Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who to believe , Ham or Ross?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 1 of 223 (194387)
03-25-2005 8:51 AM


Hugh Ross or Ken Ham? Who is an evo to believe? Is MTW a Hugh Ross or a Ken Ham? ANswer; neither.
I've heard a lot about me lately. It seems to be the usual suspects. Buz, me and maybe another creo.
I know that we are the creo's that stick around, so to speak. But I think we're different animals in that we are essentially left to wonder and devise our own opinions about Genesis, because God wasn't taking part in an encyclopedia of science when wanting Moses to write down some stuff. WHy this topic is so important simply baffles me. At this stage I'm inclined to not care whether a distant monkey was my relative or not, as long as God was the cause of it all.
It's like Percy and Minemoose said, in the topic, "The Current Accepted Ideas of Creation Science?".
I think there's some confusion as to who we are. But I concede that it is true that we are all different from each other (creos). I think Buz takes Genesis literally. Something about the four days. And it's true that we all have our own groups and even idiosyncrasies some of us. YECs and OECs, etc. Flat-earthers and general conspiracy theorists.
I think the problem is that we aren't the same for merely sharing a belief in the bible. That's what we share, belief that the bible is true whether literally or not so literally.
I personally have earned the name "creationist" because of some confusion over my position from myself! Can you believe that! But I don't think you guys should put creationists on the dart board as someone to aim at. If anything, our differences show that we are not all creo clones with the same arguments. I for example, don't have any set criteria as to how God created the universe. I will, somewhat pantheistically, basically settle for the accepted science of the current age more or less. Yet I believe God "created".
Please don't fall for the undistributed middle because of our shared name-tag. Here's a classic example of that fallacy;
If Bush believes in God, and you are a believer then you and Bush are the same animal, so God would vote Bush so you must.
This is invalid because me and Bush ONLY share belief in God, and I or anyone else can believe in God without voting for any particular person. So if you're a believer, it doesn't mean you're a Bushie. Now also nobody can say as to who God would vote for, but I won't go off topic.
Likewise, I am a creationist but that doesn't mean I'm Ken Ham, I'm a completely different animal. I'm not a YEC SHraff. I WAS
So then you might say, "but then if their stories don't match, then why believe them".
My honest answer is that you can still believe in what we truly share, --> belief in the God of the bible, of which there is no different position pertaining to creationism. Nor do the words in Genesis change with time, even if creationist's positions do. So look to God, not us. We are imperfect.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by CK, posted 03-25-2005 5:50 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 5 by Buzsaw, posted 03-25-2005 7:53 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 6 by macaroniandcheese, posted 03-25-2005 11:36 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 43 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 9:07 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 223 (194493)
03-25-2005 5:49 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 03-25-2005 7:39 PM AdminSylas has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 3 of 223 (194495)
03-25-2005 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
03-25-2005 8:51 AM


Wow - Mike starts a topic about himself! How unlikely is that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 03-25-2005 8:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 4 of 223 (194522)
03-25-2005 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminSylas
03-25-2005 5:49 PM


Thanks for putting this topic through Admin-objective. It's a rare occurence for an admin to do this with my topics.
I must stress to readers that infact this topic is not to do with me but rather the topic of what is meant by "creationist", and their differences, yet consistent agreement on biblical truths.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 03-25-2005 07:41 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminSylas, posted 03-25-2005 5:49 PM AdminSylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 03-27-2005 1:28 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 223 (194529)
03-25-2005 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
03-25-2005 8:51 AM


Hi Mike. Good to have you posting again, bud. I see Charles has greeted you already. He's the gatekeeper and watchman here, as you know, who extends greetings to creo openers and keeps people honest, sometimes even his own people. Gotta love tha guy!
Anyhow, you're right. There's soooo many variations of Christians as to concepts and interpretations, et al. Why?
1. The Bible is a fairly large and complex book, loaded with doctrines and stuff for study. It is not quickly and easily mastered. In fact it's one book nobody will ever totally master. It's devinely inspired. I've been seriously into it since a 10 year old kid and still eagerly learning.
2. Being it's the truth and claims to be exclusive foundational truth, and being there's a devil who hates it and it's followers, it has many, many enemies. It's the most loved and the most hated book ever written.
So it's no surprise that there's such a variety of us. I'm sure you've noticed Faith, a fiesty, unique, intelligent and articulate asset to the creo team. We can all learn something from her. In fact, as iron sharpens iron, that's how we, as uniquely different Christians interact to hopefully arrive at the truth.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 03-25-2005 8:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 6 of 223 (194567)
03-25-2005 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mike the wiz
03-25-2005 8:51 AM


i've decided that my position on evolution vs creation is this.
human beings and every other living thing are ultimately COMPLETELY reducible to chemical reactions. how do we work the way we do? how do we have thought? why are we different from rocks? are we different from rocks? do we just assume that we are the only sentient things? (i know for sure that most cats are entirely sentient. they have deep eyes full of thought and often sorrow.)
i must assume that there is something that makes us different from rocks. i haven't seen any rocks do calculus and yet i can so...
so this is my point (finally). if i am different from a rock, it must be something greater than chemistry that makes me thus, because the chemistry is often the same. therein lies god. who is he? what is his name? what is he like? i know this only through the half-insane meanderings of my head and my delving into various forms of folklore (including the bible). i merely know he exists and thus deserves my all. not because he is good or loves me or anything else. simply because he is and he accomplished something i can't even fathom.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mike the wiz, posted 03-25-2005 8:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 7 of 223 (194768)
03-27-2005 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by mike the wiz
03-25-2005 7:39 PM


How much agreement?
quote:
I must stress to readers that infact this topic is not to do with me but rather the topic of what is meant by "creationist", and their differences, yet consistent agreement on biblical truths.
Wondering just how consistent this agreement is if some of us believe the literal Biblical view of creation as occuring some 6000 years ago (5755 years ago by the Jewish calendar to be exact), others add a few thousand years, still others interpret the time factor to allow much greater time periods, even to agreeing with evolution theory completely. What are the different degrees of belief in the literal record of the Bible among creationists? What is the creationist consensus on the literal Biblical report of the Flood?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by mike the wiz, posted 03-25-2005 7:39 PM mike the wiz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 03-27-2005 8:50 AM Faith has replied
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 03-27-2005 11:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 223 (194801)
03-27-2005 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
03-27-2005 1:28 AM


Re: How much agreement?
What is the creationist consensus on the literal Biblical report of the Flood?
I doubt that there is a consensus. For example,I'm quite sure that it never happened. You seem to believe it did.
I would refuse to accept any rendition that included the flood because it would make GOD a liar, while you might cite the exact same reason to support your belief.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 03-27-2005 1:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 03-27-2005 7:41 PM jar has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 9 of 223 (194821)
03-27-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
03-27-2005 1:28 AM


Re: How much agreement?
What is the creationist consensus on the literal Biblical report of the Flood?
  1. It happened.
  2. Any evidence that indicates it didn't happen is to be ignored. It's all just speculation.
  3. Any wild speculation, even that contrary to all known laws, that appears to justify a global flood is evidence for that flood. Pay no attention to the justification for ignoring evidence that no such flood happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 03-27-2005 1:28 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by MangyTiger, posted 03-27-2005 8:47 PM JonF has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 10 of 223 (194865)
03-27-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
03-27-2005 8:50 AM


Re: How much agreement?
Just wondering what if any status the Bible has in your view. If it's just the work of human beings I would think it had no particular authority on anything myself. Is that your view as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 03-27-2005 8:50 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 03-27-2005 8:07 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 223 (194868)
03-27-2005 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Faith
03-27-2005 7:41 PM


Re: How much agreement?
It depends on what you're talking about. It's obviously the work of man, that's not even a question. What it's not is a science book or history book. Much of it's not factual and has never really been taken as factual by many. For example St. Augustine wrote on the relationship between science and the Bible in the 4th. Century AD. Even then he realized, as did most folk, that the accounts such as the creation story in Genesis were never meant to be taken factually and that when specifics in the Bible ran counter to what was seen in evidence or through science that the scientific explanation would have to be accepted over the Biblical one. Any other interpretation, as I said, makes GOD a liar.
I believe the Bible is inspired work, but in theology, not in science.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Faith, posted 03-27-2005 7:41 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 8:25 PM jar has replied
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 03-27-2005 9:03 PM jar has replied
 Message 217 by Phat, posted 10-01-2005 8:54 PM jar has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 223 (194872)
03-27-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
03-27-2005 8:07 PM


Re: How much agreement?
Any other interpretation, as I said, makes GOD a liar.
So as I understand you, Jar, any other interpretation of scripture than yours makes God a liar. Is that a correct assumption.
Btw, Jar, I'm assuming by how you've posted over the time you've been here that there are only two supernatural events in the Bible, the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. All other implication of miracle or the supernatural in the Bible is fable. Is that correct?

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 03-27-2005 8:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 03-27-2005 8:38 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 223 (194873)
03-27-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Buzsaw
03-27-2005 8:25 PM


Re: How much agreement?
So as I understand you, Jar, any other interpretation of scripture than yours makes God a liar. Is that a correct assumption.
Other than my interpretation? No. But there are many interpretations that DO make GOD out to be a liar.
Btw, Jar, I'm assuming by how you've posted over the time you've been here that there are only two supernatural events in the Bible, the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. All other implication of miracle or the supernatural in the Bible is fable. Is that correct?
Well, the Virgin Birth is certainly open to question. And there are other instances that, if factual would be considered miraculous.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 8:25 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 03-27-2005 9:30 PM jar has replied

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 6354 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 14 of 223 (194874)
03-27-2005 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by JonF
03-27-2005 11:38 AM


I literally laughed out loud
It may only be three items long but this post perfectly sums up the 'floodist' point of view - as well as being funny

Confused ? You will be...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by JonF, posted 03-27-2005 11:38 AM JonF has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 15 of 223 (194876)
03-27-2005 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
03-27-2005 8:07 PM


Re: How much agreement?
It depends on what you're talking about. It's obviously the work of man, that's not even a question.
No "inspired word of God" for you then I gather, but it is that for many of us.
What it's not is a science book or history book. Much of it's not factual and has never really been taken as factual by many.
It's certainly not a science book nor does it present itself as anything of the kind, but it certainly does present itself as history: This happened, that happened, I did, he did, she did, they did, he said, in the days of such and such... etc.. And the parts that aren't presented as factual are obviously not intended to be factual -- such as the commandments and teachings, the psalms, the wisdom books, the prophets.
To call something not factual that presents itself as factual, however, is to impose your own view on it, not take it as written, which is pretty insulting to the author, even if the author were merely a human being.
Certainly "many" have all kinds of views of the Bible, but the mainstream of Christian believers over the centuries have regarded it as the inspired word of God and God doesn't lie about anything. It's not science but it does include statements of fact about events. If the Flood didn't happen then why should we believe that anything else the Bible reports happened either, say the captivity in Egypt and the Exodus, and the pillars of fire and cloud, and Moses getting the Commandments from God on Sinai, and the settling of the Promised Land, and the miracles of the Book of Judges and David's killing Goliath with a slingshot and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? All these things are described as historical occurrences.
How do you decide what to believe and not believe? Do you at least believe the succession of the kings of Israel and Judah, the splitting of the nation into north and south, the captivity and absorption of the northern tribes into Assyria, the captivity of the southern tribes by Babylon, their return to Judea after 70 years under Ezra and Nehemiah and the rebuilding of Jerusalem and the temple? LOTS of history up to this point. MOSTLY history. In the New Testament, the four gospels are presented as history, the Book of Acts is certainly history, then the rest is letters and instruction and the vision of John in Revelation. Which parts do you consider theology to be believed?
For example St. Augustine wrote on the relationship between science and the Bible in the 4th. Century AD. Even then he realized, as did most folk, that the accounts such as the creation story in Genesis were never meant to be taken factually and that when specifics in the Bible ran counter to what was seen in evidence or through science that the scientific explanation would have to be accepted over the Biblical one.
Can you give a reference to where Augustine said this and preferably the exact quote itself as well? Augustine is a great pillar of the Church but he wasn't right about everything. I understand that he also changed his views over his lifetime of prodigious productivity (in which he produced so many books the most intrepid Augustine scholar doesn't expect to read it all), and that he sounded a lot more like an Evangelical Protestant in his later works and more like a Roman Catholic in his earlier ones. Nevertheless, I'd like to know exactly HOW he said what you say he said, in his own words if you can give the reference.
Any other interpretation, as I said, makes GOD a liar.
God "wrote" Nature for sure, and if anybody could read it perfectly I wouldn't have a disagreement with you. You don't seem to notice that you are trusting in scientists rather than in God when you put Nature on a revelatory par with the Bible. You can read Nature that perfectly? Nothing scientists come up with is fallible (or falsifiable)? It's all perfect truth just as God would give? God Himself didn't give us any clear instructions on anything EXCEPT in the Bible.
I believe the Bible is inspired work, but in theology, not in science.
Theology means truth about God. So the Bible says God sent a worldwide Flood and saved only a few people and animals from it, but that's not the truth according to you. How can it be true theology then? God either did it or He didn't. It says He did. If we can't trust it about the nature and doings of God it's worthless as theology too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 03-27-2005 8:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 03-27-2005 9:23 PM Faith has replied
 Message 44 by nator, posted 03-29-2005 9:18 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024