Faith and other YEC: why even bother taking part in the discussion?

quote:

---

We assume the evidence is in error, usually meaning data has been wrongly interpreted, and seek to interpret it in terms that are consistent with Biblical revelation.

---

But what if it requires you to believe the Geological or Biological equivalent that the sky is actually purple, not blue?For instance, we have ice cores from Antarcica that have 160,000 anually deposited layers.No literal interpretation of the Bible I have ever heard about allows the Universe and the Earth to be more than about 10,000 years old, so what do you do with that ice core data?

quote:

---

Well, the principle is that God's word is true, so the physical world can't contradict it.

---

Is it your position that humans are fallable?

quote:

---

Well, the principle is that God's word is true, so the physical world can't contradict it.

---

quote:

---

Yes, but it is also my position that God inspired the writers of the Bible. It was written through the Spirit of God not fallen human nature.

---

Are the people who interpret the Bible today fallable?

quote:

---

Unbelievers' interpretations are certainly fallible. Believers, however, have the Holy Spirit, but are still fallible, only that by believing and trusting in Christ they have the essence of the truth of the Bible that unbelievers don't have, and by the Holy Spirit they recognize the Holy Spirit in the Bible.

---

So, do you agree that believers, who are interpreting the Bible, can be wrong, because all of them are fallable?

I think that, being human and not perfect, omnicient, not omnipotent, we are all fallable all of the time.Remember, "fallabe" means "capable of making a mistake."

quote:

---

My point is that God is always 100% and on occasion uses humans to spread wisdom and truth.

---

And that, IMO, is the most dangerous part of religion.

quote:

---

Is it dangerous because people use it to justify fanaticism? If so, I agree.

---

Yep....or to justify enforcement of strict gender roles/abusing women, killing other people, discriminating against other people, etc.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-15-2005 09:51 AM

quote:

---

Not wrong about anything crucial in the Bible, which is what is implied by having the Holy Spirit.

---

So, about "anything crucial", believers actually are NOT fallible?But didn't you say earlier that believers ARE fallible?:

quote:

---

Believers, however, have the Holy Spirit, but are still fallible, only that by believing and trusting in Christ they have the essence of the truth of the Bible that unbelievers don't have, and by the Holy Spirit they recognize the Holy Spirit in the Bible.

---

This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-18-2005 10:18 AM

quote:

---

Well, it's a hard question. Fallibility sure, but then believers ARE saved because they believe, so they're "infallible" --if that's the right word --about at least their belief in Jesus' sacrifice for sin. Having enough understanding to believe in the sacrifice of Christ is basic. It grows from there.

---

I'm talking, though, about the fallibility of people when interpreting the Bible, not what the definition of a Christian is.If someone accepts, as you say above, about the "sacrifice of Christ", soes that make them infallible when interpreting the Bible?...or can people still make mistakes, even though they believe in Jesus' sacrifice for sin?

What you are saying seems quite reasonable.So, are you saying it is possible for sincere believers to have a legitimate disagreement over interpretation of many different parts of the Bible, but that they are all still believers, and they could all possibly be incorrect in some way?Can believers be sincere in their belief but still disagree about the interpretation of the crucial parts in the Bible having to do with salvation? Can they still be wrong in these cases?And if everyone seems equally sincere in their belief, yet they still disagree, how do you know who has the correct interpretation of the crucial parts in the Bible having to do with salvation?(And Brian, I actually don't know if Faith actually mans "all men" when she uses "he", but if I have her age pegged correctly, "he" is what she was taught to use as the "genderless" way to refer to everyone, male and female)

quote:

---

But in the case of preachers, the pastors of a congregation, I believe the Bible teaches clearly that that is a role reserved for men only.

---

It also teaches quite clearly that women are to be subservient to their husbands as their husbands are subservient to God.Do you believe that women should be subservient to men in all things?

quote:

---

I know feminists consider this sexism, but it's about role, not about ability. Women are to use the same ability in other contexts.

---

But it IS sexism, just like discriminating against people of a different race than you is racism. You just accept it as OK.The issue here is power and status. The most powerful religious position in a congregation is the person who interprets and teaches the Word of God to the people; the pastor. If men are always the most powerful, women will always be considered second class.This teaches girls women that to be good Christian women, they must content themselves to being second class people; that God views women as not important or trustworthy enough to entrust with the Word of God.

quote:

---

The word isn't "subservient," Schraf. It says "submit to" your husband; it doesn't mean you are his slave, it means you are to serve him in love, willingly -- and he's to do the same toward you.

---

...and yet the Bible has been interpreted for millenia to mean that women should be subservient to their men.

quote:

---

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church;

---

This quite clearly lays out the hierarchy:1) God
2) Husband
3) WifeA wife is supposed to be as submissive to her husband as a man is submissive to God.A wife is supposed to treat her husband like he is God.Like he is God.Are you saying that men are not completely subservient to God? So why shouldn't a woman be completely subservient to her husband, and live her life thinking only about his wishes, worhipping him and seeking to to obey him in all things? Isn't that what we are supposed to do for God?Like he is God.Women ARE chattel in the Bible, faith, you can't deny that. So, why do you disregard the Bible where the owning of women (and slaves) is concerned, but follow it with regard to denying women pastors?

quote:

---

No, only to her husband, not to all men, and yes in all things to her husband, though the word, again, is not "subservient." Somehow that implies she is forced to do menial things at his command, but that's not the idea at all.

---

Where does it say that this is not the idea in the Bible?I can see nothing in the Bible that states or implies that doing menial things at her husbands command is excluded.

quote:

---

But it IS sexism, just like discriminating against people of a different race than you is racism. You just accept it as OK.

---

quote:

---

I completely disagree. The natural differences between male and female physical strength and functions are obvious, and different roles for the two make sense.

---

So, the reason women are to submit to their husbands is because they are physically weaker?What if I showed you a husband and wife where the man is physically weaker than the wife; does this mean that he should "obviously" be submissive to her?And besides, you aren't talking about "different" roles.You are talking about a power hierarchy in which the husband is always more powerful than the wife.You believe that muscle strength, size, and sexual organs make a person more able to perform a task (preaching) that has nothing to do with muscle strength, size, and sexual organs, because the Bible says so. That's religiously-based sexism.

quote:

---

There are no natural differences between races.

---

Sure there are. Groups of people evolved in vastly different climates, and so have certain physical traits which are "natural differences". Those which have lived in very sunny places for millenia have developed lots of protective melanin in their skin, while people who have lived in less sunny and colder places for millenia lost much of this melanin so they could get enough Vitamin D from the sun.Also, people from hot climates have flat noses with wide-flared nostrils which allows for greater cooling of the air coming in, while those from cooler climates have narrower noses with smaller openings to allow for greater warming of the air coming in.Also, people from warmer climates tend to be lanky and lean with, to better dissipate heat from their skin, while those who evolved in cold climates are shorter and stockier to better conserve body heat.These are natural differences, no?

quote:

---

The sexes are equal in human status, different in role and spheres of authority and responsibility.

---

Who is the most important person in a Christian religious community.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-20-2005 07:58 AM

See, at least you are up front and honest about it.

quote:

---

Men should be willing to let their ego die for their wife.

​

Then...maybe she will want to love him and serve him a little bit.

---

I have no problem loving and serving my husband because he also loves and serves me.We have a reciprocal partnership in which each of us comes to the relationship as an adult person, who love and want the best for each other.I really don't see how a marriage between adult people can be any other way.If you get into these strict gender roles and "the wife must willingly submit" bullshit it seems to stop being a relationship between equals.And how can you want to be married to someone inferior to you?

quote:

---

Think of it like a skipper and a crew of one, Schraf. As long as the crew knows her place and does her job obeying the captain, the ship will weather the storms of life.

---

...and that it's "natural" that only people with brown hair make good captains, and that people with blonde hair are "naturally" submissive and obedient to people with brown hair.