Yecch

[Critias]

I wasn't accusing you of anything; but it's funny that you claim to be taught by the Holy Spirit (and by the way, you have heard of slips of the finger haven't you? It's now corrected) as if rmwilliams was not. That's the whole tenor of your claim to be taught by the Holy spirit: that you're implying that your opposition is not taught by the Holy Spirit.

Still accusing me of the same thing, saying Richard is not taught by the Holy Spirit.

I have heard of slips of the finger and this was not one of them. If I thought he wasn't, or thought that I could know he wasn't, I would say so.

Have you heard of not being your neighbors accuser?

Arty, I am not claiming what you are stating. Feel free to keep making up lies and accusing me.

Why are you so sure that it isn't rmwilliams or the TE interpretation rather than your own interpretation that is the one that is taught by the Holy Spirit. Personally, I think the whole fundamentalist mind set has more to do with 18th C Scottish Common Sense Philosophy than the ways of thinking that would have been recognised by the writers of the Old Testament or the Gospels. Underlying everything you say is the assumption that myth and story cannot be as "true" as "fact" or "history." I would say that it is irredeemably Modernist in its assumptions, and scientistic to boot. So I would say there's a lot more "man-knowledge" in what you think than you are capable or desirous of acknowledging.

I don't restrict God's ability to teach the truth to us to any single method; and don't see anything wrong with myth and story and poetry as a vehicle for truth. I'd disagree with rmwilliams in thinking that Gen 1 is narrative, however, though I'd say Gen 2 is. Gen 1 to me has all the hallmarks of a liturgical hymn: from the repeated refrains to the very tight rhythmic structure. It seems to me to have been written to be sung, or chanted, possibly for worship in the Temple. (I'm speaking as a poet and an expert in poetry, by the way.)

Now, unless I'm very mistaken, poems shouldn't be taken literally.

Personally, I suspect that poetry is God's usual way of speaking. How else can we understand eternal things? It's not possible to measure God in a test-tube.

I am beginning to think you just want to start an argument. I said I desire the Holy Spirits teaching. I did not say TEs are not taught by the Holy Spirit. Will you believe me, or just continue with your lies and accusations?

Can you show me how Genesis is a Hebrew poem?

 

[artybloke]

Here's a test:

Is it possible that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong?

If you can say yes to this, then you're not being arrogant.

If you say no, because the Holy Spirit has taught me this then you are being arrogant.

It is possible for my interpretation of the Bible to be wrong. It quite frequently is. Fine, I can stand corrected.

If you think it is possible that what you think is the teaching of the Holy Spirit is in fact nothing of the sort, but just a wrong interpretation, then there is some hope for you. It doesn't matter if you are in fact right, as long as you acknowledge that you don't have some kind of hotline to God that everyone else - who are equally desirous of being taught by the Holy Spirit- doesn't have.

See gluady's posts with regard to Hebrew poetry. I think she has a reasonable handle on it.

 

[Critias]

Sigh, now I need to pass your test in order for you to what God has commanded, give people the benefit of the doubt.

I will answer your questions for you. Let me know how I do and what you will judge of me after I answer.

Here's a test:

Is it possible that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong?

Very much so. From my training, I have come to understand Genesis as a historical narrative. If you or another can show conclusively that Genesis is not a historical narrative, then I can reconsider my position. I am not concerned with modern interpretations using the English version of the Bible, or the modern understanding of myths and poetry, but rather the ancient Hebrew understanding. And that is quite different than today.

If you can say yes to this, then you're not being arrogant.

If you say no, because the Holy Spirit has taught me this then you are being arrogant.

See, here you are not interested in my answer. Rather you want to call me arrogant because it makes you feel better, or something. Go ahead, you probably are already thinking it, so say it.

It is possible for my interpretation of the Bible to be wrong. It quite frequently is. Fine, I can stand corrected.

If you think it is possible that what you think is the teaching of the Holy Spirit is in fact nothing of the sort, but just a wrong interpretation, then there is some hope for you. It doesn't matter if you are in fact right, as long as you acknowledge that you don't have some kind of hotline to God that everyone else - who are equally desirous of being taught by the Holy Spirit- doesn't have.

Hope for me? From you? My hope rests in Jesus Christ, not man. Sorry.

And, if I was a prophet, sent by God Himself, which I am not claiming to be, would you denounce me as you are still? Surely we have seen you will not take my word for it. So how open minded are you really?

See gluady's posts with regard to Hebrew poetry. I think she has a reasonable handle on it.

I appreciate her comments on this, since everyone else is unable to give support for their positions; which leaves me to believe that they and you are just followers of whatever someone else says on this issue.

If you have not studied Genesis in Hebrew, you don't have an understanding of Hebrew poetry, you cannot confidently make claims that Genesis is such, without relying on someone else to do your work for you.

Arty, it is apparent that you are not interested in a dialogue, but rather you seem to be more interested in calling me arrogant, a liar, and whatever else you may come up with.

Feel free to do so, if that is what you think God has called you to do to people you don't even know.

 

[artybloke]

My hope rests in Jesus Christ, not man. Sorry.

I see you still are using empty superspiritual phraseology as I way to make yourself sound more spiritual than me.

I see throughout this post you still haven't answered my question: is there a possibility that you could be wrong? I've admitted that I could be wrong; of course, I don't think I am because I think the evidence is on my side, amd also because I believe it's what God has taught me (see: I can be superspiritual too!). Can you say as much?

I'm not asking you to abandon your beliefs. I'm asking you to admit the possibility that you are in error and can be corrected. If you cannpot admit that, dialogue is impossible.

And, if I was a prophet, sent by God Himself, which I am not claiming to be, would you denounce me as you are still?

I would question the authority of anybody who claimed to be a prophet even closer than I would question the authority of anyone else who claims to have the Holy Spirit on their side, dog-collar or no dog-collar, Bible in hand or no Bible in hand. Authority should be questioned and challenged and stood up at all times.

 

[Critias]

I see you still are using empty superspiritual phraseology as I way to make yourself sound more spiritual than me.

That wasn't my intention, but go ahead and keep accusing me anyway.s

I see throughout this post you still haven't answered my question: is there a possibility that you could be wrong? I've admitted that I could be wrong; of course, I don't think I am because I think the evidence is on my side, amd also because I believe it's what God has taught me (see: I can be superspiritual too!). Can you say as much?

You really got to be kidding me Arty. Look at post #23 where I answered your question saying "Very much so." that my view can be wrong.

How many times do you want me to answer it? Or do you not read what I say?

I'm not asking you to abandon your beliefs. I'm asking you to admit the possibility that you are in error and can be corrected. If you cannpot admit that, dialogue is impossible.

Please read what I said in answer to your question. Post #23.

I would question the authority of anybody who claimed to be a prophet even closer than I would question the authority of anyone else who claims to have the Holy Spirit on their side, dog-collar or no dog-collar, Bible in hand or no Bible in hand. Authority should be questioned and challenged and stood up at all times.

You are just questioning, you are accusing. You have no basis to do so, you do it without warrant. I answer your questions and you come back accusing me that I have not.

IF this is all you want to do, accuse me, then we are done with our conversation. I would hope we could continue, but you until you are able to stop accusing me, there really is no point to this.

 

[artybloke]

Oh, so you did. I just don't believe you.

 

[Numenor]

This thread has highlighted a couple of things about Creationists for me:

Double standards: rmwilliamsll is accused of not loving his Christian brethren by posting a parody of Creationism. But when it is pointed out that AiG (amongst others) do exactly the same to Christians who are theistic evolutionists, nothing is said about it.

Supercilliousness: Citeras has displayed (intentionally or not) the usual haughty disdain for those who disagree with their approach to origins. The implication (despite protestations otherwise) is that theistic evolutionists put their trust in fallible sinful men instead of God. Sadly typical yet predictable.

 

[Critias]

This thread has highlighted a couple of things about Creationists for me:

Double standards: rmwilliamsll is accused of not loving his Christian brethren by posting a parody of Creationism. But when it is pointed out that AiG (amongst others) do exactly the same to Christians who are theistic evolutionists, nothing is said about it.

Supercilliousness: Citeras has displayed (intentionally or not) the usual haughty disdain for those who disagree with their approach to origins. The implication (despite protestations otherwise) is that theistic evolutionists put their trust in fallible sinful men instead of God. Sadly typical yet predictable.

I suppose you have missed my statements that I am very much open to being wrong about my approach to Genesis.

I suppose you have also missed my continuing statement that I don't think TEs are not Christians.

I suppose you have also missed my statements that I do not claim that TEs are putting their trust in man instead of God.

You must have missed these, otherwise you would not have said what you have, for it would be bearing false witness against a fellow Christian.

And Numenor, I didn't condone AIG, I said because they are doing the same thing (making fun of TEs) doesn't mean another should do it also.

 

[Numenor]

I suppose you have missed my statements that I am very much open to being wrong about my approach to Genesis.

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

I suppose you have also missed my continuing statement that I don't think TEs are not Christians.

I didn't say anything to the contrary.

I suppose you have also missed my statements that I do not claim that TEs are putting their trust in man instead of God.

After your initial statement that you as a YEC put your trust in God as which strongly implied this was as opposed to TEs who put their trust in fallible mens' theories you did backpeddle to try and salvage the situation. But it's a recurring undercurrent of opinion which is regularly exhibited on here. Don't worry, you weren't the first and you sure won't be the last.

You must have missed these, otherwise you would not have said what you have, for it would be bearing false witness against a fellow Christian.

Yeah Creationists like to lay guilt trips on you too.

And Numenor, I didn't condone AIG, I said because they are doing the same thing (making fun of TEs) doesn't mean another should do it also.

Good, but you can do more than just not condone.

 

[Critias]

I didn't say anything to the contrary.



I didn't say anything to the contrary.



After your initial statement that you as a YEC put your trust in God as which strongly implied this was as opposed to TEs who put their trust in fallible mens' theories you did backpeddle to try and salvage the situation. But it's a recurring undercurrent of opinion which is regularly exhibited on here. Don't worry, you weren't the first and you sure won't be the last.

I see. So if you say you put your trust in God, then everyone else ought to take that as if you are saying others are not doing as you do?

I have said continually that what you and Arty are claiming I do not believe. Yet, even after constantly telling you both this, you still accuse me of it. Is this how you prefer to be treated?

It is these types of accusations which keep there from being any unity between TEs and yecs.

Yeah Creationists like to lay guilt trips on you too.


Good, but you can do more than just not condone.

I wasn't laying a guilt trip, I was speaking truthfully. Take it however you wish.

What would you like me to do, start a thread condemning them? And what would that do? Should I start a thread like this and make fun of them? Will that help the situation?

Look Numenor and Arty, what you are both claiming I never was thinking of nor intending to say. Obviously you both cannot take my word for it, nor can you give the benefit of the doubt. Instead you choose to accuse me, regardless of what I say. With that, I should hope that no one here ever sees either of you complaining about receiving the same treatment.

Your accusations show why there will be no unity here. Regardless if someone tells you they didn't mean such a thing, you will tell them they did and accuse them. Whether it is you, another TE, or a yec, doesn't matter. This is nothing more than a contribution to keeping a chasm between the two camps. It shows you do not desire unity and that you do desire to be ones accuser.

With that, my apologies that this must be this way. My apologies that you think I am saying something I am not. And it is sad that one here cannot speak on their own, but rather have another tell them what they think and what they mean.

Say as you wish, accuse me as you will.

May God bless you both.

 

[Micaiah]

But when it is pointed out that AiG (amongst others) do exactly the same to Christians who are theistic evolutionists, nothing is said about it.

What comments are we talking about?

 

[Numenor]

I see. So if you say you put your trust in God, then everyone else ought to take that as if you are saying others are not doing as you do?

you said:

You see, I desire to be taught by the Holy Spirit, more than being taught by man.

In a debate between Christians it is entirely unecessary to state that one desires to be taught by the Holy Spirit. It goes without saying surely? Why would one feel the need to state this, unless to undermine the profession of another Christian?

I have said continually that what you and Arty are claiming I do not believe. Yet, even after constantly telling you both this, you still accuse me of it. Is this how you prefer to be treated?

Welcome to the world of the Theistic Evolutionist, that is how I am treated by Creationist brethren on a regular basis. I am constantly told that I don't believe in an all-powerful omnipotent God because I supposedly trust in the theories of fallible sinful men.

It is these types of accusations which keep there from being any unity between TEs and yecs.

I agree. As long as Creationists continue to accuse TEs are putting their trust in men then unity is a long way off.

Look Numenor and Arty, what you are both claiming I never was thinking of nor intending to say. Obviously you both cannot take my word for it, nor can you give the benefit of the doubt. Instead you choose to accuse me, regardless of what I say. With that, I should hope that no one here ever sees either of you complaining about receiving the same treatment.

Your accusations show why there will be no unity here. Regardless if someone tells you they didn't mean such a thing, you will tell them they did and accuse them. Whether it is you, another TE, or a yec, doesn't matter. This is nothing more than a contribution to keeping a chasm between the two camps. It shows you do not desire unity and that you do desire to be ones accuser.

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt if you can explain why you felt you needed to make the point you did when you were debating fellow a Christian, a statement which whould go without saying I would have thought.

Perhaps you are new and are unaware of the history and the context of the debate.

 

[Critias]

you said:


In a debate between Christians it is entirely unecessary to state that one desires to be taught by the Holy Spirit. It goes without saying surely? Why would one feel the need to state this, unless to undermine the profession of another Christian?

Then I will keep in mind that when speaking with Christians, I shouldn't state Christian beliefs or Christian desires. Obviously, if one states their desire of God, others, such as yourself, will tell them they don't mean they desire God, but rather that others Christians do not. Even if they are told this is not true.

It is sad that this is what this forum has come to. You cannot speak of your own personal self without others telling you don't mean what you mean, but rather mean something offensive to others.

Welcome to the world of the Theistic Evolutionist, that is how I am treated by Creationist brethren on a regular basis. I am constantly told that I don't believe in an all-powerful omnipotent God because I supposedly trust in the theories of fallible sinful men.

So, because you have received such treatment, you are inclined to dish it out now? Then you shouldn't be even mentioning that you have received it as if it is a surprise. You are just being treated how you treat others.

I agree. As long as Creationists continue to accuse TEs are putting their trust in men then unity is a long way off.

Maybe you can start by taking what I say for what it means. Especially when I say that I don't think you or another TE here is any less of a Christian, or that TEs do not desire to be taught by the Holy Spirit, or that TEs seek man over God.

All I can gather from this conversation is that it is more important to you to accuse me of things i have not done, then to give the benefit of the doubt.

I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt if you can explain why you felt you needed to make the point you did when you were debating fellow a Christian, a statement which whould go without saying I would have thought.

As you state here, you are only willing to give the benefit of the doubt if I answer you to your satisfaction, not because I am a fellow Christian or that God commands us to do so.

Perhaps you are new and are unaware of the history and the context of the debate.

I see. So history helps justify what you are doing? Sounds like an excuse to me.

Look, you want to be my accuser, be my guest. Is this what you think Jesus taught us to be?

 

[Numenor]

Then I will keep in mind that when speaking with Christians, I shouldn't state Christian beliefs or Christian desires. Obviously, if one states their desire of God, others, such as yourself, will tell them they don't mean they desire God, but rather that others Christians do not. Even if they are told this is not true.

You know exactly what I am talking about. The context of your comment and comments like it 99% of the time is meant to cast aspurtions on TEs. Perhaps you do fall under that 1%, who knows. Your reaction though hasn't convinced me. Why should it when your behaviour is exactly to type?

So, because you have received such treatment, you are inclined to dish it out now? Then you shouldn't be even mentioning that you have received it as if it is a surprise. You are just being treated how you treat others.

No, but I knew that's how you'd take this. Predictable, Creationists are always ready and willing to believe the worst about TE brethren.

As you state here, you are only willing to give the benefit of the doubt if I answer you to your satisfaction, not because I am a fellow Christian or that God commands us to do so.

No, because your comment was typical of Creationists.

I see. So history helps justify what you are doing? Sounds like an excuse to me.

No, sounds like you are unaware of what comments such as the one you made are intended to imply. Anyway, play the martyr if you like, this conversation is simply tiresome now.

I thought the OP was humerous

 

[artybloke]

Then I will keep in mind that when speaking with Christians, I shouldn't state Christian beliefs or Christian desires.

You know, I suspect you don't even know you're doing it, do you? You have no idea that a statement like that comes across as sarcastic to others, I'll bet.

The thing that you should assume is that you are talking to Christians, equally seeking the right spiritual path, but coming to different conclusions.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

here's another apropos cartoon

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/32/view.gif
i'm not sure how many days it will be here.

 

[Micaiah]

Science isn't just teaching about certain facts, it is helping students make inferences from the evidence they see. Mr Newton saw an apple fall, and infered the presence of gravity, or so the story goes.

Humans typically want to know where they came from. They seek answers through science. Some seek these answers with no reference to God. In western schools, attempts are made to answer these questions in a scientific curriculum that has a strong humanistic bias.

Creationists argue that if you want to answer these questions in schools, then it is appropiate that the other side of the story be presented. We believe the evidence favours a straight forward interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation, rather than the explanations for human origins given in the science class today.

It is unfortunate that people claiming to be Christian should smirk at cartoons and websites that portray Creationists in such a demeaning manner.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

how can anyone demean Hovind and the like more than they themselves have done?

lies, fake degrees, tax evasion....

or AiG which has a campaign to confront Pastors who are not YECist and call them "compromisers"?
where in that is God's command to honor our leaders?

how can anyone demean YECists more than they have to themselves when a parody site like: http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html
can't even be sure it is a parody.
http://www.lipsticklibrarian.com/blog/archives/000025.html
http://www.bouzou.com/culture/present/sciencefair.html

no, YECism has brought it on itself. not just by being foolish, but by raising ignorance and anti-intellectualism to new heights.



.....

 

[Micaiah]

how can anyone demean Hovind and the like more than they themselves have done?

lies, fake degrees, tax evasion....

Are you suggesting that scientists who promote your point of view are perfect?

or AiG which has a campaign to confront Pastors who are not YECist and call them "compromisers"?
where in that is God's command to honor our leaders?

how can anyone demean YECists more than they have to themselves when a parody site like: http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html
can't even be sure it is a parody.
http://www.lipsticklibrarian.com/bl...ves/000025.html
http://www.bouzou.com/culture/present/sciencefair.html

no, YECism has brought it on itself. not just by being foolish, but by raising ignorance and anti-intellectualism to new heights.

If you think it is wrong to make those kinds of comments why do it yourself?

 

[vossler]

how can anyone demean YECists more than they have to themselves when a parody site like: http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html
can't even be sure it is a parody.
http://www.lipsticklibrarian.com/blog/archives/000025.html
http://www.bouzou.com/culture/present/sciencefair.html

no, YECism has brought it on itself. not just by being foolish, but by raising ignorance and anti-intellectualism to new heights.

I'm not quite sure what your point is here?!?

Secular sites that call into question christians whose theological and/or scientific views which don't coorespond to their own are hardly the measuring tool to use.