My apologies if this has been brought up or already disproven by previous acts (I don't have time to read the entire thread), but I think the problem might be between these posts...
Post 203:
robinrohan writes:
True, but
"Christian evolutionism" is an oxymoron. (emphasis added)
(They talk about robinrohan's argument.)
Post 213:
jar writes:
One that has been refuted numerous times. I'm sorry robin, but the fact that I accept the TOE and also believe in GOD, the Christian GOD
refutes your assertions. (emphasis is mine)
Post 1 of this thread:
Faith writes:
NOTE JAR'S ARGUMENT CAREFULLY PLEASE: What he and others believe proves it's right to believe it, proves it true.
It sounded to me like he's not saying that what he believes proves it's right to believe it, but is making an argument against the associative implication of the statement "Christian evolutionism is an oxymoron", that Christian evolutionism (the belief) cannot exist. Just a possibility, however; it's how I read the exchange.
I also wonder if the issue is more one of the terms of the argument's subject than the exchange itself, of the differing beliefs in the meaning of "Christian" (for example, whether faith in Christ is enough to qualify as Christian). I could see how the statements could be read differently, then; but surely a different reading is not cause for moderation?
(Pun not intended.)
{Edit: Didn't see the suspension.}
This message has been edited by Morte, 04-02-2006 05:03 PM
™ Version 4.2
