplorable statement was asserted in paragraph 35: 'Creation-science does presuppose the existence of a creator, to the same degree that evolutin-science presupposes the existence of no creator. As used in the context of creation-science, as defined by 54(a) [sic]of Act 590, the terms or concepts of "creation" and "creator" are not inherently religious terms or concepts. 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."
It would be hard to set emotional priorities, from bitter sorrow to deep anger, which this wretched formulation and its obvious and cynical compromise with mammon should evoke in any sensitive theological soul. Let us say nothing about the hypocrisy of good people who have obviously convinced themselves that a good cause can be supported by any mendacious and specious means whatsoever. The passage is perverse, however, not only because it says things that are untrue, namely that creationism presupposes a creator whereas evolutionism necessarily does not, and not only because 'creation' and 'creator' are proffered speciously secular, nonreligious definitions.
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." Bruce Vawter, "Creationism: creative misuse of the Bible" in Is God a Creationist? Ed. by Roland Frye, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1983 pp 81-82.
So here we have you contradicting yourself, by your logic here, if God said it was so it must have been, God said the bible was inspired, so it must be so right? God said that he created in 6 days, so it must be so right?
The Bible teaches you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens were made. God also says in Gneesis 2:4b that He created in ONE day! So which is it? 6 days or 1 day? Ignoring the Bible when it disagrees with your man-made theology, aren't you?
