Message to all Creationists

*This is a post for creationists. if your not one you'll probobly want to leave now.*I hope to reach out to all the Christians on this forum. God has inspired me to write this and to reach out to the creationists and spread this message.I will never fight against the evolutionist's, as it is foolish to do so. Our mission as Christians is to spread the good news to all the people of the world, and that includes the evolutionists, but when we fight the evolutionists it never goes the right way. No matter what you say, an evolutionist will never defend a young earth or spontanious creation. Not even I believe in such things. However, it is not hard to believe a God influenced a natural creation process. I have heard many times from evolutionists that they would accept this with no proof of the contrary.By preaching a young earth and creationism you are destroying the credibility of all christians. Is it not the main point of christianity to gain believers. How can they believe with you all ruining our good name. Who cares what they believe, its not even a bad belief at that. Science and Religion should never conflict. If you don't believe in evolution, THATS FINE, believe what you want, but when you go telling people you lose credibility and any possibility of ever missioning to that person again. Do you really believe you can put such a label on christianity and not be treated by the scientific community as insane?If they believe in evolution who does it hurt? No one, ITS SCIENCE! not witchcraft. and realisticly fighting it only makes it worse. IF evolution is untrue then eventually it will be proven false. same for things such as dating. but to debate against science with religion is ludicrus. Let Science debate against Science, and Philosophy against Philosophy.As Christians you should be focused on more important things, like spreading the word, and the more you do this the harder that will become and thats all that matters.Don't get me wrong, you can't deny that you are a christian, just learn from christianity's mistakes throughout history when dealing with science (flat earth, geocentrism). whenever we go against science we end up losing both the battle and the war, we loose the fight and all our credability.What do I suggest. First stop debating against evolutionists. pick a side and then discuss it with others on your side. Don't try to fight science with religion because trust me it is much easyer to fight religion with science. If you leave it alone it will work itself out. if you don't any credibility you had will be shattered and all christians will recieve a bad name. If christians have a bad name no one will want to become a christian and also people will leave christianity. If it doesn't hurt anything to believe in evolution let it be.Second, I suggest not simply ignoring evolution but adopting theistic evolution (a mixture of creation and evolution). Religion should never contradict science as that would imply God lied which is impossible so dont just ignore science try to blend it in with you faith. things make much more since that way and fit together very well. click here to learn more. my site about it is here but is still under construction.Third, again, go out and spread the news. thats what matters.I hope I've brought my point across in this matter. I really felt like I needed to get this off my chest. put this where ever you want. and being partially an evolutionist myself I will still stay with this forum.*Put this wherever*

---

I Am A: "Christian Evolutionist"

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi Willie. Welcome to EvC.1. What you're advocating is to silently concede that the Genesis record is a myth and that creator Jehovah designed nothing.2. I and many other creationists are not YEC and not evolutionists as well.3. I apply science to the Genesis record when I think I have a viable argument. There areas in the record where science may be applied to the ID creationist position.4. I Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
Jude 3: ".....you should earnestly contend (argue/debate) for the faith which was once delivered to the saints." ASV5. The reason things are as they are and creationists make fools of themselves is that ID creationists have abrogated the research and education to secularists. Why, for example, did it take creationists so long to research the Biblical Exodus and the Biblical Mt. Sinai? Why is there so little coverage of the wonderful fulfilled prophecies in creationist churches?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

My impression of message 1's content, without any viewing or consideration of the linked pages:I think willietdog is conceding that the Genesis record, correct or otherwise, is not an important part of the essential Christian (as in, the teachings of Christ) doctrine. To you, how is the methodology of the creator God an important connection to the teachings of Christ?Moose

Welcome to EvC! I agree with you in that arguing makes most Christians look stupid.I consider myself a Cosmological Creationist. I believe that a Creator initiated and created matter. How this was done is unimportant to me.I believe in a personal and knowable Creator, and I believe that knowing Him is many times initiated by Christians. (In other words, He uses us to introduce His Spirit)For that reason, I believe that everything we (as Christians) do or say is interpreted as the fruit of our religion.For that reason, I essentially agree with you that our message should not be to focus on scientific things.Look at the forum we are at, however. People are drawn to an Evolution versus Creationism Forum to discuss science, by and large.Theology is not the main focus at EvC.Thats my 2 cents worth, anyway.

1. If the methodology is different than the reading of the record, it makes God out a liar, impostor and deceiver.2. If God had no hands on role in the design of what is observed, it immensely diminishes the glory due to God which is being attributed to natural and random operatives.3. It works to make God in the minds of his intelligent creatures nothing but a bystander relative to creation.4. Imo the Buzsaw IDist creationist ideology is more compatible to the LOT in that all energy existing has eternally existed in, by and through eternal God. As well it calls for eternal management/work relative to all existing energy.5. The message of Christ, the gospel stands or falls on the Genesis record. If it be myth, it calls the claims of Jesus to be the son of God and his references to the Genesis record into question. What applies to God (the 4 above points) all apply also to the credibility of his messianic son whom God sent to earth on his mission of salvation and eventual establishment of God's millennial kingdom on earth.6. If ID creationists had been more proactive in the origins debate likely they would be more knowledgeable as to how to support the IDist POV.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Nobody thinks that it is important that the story of the "Good Samaritin" needs to be literally true to give us truth. The Genesis account tells us that God created all that there is and that we are fallen creatures. The Genesis story does not have to be literally true to be true. I think that we should let God create in the way He thinks is best. He doesn't need us to tell him how He should do it. It seems to me that the creation of the universe is a pretty impressive feat no matter how He went about it. I don't understand how you think that the design of an evolutionary process for creation makes God any more of a bystander than any other form of creation. Any form of creation requires energy. God can speak to people through myth. Truth can come out of myth. I absolutely believe that Jesus is the Messiah. I absolutely believe in a resurrected Jesus. How many times do you hear a sermon that talks about the parables of Jesus as being literally true? That would be the same way in which Jesus spoke of the stories in Genesis. Not likely. I believe in intelligent design. I don't believe in the Intelligent Design movement. I believe in creation but I am not a Creationist.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

1. When parables were told by Jesus he so designated.2. If the Genesis account is myth there would be no viable reason to trust the rest of the Biblical record, including the gospel message of salvation.3. But God did reveal to us many aspects of his version of creation in the Genesis record. He's already told us how things originated. If we choose to consider his words as myth that's our problem.4. Nobody's saying the creation is not impressive. The difference in you and me is that you think it became impressively designed by natural and random natural means. I believe it was designed intricately, wonderfully and complexly by the intelligence of a supreme designer, majesty of the universe.Imo, my version better satisfies the LOT relative to science and what is observed on other planets in the Solar System.5. You're implication that I'm arguing that your version doesn't require energy is a strawman. My point was that yours has no accounting for the alleged origin of the observed energy and mine does, energy being part and parcel of the eternal designer.6. I'm not as gullible as you. If Genesis were thought to be a myth, I'd have reason to assume the gospels were as well.7. Tell me briefly so as not to stray; if you are an intelligent designist, what intelligent role is implicated in abiogenesis, NS and RM?How would this serve to give you confidence that the gospels have any viability? Edited by Buzsaw, : wording correction

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

That isn't actually correct. Jesus just started into the story. Look at the "Good Samaritin". Jesus just starts off - "A man was going from Jerusalem to Jericho". He doesn't say here is a metaphorical story. Likewise the story of the "Prodigal Son". He starts by saying "There was a man who had two sons."It is common sense that tells you that He is speaking metaphorically. Why can't you use that same common sense in reading the creation stories?I'd suggest that the reason is that you insist on reading it with the cultural conditioning of the 21st century. Jesus' audience were 1st century Jews and the OT was for even earlier generations. Look at the long list of parables that Jesus told. That was the way that they passed along a truth. Something can be true without being factually true. I've noticed when people have a weak argument they resort trying to denigrate those who disagree with them by labeling them with words like gullible.If I am gullible so are people like St. Augustine, C.S. Lewis and N.T. Wright. I know I've quoted this more than once before but here is a quote from the 15th Chap. of Miracles by C.S. Lewis.

quote:

---

Just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God’s becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth is ... a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other peoples, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology - the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truths, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical.

---

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

So, the Bible is either a perfect source of information or a totally worthless source of information. Why can't the Bible be a flawed collection that still does include valuable information? I certainly think it can be. I sort of agree, but this statement conflicts with the first quoted. Insert a "no" that shouldn't be there?I may think that Genesis is a myth, and I may think that the Gospels are myth, but such considerations are independent of of each other. The Jesus Christ story has no dependence on the story of God's creation process.Moose

That's not how it works. When parable was used the text so indicated. For example:"Baalam took up his parable and said"... Numbers 23:7, 24:3
"Job continued his parable..." Job 27:1
".....my mouth in a parable I will utter..." Psalms 49:4
".....speak a parable to the house...." Ezekiel 17:2...."
".....one shall take up a parable...." Micah 2:4
".....the parable of the sower......" Matthew 13:18..."
".....the parable of the tares...." Matthew 13:36
".....learn a parable of the fig tree...." Mark 13:28There are more but that should suffice to make my point. This reasoning leads one to pick and choose what is parable and what is not. I suppose John 14:6 would be to you a parable since you likely are one who has a problem of the literacy of that one. Jesus's claim there is that he is the only way to God and eternal life and that no man comes to God but through him.An objective reading of the Genesis record is that it is history and certainly there is no indication in the text whatsoever that it is myth, metaphor or parable.Imo gullibility is associated with dogedly adhering to a weak argument. I've substantiated that your argument is weak and unfounded.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

If one is left to pick and choose according to one's personal whims, desires and ideology then it looses all authority and credibility. What author of a text book or history record would expect such application to one's work? Paul, an apostle of Jesus in the NT spoke of Adam as the first man in I Corinthians 15:22 and I Timothy 2:5.Jesus, upon several occasions implied the accuracy of the OT relative to prophecies concerning himself showing that he endorsed the OT wholeheartedly.Btw I fixed the "no" mistake. Thanks for citing it.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

My position is not that the Biblical record is word perfect. Imo, there may be relatively insignificant errors due to the human element. My position is that unless the text so indicates, it is a correct historical record of origins and events.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

quote:

---

If one is left to pick and choose according to one's personal whims, desires and ideology then it looses all authority and credibility. What author of a text book or history record would expect such application to one's work?

---

What makes you think that Christians, no, theists don't do this now? Interpretation alone is picking and choosing what one wants to deem relevant, factual, and useful.Besides, even if Genesis is total crap, it doesn't make the moral lessons useless.

While one should not "pick and choose by personal whim etc.", readers and authors can and do recognize that errors, inaccuracies, distortions, and general misinformation can and does get into text books and history books. Hopefully such will get corrected in future editions. I'm anxiously waiting for the New New Testament of the Bible, to clarify and/or fix information in the Old and New Testaments.History books are notorious for having distorted information. That's why one should have a degree of skepticism about the presented information. That's why one should look at multiple sources to confirm information. But just because some of the information is suspect, it doesn't mean that the rest of the information is equally suspect.MooseEdited by Minnemooseus, : Change "does not" to "should not".Edited by Minnemooseus, : "present" changed to "presented".