Is defending a 'young' earth necessary?

[Jorge]

There's a certain brand of human so righteously convinced they're fighting for righteousness that no evil is beneath them in support of their cause, so convinced they hold the truth that any dishonesty used to spread that truth counts as righteousness as well.

And then there's Jorge.

He's just nuts.

Bwahahahaha

A Taoist ... I mean, a TAOIST calls me "nuts".

If that isn't the MOTHER of all ironies then somebody please tell me what is.

Bwahahahahahahaha

Jorge

[Jorge]

THAT is "pulling a TERROR" on you? Wow --- I wonder what happens when somebody yells BOO!

Okay ... you asked, I delivered. BTW - and just to be sure - by "pulling a TERROR" I am referring to the TWebber lilpixieofterror (or whatever she goes by) whom I regard as a wacko-lulu exercising the logic of a turnip.

I didn't read any of the above.

No problem, although it's not clear why.

As I've often said, I can only try.

Jorge

[Cow Poke]

Okay ... you asked, I delivered. BTW - and just to be sure - by "pulling a TERROR" I am referring to the TWebber lilpixieofterror (or whatever she goes by) whom I regard as a wacko-lulu exercising the logic of a turnip.

Yeah, you might want to turn your sensitivity dial down quite a bit. And even the non-Christians here recognize your failure to comply with the scripture you're attempting to beat me with.

[Jorge]

OK, I was bored, so I scanned your missive and noted this.....



First, you're wrong. I would say you are a liar, but I'll be gracious and assume you're just profoundly ignorant on this.

Let's see what that scripture actually says.....

1 Pet 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

I am ALWAYS ready to give an answer, but it will, to the best of my ability, be an HONEST answer. Sometimes that HONEST answer is "I don't know". And I have no problem admitting that, and am not vain enough to try to bluff my way through it, or dishonest enough to make something up.

NOR do I try to steer every question to Creationism - I deal with the questions that are actually ASKED, not ones I "plant".

I shall wait patiently for your apology.

Like I said, you seem bent on "picking a fight" which, ironically, is what you accused me of. Why do I say that you seem bent on this? Because of ALL the things that I wrote, you focused on the ONE point where you could pick a fight. Even so, given the fact (as you yourself stated) that you didn't read my post and, if you did, it certainly wasn't done with care and meditation, then the way that you wished to INTERPRET my remark regarding 1 Peter 3:15 was so as to "pick a fight".

I was very clear in my post that none of us can be all things. Often times "I don't know" is the only answer we can give. We don't have to "make up answers" or "bluff our way". While WE may not know, others DO know and we should at the very least be INFORMED and able to direct others towards the truth. For instance, I know a bit about genetics but if it gets beyond me then I may refer people to John Sanford - PhD geneticist and a model Biblical Creationist. To simply leave members of the flock dangling in the wind while your spiritual/ideological enemies are more-than-ready with their anti-Christian "answers" borders on irresponsibility (albeit unintended).

No problem: you want an apology, you have it.
I still say that if I want a "hug", I know that you're the man.
Keep in mind that members of your flock may (and often) need more than just a hug.
You should at least be able to guide them, even if just a bit, through their doubts.
That is among the duties of a pastor, right?

Jorge

[Cow Poke]

Like I said, you seem bent on "picking a fight"

[Cow Poke]

Even so, given the fact (as you yourself stated) that you didn't read my post and, if you did, it certainly wasn't done with care and meditation

Jorge, for cryin' out loud - you're NOT the Apostle Paul!

[Jorge]

This is 1 Peter 3:15:
"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"

Does anyone here think Jorge responds to questions about his beliefs with gentleness and respect? Or, if you prefer the KJV, with [u]meekness[/i]? Or does he respond with insults, dismissal and evasion?

I could start a poll, but it'd be like starting a poll on whether people think water is wet.

Roy

Coming from you, Roy, the above borders on INSANITY!

Besides that, it's also highly dishonest in that it neglects over a decade of history.
I always (ALWAYS) begin with gentleness and respect. BUT ...

... but, when the opponent proves to me that using "gentleness and respect" is like the proverbial pearls tossed to filthy swine, then I bring out the bazooka. You wanna use fire? Fine, I'll bring out my flame thrower!

Even so, I don't degrade myself nor do I do anything that I would have to ask God for forgiveness.
I mostly have fun with sarcasm and poking at the silliness / nonsense of my opponents.

EXAMPLE: Long ago I used to regularly visit the Infidels website (I haven't done so for many years). Many of the people there (being what they are - Atheists mostly) are vulgar beyond words. I would start a debate with them and as soon as they felt 'cornered' in any way, they would begin with their filthy language. I never once reciprocated with similar language. However, I did drop my "gentleness and respect" and began calling a "spade a spade". I used my talent for sarcasm and for pointing out their irrationality and nonsense. That infuriated them even more. I saw this as me rattling the cage of monkeys - and they responded just as expected. Never had so much fun!!!! I stopped because they became far too predictable and vulgar for my taste.

The part about "insults, dismissal and evasion" is simply not true and you know it.
"Insults" is the way it is taken, not the way it is meant.
"Dismissal and evasion" - I won't even dignify that charge.

Try ONCE to be fair and honest, will ya.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Jorge, for cryin' out loud - you're NOT the Apostle Paul!

Now you're going off the deep end, CP.
Show me where I said I was "Paul", or even where I insinuated as much.

I did, however, take considerable time and care to write to you -- specifically to you. Had you done the same I would have at the very least given you the courtesy of reading and considering what you wrote me. Then, after I had done that, I would know whether or not there was merit in what you wrote. NEWS FLASH: it doesn't have to come from the Apostle Paul for it to be edifying. I have learned many things from all kinds of sources including from children and puppies and people in bed with Parkinson's Disease unable to speak. No "Paul's" there.

Jorge

[Leonhard]

In response to the OP, from a young Catholic with an interest in Eastern Orthodoxy.

The Catholic Church (along with the Eastern Orthodoxy) affirms that Adam and Eve are real people that we all descend from, and that it is through their Fall that Original Sin entered the world, and so we therefore require Baptism, so that we can be infused with Sanctifying Grace and with the mark made complete at Confirmation, we're fully equipped to serve the Church and work towards our Salvation.

All of this is deemed absolutely necessary to attain Salvation.

People outside of this arrangement might still attain Salvation in Christ, but only through His Church in a mysterious way, if they're appropriately contrite for their sins.

On the question of how old the Earth is, the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodoxy simple don't really care all that much, and neither side have bound people to a particular interpretation of that. Take your pick, stake your claim, there's more important stuff to do.

[rogue06]

Moderated By: rogue06

Okay folks. All discussion about Christian denominations have been moved to this thread: What constitutes a Christian denomination? in General Theistics 101

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Padded Room unless told otherwise.

[Cow Poke]

Now you're going off the deep end, CP.
Show me where I said I was "Paul", or even where I insinuated as much.

You seem to think you are worthy of me "meditating" on your posts. Ain't happenin'.

Please feel free to continue blogging.

[Jesse]

Jorge, let me ask you. Where exactly do you see the creation/evolution debate within the hierarchy of Christian belief? Where do you place it's importance?

[rwatts]

Many of the people there (being what they are - Atheists mostly) are vulgar beyond words.

I think much, much more highly of a well reasoned argument even if it does have vulgar words, than I do a rant that is little more than insult, dismissal and evasion.

Then it's merely self delusion at best and a lie at the worst, when the ranter is pretending that it's a reasoned argument.

Perhaps you should start learning some bad language Jorge.

[rogue06]

Had to reply to the above before logging off ...

Soul-winning is the # 1 most important duty of a Christian.
That should answer your question forevermore.

HOWEVER ...

We cannot be narrow-minded / tunnel-visioned. For instance, what is it that prevents many of our children from coming to Christ? What is it that makes many people - young and old - to depart from the Christian faith even after being brought up in a Christian home and/or being in the faith for many years? What was it that caused Charles Templeton -- one of the greatest evangelists of the 20th century, some say once-greater than B. Graham himself -- to depart from the faith, even to renounce God altogether, ending with a book Farewell to God?

If you don't know the answers to those questions, then perhaps you should.

Okay, got'ta go and tend to my comp issues. Back 'soon' .................

Jorge

Although I haven't read his Farewell to God FWIU it was a combination of several factors including his difficulties with the creation account in Genesis that caused Templeton to lose his faith. Wrt this factor it sounds like he was raised to believe that if the creation account wasn't providing some sort of science lesson then it was a lie.

If that is indeed the case then it sounds like he never could let go of the belief drilled into so many by some (including radical YECs) that if you disagree with the most literal interpretation of the Genesis account then the Bible is wrong and God is a liar. It is the attitude that one must read the Bible in the most woodenly literal, overly simplistic manner that has caused many Christians to lose their faith when they run into reality -- a reality that does not conform with the indoctrination that they had been subject to. Unfortunately many of them can never shake the belief that if the Bible isn't read in this manner then it is wrong and God is a liar when they discover that what they have been taught is wrong.

The Spanish-American biologist, philosopher and former Dominican priest Francisco J. Ayala (who has served as President and Chairman of the Board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) spoke about just this sort of thing a few years ago when he described how it wasn't uncommon for students in his introductory biology class at the University of California, Irvine to smugly tell him that they will answer test questions as he wishes, but in truth they reject evolution because of what they describe as their Christian beliefs.

Then, a couple of years later he finds out that they decided to abandon their faith after being shown that what had been drilled into them was false. They had wrongly concluded that science and their religion were incompatible. That if the Genesis account wasn't equivalent to a science lesson it was false and that therefore the entire Bible is false and needs to be rejected.

Many of those who I know who end up rejecting Christianity do so exactly because of just this type of thinking. Look at how often you run into the more militant atheists on various websites who insist that Christians must interpret the creation account in the same manner as YECs and when someone indicates that this isn't the case and that they don't just how agitated and enraged that those atheists become.

I think that for that particular type of atheist they get so upset because those Christians are challenging the very premise that they had embraced in order to justify becoming atheist in the first place.

A couple years back I posted an advertisement that ran for several years in Skeptic Magazine for a book called "The Biblical Cosmos versus Modern Cosmology" that illustrates exactly how this sort of thinking stays with some atheists. Here is an excerpt:

The cosmos that is revealed in the pages of the Bible is an integral part of the narrative that unfolds in the Bible, so much so that the credibility of the Bible is dependent upon the validity of its cosmology ... It all comes down to this: if the Bible cannot be believed concerning what it says about the natural order of things, why should it be believed concerning what it says about the supernatural order of things.

I dare say the above sounds like it came straight from AnswersinGenesis (AiG) or the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) -- and you gave a glowing endorsement of its message, enthusiastically agreed with what it said. Where you declared in no uncertain terms that

I'd agree with the Devil himself IF what he said was true.

That is because both the author of the book and too many YECs hold exactly the same view on how the Bible must be read. This is also seen in Richard Dawkins' assertion that anyone who didn't read Genesis in a woodenly literally manner is "deluded."

One last note. I wonder if what happened to Templeton wasn't one of the reasons that Graham has long held that evolution was indeed compatible with Christian faith. In his 1997 autobiography he wrote:

Source: Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things　that they weren't meant to say, and I think we have made a mistake by thinking that the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of redemption, and of course, I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe he created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point he took this person or this being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man....　I personally believe that it's just as easy to accept the fact that God took some dust and blew on it and out came a man as it is to accept the fact that God breathed upon man and he became a living soul and it started with some protoplasm and went right on up through the evolutionary process. Either way is by faith and whichever God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

© Copyright Original Source

And as I said, this was a view he has long held. Back in the July 1966 edition of the United Church Observer in an article entitled "Cooperative Evangelism at Harringay," Graham is quoted as having said: "How you believe doesn't affect the doctrine. Either at a certain moment in evolution God breathed into one particular ape-man who was Adam, or God could have taken a handful of dust and blowed and created a man just like that"

As an aside this is very similar to the view espoused by Benjamin Warfield, an unquestionably orthodox conservative Christian who, aside from being a contributor to the "The Fundamentals" and vocal critic of theological liberalism, was regarded as the great apologist of biblical inerrancy.

[klaus54]

Amen, Rogue...