Doug, good comments. Just to expand a bit more on it: As Christians, we all confess that justice (God's justice) demands that we are all unworthy, undeserving. We deserve punishment for our disobedience to God. This punishment Christ took on himself, on our behalf. It is God's mercy that put this punishment, this justice, on to Himself, on to His Son. When we insist on justice only, then we condemn ourselves. It is when we appreciate God's mercy to us, that we are able to grant mercy to others. Indirectly, this concentration on justice alone, seems to remove God's grace from us, or remove us from God's grace.
Justice means paying a worker an adequate wage to buy his food and shelter and not defrauding the employer or his worker. Mercy means giving someone unable to work, or unable to find work, enough to prevent starvation and freezing to death, just as God gave us life, even though we did not deserve it and had lost our real right to it.
Sorry to put in three posts here in a row.... but I came across an excellent expose of evolutionary paleotology, put together by Street Church Adelaide. Youtube - "Evolution - A Crumbling Theory ( StreetChurch Adelaide )
Facts are not always facts, even when it comes to empirical science. Evil and falsehood not only wants to pervert scriptural truths, but it perverts scientific and "natural" evidence as well, if the motivation is there.
Friend Norman, I appreciate your elucidation of your perception of Helder's misrepresentation, in other words highlighting that she did not mention natural selection when yes it is an essential part of the evolutionary theory. However, I hope you are not suggesting that she was not aware of this component of the theory. I believe that while it is a part of the theory, so is genetics itself, and so are basic principles of biology(mating or cell division) and physics and chemistry. Yet Helder did not mention these either. The reason I believe is because natural selection is too often overplayed as being evolution, while it is not.
Evolutionary ideas were not new at the time of Darwin or Wallace. Anaximander of Miletus (c.610–546 BC) proposed that animals of different species derived from other species. Lamark proposed transmutation of species well before Darwin did. James Hutton, Charles Wells, and Patrick Matthew have mentioned natural selection, or at least described it, well before Darwin did. Selection itself was practiced by people for many centuries in terms of breeding dogs, poultry, horses, bovines, and it is unreasonable to assume that people were unaware of selection also within the natural environment. It is a common concept also accepted by creationists. However, creationists limit natural selection to operating within the existing variability within a species or kind, and in fact even evolutionists must limit the ability of natural selection to act only on existing genomic information. Natural selection by itself cannot create new genes, nor create mutations, nor create new morphologies. It is not natural selection by itself that causes evolution; rather it is the random mutations working over long periods of time that allows natural selection to work to create new species (by evolutionary theory). Thus while natural selection is necessary for evolutionary theory, it is not as essentially separate from non-evolutionary theory compared to the need for random mutations and long periods of time, which evolutionary theory requires in contrast to other theories.
In creationist paradigm, natural selection works to keep "kinds" or species reproducing after their own kind. In the creationist paradigm, natural selection is recognized to generally work against the random mutations, and does not promote them. Natural selection tends to reduce diversity and variability instead of increasing it, and thus does not favor evolution of species more than stability of species.
Jonathan, thanks for your comment. I think the importance of having these discussions in the open, is to discover communally what the issues are, and what is true and what is not true, particularly about our attitudes towards scientific investigation and pursuits, and how it is affected by our worldview and how it affects our worldview. I think our global mission is impacted by our respect and attitude towards one another, and I think in general, Norman's attitude was pretty good. But there are times when his bias reveals itself. It is important to realize that inaccurate and dishonorable characterizations of fellow Christians is something that happens on both sides of this discussion.
For that reason, the details become important. And it is important beyond two people having a private discussion, to realize that often attitudes are common among a larger group of people. For example, when people accuse YEC of propogandizing, it certainly needs to be put into the context of the propoganda of evolution in school textbooks, Time magazine and national geographic, which they are up against. Another example is Norman's reference to "parasitic science". People who are unaware of what this implies will feel that it puts YEC in its place. But actually, it is a meaningless pejorative term, used by those who do not understand science. Scientific endeavors almost always refer to and depend on work done previously by others. In that context, parasitic makes no sense. In a scientific context, an experiment that results in a "no" answer is just as valid as an experiment that results in a "yes" answer. Evolutionists constantly argue, correctly, that science corrects itself, by which they mean that a later experiment or investigation can refine or correct the perceptions derived from a previous experiment. Many science papers have been written which do nothing more than act as a literature review, compiling, summarizing and analyzing and comparing results from other research papers on a particular subject. In fact, Dawkins book does this to some extent. So the term "parasitic" is meaningless, other than to cast a biased pejorative denigration on the work of some scientists or writers, compared to other writers. I simply wish to clarify this for readers who may be confused on this term.
Often, Norman has called me a YEC. But I don't think I have ever said I was a YEC. I am definately against accepting "mud to man" evolution, and that is a starting point for me. I think neither science nor scripture proves this type of evolution. But at this point I am open to some type of time shift, or the possibility of longer days at least prior to day four, or a longer first day; however, I will not defend longer days, since I think those who presently support longer days or even a "symbolic" interpretation of Genesis 1, mostly have their minds closed to other scientific or extraordinary possibilities. I prefer to have an open mind, which I believe will lead to more interesting scientific conclusions in the future. So even though I might not conclusively be a total YEC, I still prefer to defend YEC, or at least question the OEE (old earth evolution) assumptions. I find much contradictions and slippery weasel stuff in the OEE scenarios, and more faithfulness and open-mindedness in the YEC positions. Maybe there is something in between, but in the meantime I prefer science which does not put God or parts of scripture on a dusty shelf or in the trash bin.
There is no doubt that there is a war going on for the minds and hearts of children, young people and young scientists. There is no doubt that the evolution debate is a major and primary weapon in this war. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend this is not so. We must frame our position in the context of God's primary claim on our lives. And we must pray that God will give us the wisdom to discern and discover His handiwork in this area of our lives.
Norm, the article you posted was incredibly biased against even a discussion of creation vs evolution. The author does not even want the debate, nor the discussion. His article was faith based (faith in evolution), and intolerant, and full of fear that if discussion occurred that average minds would reject evolution. This simply adds credibility to the argument that evolution is mere myth, since if it wasn't, evolutionary scientists would not be so afraid of scrutiny.
Part of the reason that the apostles appointed seven men (assistants) which we now call deacons, is in order to delegate certain work, to allow them to carry out their own particular calling. It is also for that reason that in most larger churches, deacons and elders meet separately to carry out that work. In trying to put them back together again for classis, are we not nullifying that designation of tasks and callings? Do we also want to send elder delegates to the local deaconal conferences, etc.? Just some questions to think about.
In some smaller churches, elders/deacons fulfill dual roles due to the nature of the size and scope of work. But I'm not sure that this makes sense at classis or synod. Maybe it does, maybe not. However, regardless, the decision for this should at minimum be left up to the local church. If there are three delegates per church, the church should decide who they are to be.
I think you are barking up the wrong tree, Keith. Local congregations have the authority to decide. They could decide to accept the advice of a regional pastor advisor even today. And they could decide to reject the "assumed authority" of a "non-bishop" bishop in the future. So why not work with what is there?
Jeremy, Canada signed the Kyoto accord, and yet has been less successful in reducing emissions than the USA, which did not sign the accord. So now Canada has not signed the renewal of the accord; and hopefully it will be more successful in reducing emissions. However, Canada's emissions are primarily based on consumption in other parts of the world, particularly in the USA, and so these emissions ought to be attributed to USA consumption. This applies to both oil and livestock. But lets not nitpick. Yes, there is still some more land to be open pit mined, but it is a relatively small portion and small area compared to future bitumen supplies. Most bitumen is too deep to surface mine.
Reclamation is the beginning of restoration, which wouldn't happen until the forest is at the previous mature stage. But the landscape won't be exactly as it was before, although the intent is to replicate to some degree the similar uneven terrain. In some ways, you might even call it a giant oil spill cleanup, since the soil will have less oil in it than it did before the mining. There are some small portions already reclaimed with vegetation growing. New technology which removes the need for tailings ponds is also being developed. Things are never static.
So a church may divest of oil stocks. What are they doing investing in business opportunities anyway? Why don't they invest in missions instead, which is what the money was probably intended for. But if we shouldn't invest in fossil fuel industries, then why should we invest in churches which usually burn these fossil fuels in their inefficient furnaces, and paint with fossil fuel paints, and use fossil fuel created carpeting and chairs, and transport their sunday school kids in fossil fuel powered buses and vans, and inevitably have their pastor driving a fossil fuel powered contraption in order to make visits to members and new attenders, as well as driving or flying to classis and synod and mission fields in Honduras? Just asking.
I appreciate your point, Richard. Absolutely. I guess however, like you might suggest someone go to see a doctor if they think they have cancer, or check out a carpenter if they need their roof fixed, it might be good to suggest some of these creation scientists if people have questions about evolution, and especially if evolution is challenging their faith. I guess the other point is that not all scientists agree that macro-evolution is fact, and this would be important to know for someone who is struggling to reconcile a random universe with their understanding of God, sin, and salvation. Dr. Jerry Bergman published a book which contains a list of 3000 scientists who do not accept macro-evolution, or are creationists. And this does not contain those who did not want their name published because they did not yet have tenure at their university, and were afraid of their career implications.
I don't think everyone has to know everything in scientific detail about the problems with the evolutionary theory. Even Ian Juby is explaining things in a very simple, down-to-earth, understandable way, that can be understood by scientists, but also by many non-scientists. An actual scientific discussion would go much deeper. However, having witnessed some of these "deeper" discussions, it turns out that the precepts behind evolution are actually very very shallow.
In most cases, you get arguments like, "there is genetic diversity, and dna is made from similar amino acids, and there are similar pieces of dna in most organisms, and we find different fossils in different layers, therefore there must have been evolutionary decent." As a philosophy major who has studied logic, you will quickly see the fallacy in that. It is important for people to have a cursory understanding of the assumptions behind radiometric dating, because it sounds so precise, so "medical", so "scientific", ; how could it be inaccurate? The word itself sounds authoritative, and so people simply swallow the whole thing. Even scientists claim that you can test one method against another, without realizing that if assumptions for both methods are wrong, then the results will not be valid regardless.
It is important for people generally to know these shortcomings and shallow reasoning, since evolution is such an accepted, predominant assumed theory, called fact, by many. Many people get very upset when it is called a theory, since they feel that it is absolute undeniable and uncontestable fact. So in essence, in spite of all the problems with the theory, there is little if any serious debate and discussion. And christians get caught up in the after effects.
Anyway, layers that were actually inverted do not disprove evolution. However, the methods used to prove the layers are actually inverted, are often based on the assumptions that prove the theory. Many of these layers are called inverted simply because of the fossils they contain, in addition to containing certain types of minerals. Maybe they are not inverted layers after all, just laid down in a different order in different places. Then that yes would cast great doubt on the claims of evolutionists.
It is interesting that some of the most well-known scientists of the past were actually incredibly well-trained in theology. I'm told that Newton, Francis Bacon, and Galileo are some good examples of that. Darwin, who was self-taught in science, and not trained in science (since he neglected his medical studies and didn't finish that program), and likely gained an audience mostly because his father had lots of money, was trained in theology and the liberal arts, at a time when science was often termed, "natural theology".
Some earlier pastors were good at carpentry, fishing, and tent-making; in many cases it enhanced their service.
I believe it is a pastoral thing to direct questioners to the websites and books of these creationists, even while acknowledging that these creationists are fallible too, but at least are questioning and challenging, and doing so from a perspective of glorifying God, rather than putting God on the shelf.
"Neither praise thyself in what is good in thee, nor accuse God in what is evil in thee. For this is wrong judgment, and so, not judgment at all. This thou didst, being evil; reverse it, and it will be right. Praise God in what is good in thee; accuse thyself in what is evil. So shalt thou anticipate the judgment of God, as He saith, "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord" 1 Corinthians 11:31. He addeth, love mercy; being merciful, out of love, "not of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver" 2 Corinthians 9:7. These acts together contain the whole duty to man, corresponding with and formed upon the mercy and justice of God Psalm 101:1; Psalm 61:7. All which is due, anyhow or in any way, is of judgment; all which is free toward man, although not free toward God, is of mercy." "(Barne's (B
Rinse and hang: yes I am aware of group think, and fully aware of it in many different contexts. For that reason I tend to be as hard on those I "group" with, as on others.
I didn't ask my questions about what you believe or don't believe in scripture in order to be "fear mongering". I asked it to understand how you differentiate between what you believe or accept, compared to what you do not accept. If "science" says that there is no way that the flood could have happened, do you then accept the science and reject the story as mere fable? If science says there is no way that Moses could have parted the red sea, then do you accept that conclusion? If science says there is no way someone could be raised from the dead, do you then accept science and reject the resurrection? The Bahai's take everything about the resurrection symbolically, and deny Jesus physical resurrection just as they accept evolution; how are you different from that?
The fear mongering is just in your own mind. These are real questions, not rhetorical accusations.
Posted in: Political Diversity
Doug, good comments. Just to expand a bit more on it: As Christians, we all confess that justice (God's justice) demands that we are all unworthy, undeserving. We deserve punishment for our disobedience to God. This punishment Christ took on himself, on our behalf. It is God's mercy that put this punishment, this justice, on to Himself, on to His Son. When we insist on justice only, then we condemn ourselves. It is when we appreciate God's mercy to us, that we are able to grant mercy to others. Indirectly, this concentration on justice alone, seems to remove God's grace from us, or remove us from God's grace.
Justice means paying a worker an adequate wage to buy his food and shelter and not defrauding the employer or his worker. Mercy means giving someone unable to work, or unable to find work, enough to prevent starvation and freezing to death, just as God gave us life, even though we did not deserve it and had lost our real right to it.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Sorry to put in three posts here in a row.... but I came across an excellent expose of evolutionary paleotology, put together by Street Church Adelaide. Youtube - "Evolution - A Crumbling Theory ( StreetChurch Adelaide )
Facts are not always facts, even when it comes to empirical science. Evil and falsehood not only wants to pervert scriptural truths, but it perverts scientific and "natural" evidence as well, if the motivation is there.
" ""
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
sorry, youtube.com/watch?v=bGB-PfFSV2w&feature=relmfu
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Friend Norman, I appreciate your elucidation of your perception of Helder's misrepresentation, in other words highlighting that she did not mention natural selection when yes it is an essential part of the evolutionary theory. However, I hope you are not suggesting that she was not aware of this component of the theory. I believe that while it is a part of the theory, so is genetics itself, and so are basic principles of biology(mating or cell division) and physics and chemistry. Yet Helder did not mention these either. The reason I believe is because natural selection is too often overplayed as being evolution, while it is not.
Evolutionary ideas were not new at the time of Darwin or Wallace. Anaximander of Miletus (c.610–546 BC) proposed that animals of different species derived from other species. Lamark proposed transmutation of species well before Darwin did. James Hutton, Charles Wells, and Patrick Matthew have mentioned natural selection, or at least described it, well before Darwin did. Selection itself was practiced by people for many centuries in terms of breeding dogs, poultry, horses, bovines, and it is unreasonable to assume that people were unaware of selection also within the natural environment. It is a common concept also accepted by creationists. However, creationists limit natural selection to operating within the existing variability within a species or kind, and in fact even evolutionists must limit the ability of natural selection to act only on existing genomic information. Natural selection by itself cannot create new genes, nor create mutations, nor create new morphologies. It is not natural selection by itself that causes evolution; rather it is the random mutations working over long periods of time that allows natural selection to work to create new species (by evolutionary theory). Thus while natural selection is necessary for evolutionary theory, it is not as essentially separate from non-evolutionary theory compared to the need for random mutations and long periods of time, which evolutionary theory requires in contrast to other theories.
In creationist paradigm, natural selection works to keep "kinds" or species reproducing after their own kind. In the creationist paradigm, natural selection is recognized to generally work against the random mutations, and does not promote them. Natural selection tends to reduce diversity and variability instead of increasing it, and thus does not favor evolution of species more than stability of species.
John
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Jonathan, thanks for your comment. I think the importance of having these discussions in the open, is to discover communally what the issues are, and what is true and what is not true, particularly about our attitudes towards scientific investigation and pursuits, and how it is affected by our worldview and how it affects our worldview. I think our global mission is impacted by our respect and attitude towards one another, and I think in general, Norman's attitude was pretty good. But there are times when his bias reveals itself. It is important to realize that inaccurate and dishonorable characterizations of fellow Christians is something that happens on both sides of this discussion.
For that reason, the details become important. And it is important beyond two people having a private discussion, to realize that often attitudes are common among a larger group of people. For example, when people accuse YEC of propogandizing, it certainly needs to be put into the context of the propoganda of evolution in school textbooks, Time magazine and national geographic, which they are up against. Another example is Norman's reference to "parasitic science". People who are unaware of what this implies will feel that it puts YEC in its place. But actually, it is a meaningless pejorative term, used by those who do not understand science. Scientific endeavors almost always refer to and depend on work done previously by others. In that context, parasitic makes no sense. In a scientific context, an experiment that results in a "no" answer is just as valid as an experiment that results in a "yes" answer. Evolutionists constantly argue, correctly, that science corrects itself, by which they mean that a later experiment or investigation can refine or correct the perceptions derived from a previous experiment. Many science papers have been written which do nothing more than act as a literature review, compiling, summarizing and analyzing and comparing results from other research papers on a particular subject. In fact, Dawkins book does this to some extent. So the term "parasitic" is meaningless, other than to cast a biased pejorative denigration on the work of some scientists or writers, compared to other writers. I simply wish to clarify this for readers who may be confused on this term.
Often, Norman has called me a YEC. But I don't think I have ever said I was a YEC. I am definately against accepting "mud to man" evolution, and that is a starting point for me. I think neither science nor scripture proves this type of evolution. But at this point I am open to some type of time shift, or the possibility of longer days at least prior to day four, or a longer first day; however, I will not defend longer days, since I think those who presently support longer days or even a "symbolic" interpretation of Genesis 1, mostly have their minds closed to other scientific or extraordinary possibilities. I prefer to have an open mind, which I believe will lead to more interesting scientific conclusions in the future. So even though I might not conclusively be a total YEC, I still prefer to defend YEC, or at least question the OEE (old earth evolution) assumptions. I find much contradictions and slippery weasel stuff in the OEE scenarios, and more faithfulness and open-mindedness in the YEC positions. Maybe there is something in between, but in the meantime I prefer science which does not put God or parts of scripture on a dusty shelf or in the trash bin.
There is no doubt that there is a war going on for the minds and hearts of children, young people and young scientists. There is no doubt that the evolution debate is a major and primary weapon in this war. We cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend this is not so. We must frame our position in the context of God's primary claim on our lives. And we must pray that God will give us the wisdom to discern and discover His handiwork in this area of our lives.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Norm, the article you posted was incredibly biased against even a discussion of creation vs evolution. The author does not even want the debate, nor the discussion. His article was faith based (faith in evolution), and intolerant, and full of fear that if discussion occurred that average minds would reject evolution. This simply adds credibility to the argument that evolution is mere myth, since if it wasn't, evolutionary scientists would not be so afraid of scrutiny.
Posted in: Diakonia Remixed and Experience of Deacons at Classis
Part of the reason that the apostles appointed seven men (assistants) which we now call deacons, is in order to delegate certain work, to allow them to carry out their own particular calling. It is also for that reason that in most larger churches, deacons and elders meet separately to carry out that work. In trying to put them back together again for classis, are we not nullifying that designation of tasks and callings? Do we also want to send elder delegates to the local deaconal conferences, etc.? Just some questions to think about.
In some smaller churches, elders/deacons fulfill dual roles due to the nature of the size and scope of work. But I'm not sure that this makes sense at classis or synod. Maybe it does, maybe not. However, regardless, the decision for this should at minimum be left up to the local church. If there are three delegates per church, the church should decide who they are to be.
Posted in: Some Denominations Have Bishops; We Have Article 17
I think you are barking up the wrong tree, Keith. Local congregations have the authority to decide. They could decide to accept the advice of a regional pastor advisor even today. And they could decide to reject the "assumed authority" of a "non-bishop" bishop in the future. So why not work with what is there?
Posted in: Climate Change - Wither Now?
Jeremy, Canada signed the Kyoto accord, and yet has been less successful in reducing emissions than the USA, which did not sign the accord. So now Canada has not signed the renewal of the accord; and hopefully it will be more successful in reducing emissions. However, Canada's emissions are primarily based on consumption in other parts of the world, particularly in the USA, and so these emissions ought to be attributed to USA consumption. This applies to both oil and livestock. But lets not nitpick. Yes, there is still some more land to be open pit mined, but it is a relatively small portion and small area compared to future bitumen supplies. Most bitumen is too deep to surface mine.
Reclamation is the beginning of restoration, which wouldn't happen until the forest is at the previous mature stage. But the landscape won't be exactly as it was before, although the intent is to replicate to some degree the similar uneven terrain. In some ways, you might even call it a giant oil spill cleanup, since the soil will have less oil in it than it did before the mining. There are some small portions already reclaimed with vegetation growing. New technology which removes the need for tailings ponds is also being developed. Things are never static.
So a church may divest of oil stocks. What are they doing investing in business opportunities anyway? Why don't they invest in missions instead, which is what the money was probably intended for. But if we shouldn't invest in fossil fuel industries, then why should we invest in churches which usually burn these fossil fuels in their inefficient furnaces, and paint with fossil fuel paints, and use fossil fuel created carpeting and chairs, and transport their sunday school kids in fossil fuel powered buses and vans, and inevitably have their pastor driving a fossil fuel powered contraption in order to make visits to members and new attenders, as well as driving or flying to classis and synod and mission fields in Honduras? Just asking.
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
I appreciate your point, Richard. Absolutely. I guess however, like you might suggest someone go to see a doctor if they think they have cancer, or check out a carpenter if they need their roof fixed, it might be good to suggest some of these creation scientists if people have questions about evolution, and especially if evolution is challenging their faith. I guess the other point is that not all scientists agree that macro-evolution is fact, and this would be important to know for someone who is struggling to reconcile a random universe with their understanding of God, sin, and salvation. Dr. Jerry Bergman published a book which contains a list of 3000 scientists who do not accept macro-evolution, or are creationists. And this does not contain those who did not want their name published because they did not yet have tenure at their university, and were afraid of their career implications.
I don't think everyone has to know everything in scientific detail about the problems with the evolutionary theory. Even Ian Juby is explaining things in a very simple, down-to-earth, understandable way, that can be understood by scientists, but also by many non-scientists. An actual scientific discussion would go much deeper. However, having witnessed some of these "deeper" discussions, it turns out that the precepts behind evolution are actually very very shallow.
In most cases, you get arguments like, "there is genetic diversity, and dna is made from similar amino acids, and there are similar pieces of dna in most organisms, and we find different fossils in different layers, therefore there must have been evolutionary decent." As a philosophy major who has studied logic, you will quickly see the fallacy in that. It is important for people to have a cursory understanding of the assumptions behind radiometric dating, because it sounds so precise, so "medical", so "scientific", ; how could it be inaccurate? The word itself sounds authoritative, and so people simply swallow the whole thing. Even scientists claim that you can test one method against another, without realizing that if assumptions for both methods are wrong, then the results will not be valid regardless.
It is important for people generally to know these shortcomings and shallow reasoning, since evolution is such an accepted, predominant assumed theory, called fact, by many. Many people get very upset when it is called a theory, since they feel that it is absolute undeniable and uncontestable fact. So in essence, in spite of all the problems with the theory, there is little if any serious debate and discussion. And christians get caught up in the after effects.
Anyway, layers that were actually inverted do not disprove evolution. However, the methods used to prove the layers are actually inverted, are often based on the assumptions that prove the theory. Many of these layers are called inverted simply because of the fossils they contain, in addition to containing certain types of minerals. Maybe they are not inverted layers after all, just laid down in a different order in different places. Then that yes would cast great doubt on the claims of evolutionists.
It is interesting that some of the most well-known scientists of the past were actually incredibly well-trained in theology. I'm told that Newton, Francis Bacon, and Galileo are some good examples of that. Darwin, who was self-taught in science, and not trained in science (since he neglected his medical studies and didn't finish that program), and likely gained an audience mostly because his father had lots of money, was trained in theology and the liberal arts, at a time when science was often termed, "natural theology".
Some earlier pastors were good at carpentry, fishing, and tent-making; in many cases it enhanced their service.
I believe it is a pastoral thing to direct questioners to the websites and books of these creationists, even while acknowledging that these creationists are fallible too, but at least are questioning and challenging, and doing so from a perspective of glorifying God, rather than putting God on the shelf.
Posted in: Political Diversity
"Neither praise thyself in what is good in thee, nor accuse God in what is evil in thee. For this is wrong judgment, and so, not judgment at all. This thou didst, being evil; reverse it, and it will be right. Praise God in what is good in thee; accuse thyself in what is evil. So shalt thou anticipate the judgment of God, as He saith, "If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of the Lord" 1 Corinthians 11:31. He addeth, love mercy; being merciful, out of love, "not of necessity, for God loveth a cheerful giver" 2 Corinthians 9:7. These acts together contain the whole duty to man, corresponding with and formed upon the mercy and justice of God Psalm 101:1; Psalm 61:7. All which is due, anyhow or in any way, is of judgment; all which is free toward man, although not free toward God, is of mercy." "(Barne's (B
(Barnes Notes)
Posted in: Creation vs Evolution: Impact on Witness and Faith
Rinse and hang: yes I am aware of group think, and fully aware of it in many different contexts. For that reason I tend to be as hard on those I "group" with, as on others.
I didn't ask my questions about what you believe or don't believe in scripture in order to be "fear mongering". I asked it to understand how you differentiate between what you believe or accept, compared to what you do not accept. If "science" says that there is no way that the flood could have happened, do you then accept the science and reject the story as mere fable? If science says there is no way that Moses could have parted the red sea, then do you accept that conclusion? If science says there is no way someone could be raised from the dead, do you then accept science and reject the resurrection? The Bahai's take everything about the resurrection symbolically, and deny Jesus physical resurrection just as they accept evolution; how are you different from that?
The fear mongering is just in your own mind. These are real questions, not rhetorical accusations.