Evidence for God from Science

Gman, concerning Rich's statement, suggesting that an idea is deceptive and makes God unrighteous and ought not be tolerated in the church is as close to calling someone a heretic as you can get without using the word. It is a deeply offensive statement. It is FAR more offensive then someone merely asking you to prove a position using Scripture.

Are you actually suggesting that every time we ask someone to prove their position from Scripture that we are calling them satanic and heretical? I certainly hope not.

Again, the treatment OEC has gotten from EXTREMISTS (and yes, they are) like Ham and Hovind does NOT justify the treatment YECs have gotten here at times. That very comment of yours smacks of just the type of attitude I'm talking about. To say "I'm not going to sit here and have some extremist (who actually isn't an extremist)" shows your contempt. Now, correct me if I've misinterpreted your words here, but it sounds very much like you are saying that someone who asks you to prove OEC Scripturally is not an extremist (which I would agree with), but is in fact a typical example of all Ham-type YECs. Challenging ANY position Scripturally--even OEC--doesn't render one an extremist, Gman.

Being civil isn't just about being nice to one another. It's about dropping the contemptuous attitude. This is EXACTLY the same problem Darwinians have when they talk to creationists of any kind. They ASSUME from the outset that people don't understand science. That's contempt. The problem, I'm sure you agree, is with the underlying assumption, not with the tone of the conversation. Indeed, the tone is only symptomatic of the underlying problem. Likewise, I wish that rather than consider all YECs who even consider the possibility that OEC may not be the proper biblical interpretation to be extremists, you would give them--and their position--the benefit of the doubt. You don't have to agree with it, but you can be so civil, and humble, to acknowledge that their view is based on the Bible. Perhaps they've misunderstood and misunterpreted it, but it is based on and can be supported by the Bible nonetheless. YECs should recognize the same thing about OECs as well.

AGAIN, I'm not saying you have to agree. I'm saying be respectful, both publicly in your conversation and privately in your assumptions. I simply do not believe that this ongoing war is Christ honoring at all. Far from it, I think it divides us and has prevented us from presenting a united front against a very real enemy, and THAT has direct ramifications on what people believe about Christianity and the Bible.

EDIT:

I don't want to derail this thread any further, G. You don't have to respond, but if you do, I'll read whatever you say and take it fully to heart and won't bother pressing this any further. I think we agree on the main point, which is that the fighting is wrong. I'm just incredibly tried of seeing it on both sides. I do favor YEC, but that by no means that I excuse Ham and his ilk who have done much to fan the flames.

I just want the OEC/YEC camps to stop viewing each other as enemies. I mean that for BOTH sides: YEC AND OEC. Neither side has their hands clean.

Anyway, God bless.

Jac3510 wrote:Gman, concerning Rich's statement, suggesting that an idea is deceptive and makes God unrighteous and ought not be tolerated in the church is as close to calling someone a heretic as you can get without using the word. It is a deeply offensive statement. It is FAR more offensive then someone merely asking you to prove a position using Scripture.

Rich Deem is not attacking people and calling them heretics... He is attacking doctrine. Completely different...

Jac3510 wrote:Are you actually suggesting that every time we ask someone to prove their position from Scripture that we are calling them satanic and heretical? I certainly hope not.

Ask Ken Ham or Kent Hovind that.. They are the ones making the accusation...

Jac3510 wrote:Again, the treatment OEC has gotten from EXTREMISTS (and yes, they are) like Ham and Hovind does NOT justify the treatment YECs have gotten here at times. That very comment of yours smacks of just the type of attitude I'm talking about. To say "I'm not going to sit here and have some extremist (who actually isn't an extremist)" shows your contempt. Now, correct me if I've misinterpreted your words here, but it sounds very much like you are saying that someone who asks you to prove OEC Scripturally is not an extremist (which I would agree with), but is in fact a typical example of all Ham-type YECs. Challenging ANY position Scripturally--even OEC--doesn't render one an extremist, Gman.

What I mean is that they are not true extremists for God. They are only extremist for themselves it seems.. An extremist to me is someone who lives righteously for the word of God. Not themselves or their own ego..

Jac3510 wrote:Being civil isn't just about being nice to one another. It's about dropping the contemptuous attitude. This is EXACTLY the same problem Darwinians have when they talk to creationists of any kind. They ASSUME from the outset that people don't understand science. That's contempt. The problem, I'm sure you agree, is with the underlying assumption, not with the tone of the conversation. Indeed, the tone is only symptomatic of the underlying problem. Likewise, I wish that rather than consider all YECs who even consider the possibility that OEC may not be the proper biblical interpretation to be extremists, you would give them--and their position--the benefit of the doubt. You don't have to agree with it, but you can be so civil, and humble, to acknowledge that their view is based on the Bible. Perhaps they've misunderstood and misunterpreted it, but it is based on and can be supported by the Bible nonetheless. YECs should recognize the same thing about OECs as well.

AGAIN, I'm not saying you have to agree. I'm saying be respectful, both publicly in your conversation and privately in your assumptions. I simply do not believe that this ongoing war is Christ honoring at all. Far from it, I think it divides us and has prevented us from presenting a united front against a very real enemy, and THAT has direct ramifications on what people believe about Christianity and the Bible.

Very well then... The next who calls someones Christianity into question or call them satanic will be warned..

Jac3510 wrote:EDIT:

I don't want to derail this thread any further, G. You don't have to respond, but if you do, I'll read whatever you say and take it fully to heart and won't bother pressing this any further. I think we agree on the main point, which is that the fighting is wrong. I'm just incredibly tried of seeing it on both sides. I do favor YEC, but that by no means that I excuse Ham and his ilk who have done much to fan the flames.

I just want the OEC/YEC camps to stop viewing each other as enemies. I mean that for BOTH sides: YEC AND OEC. Neither side has their hands clean.

Anyway, God bless.

Yes, let's bury the axe.. And let's bury it on false doctrines...

YEC'rs and OEC'rs both as individuals can deal low blows and unkind remarks. I've seen both and I've done both, both when I was a YEC'r and now as an OEC'r.

In general however, there are segments of YEC that are quicker to make absolute judgements about OEC's because their YEC position is really not the issue; their YEC position is derivitive of their literaralist position as regards scripture. I'm trying to think where that is the case in the opposite position as an OEC'r and I don't see it. It's possible I assume, in some areas of Theistic Evolution perhaps, if you categorize TE and a faction of OEC, which goes more to definition than anything.

In general, many YEC advocates lack the scientific foundation to really address this issue and that is evidenced by the continued presenting of arguments (many which have been debunked scientifically even by YEC scientists) and when presented with the refutation of an argument (an example would be the old moon dust accumulation argument that still comes up, even by some posting on this board) instead of owning that it is a poor argument, the response it to go to the next argument on that list.

So, I agree there is blame on both sides in terms of the kindness of those arguing the positions and I'll own my part of that personally, here and in other locations as well, although I try to be fair.

I don't agree however, that the positions are equal in this regard. There are many reasonable and sincere YEC'rs whom I respect evern while respectfully disagreeing with their conclusions. There is however, a segment of YEC that I would go so far as to categorize as a cult in that they themselvles use the YEC/OEC argument as a means of dividing and exluding other believers to where they see themselves as exclusive proprieters of truth. I've not found that extreme anywhere near as represented in the OEC camp. We no doubt have our flaws and other characteristics, but not to the extent that I see us drawing lines in terms of fellowship and the salvation of others.

If I'm wrong, I'm open to be corrected. I'd go so far as to say that element of YEC that I'd categorize as a cult, is a minority of the position overall, but it's a significant and very vocal minority and frankly, it saddens me at times to see it. I'll leave that to God however, and while I don't apologize for my positions in that regard, I'd be happy to be proven wrong if I'm being unkind or unreasonable in my comments above.

Blessings,

bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:In general however, there are segments of YEC that are quicker to make absolute judgements about OEC's because their YEC position is really not the issue; their YEC position is derivitive of their literaralist position as regards scripture.

Bart.. Or do you mean the literal english translation of scripture?

Gman wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:In general however, there are segments of YEC that are quicker to make absolute judgements about OEC's because their YEC position is really not the issue; their YEC position is derivitive of their literaralist position as regards scripture.

Bart.. Or do you mean the literal english translation of scripture?

Yes, more often than not, it's borne out of ignorance of the original languages. OEC is a literal position based upon Scripture as well. I was using the term in that context as that narrow band of YEC'rs use it.

Thanks for clarifying it Gman

Well said, Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:In general, many YEC advocates lack the scientific foundation to really address this issue and that is evidenced by the continued presenting of arguments (many which have been debunked scientifically even by YEC scientists) and when presented with the refutation of an argument (an example would be the old moon dust accumulation argument that still comes up, even by some posting on this board) instead of owning that it is a poor argument, the response it to go to the next argument on that list.

I've been thinking about this and I'm not sure if it is entirely true... Before our sophistication of the 20th century, I think many YEC beliefs did stem from scientific values. That is, they would dig a hole in their backyard or hillside, find a fish fossil and claim it was from Noah's flood. I think that would give credence to an early YEC interpretation of the Bible, (English that is) being the KJV. I have read of early reports of this.. Of course any deviation from this would be considered heresy..