How to broker a peace deal ?

[jason]

I think we need to find some way to get the YEC's/OEC's/ID's to make peace and make common cause against the real enemy.

But this would also require people to stick to fighting battles that can actually be won in the near term.

Perhaps I hope for to much.

But does anybody think this is possible apart from me ?

Jason

[kofh2u]

I think we need to find some way to get the YEC's/OEC's/ID's to make peace and make common cause against the real enemy.

But this would also require people to stick to fighting battles that can actually be won in the near term.

Perhaps I hope for to much.

But does anybody think this is possible apart from me ?

Jason


Yes, i think it will happen. It is prophesied.

Matt. 12:20 A bruised reed (of doctrine) shall he not break (down), and the smoking flax (of dogma) shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory (when the book of seven seal is opened).

[A Beautiful Truth]

I only assume you speak of human evolution.

Here's the deal.

YEC's don't allow contradictory facts into their equation because it does not fit beforehand into their view. Therefore, their arguments will always be suspect.

OEC's have not answered questions I need answered regarding human evolution. I am no biologist and I have needed help, and have received none.

ID's accept human evolution.

Indeed, much would need to be met to make a peace deal, as you suggest.

[kofh2u]

I only assume you speak of human evolution.

Here's the deal.

YEC's don't allow contradictory facts into their equation because it does not fit beforehand into their view. Therefore, their arguments will always be suspect.

OEC's have not answered questions I need answered regarding human evolution. I am no biologist and I have needed help, and have received none.

ID's accept human evolution.

Indeed, much would need to be met to make a peace deal, as you suggest.


Let each person's faith be based upon whatever foundation they have found satisfactory to their observable Christian behavior.
Action speaks loud enough, we need not quibble as regards one's personal conviction in Christ.

World Peace has begun with the march of 2000 Korean Christian soldiers into Israeli-PLO territories today!

Support Isaiah's prophecy of the Holy Spirit performing the miracle of Zechariah 14!

Come... says the Spirit to the bride... come.... all denominations...

Isa. 60:4 Lift up thine eyes (you people of Israel) round about, and
see: all, (the two billion Christians, they) gather themselves together,
they come to thee (in the Promised Land): thy sons (of the diaspora) shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.

Isa. 60:5 Then thou shalt see (these hoards of Christianity), and flow together (with them), and thine heart shall fear (the truth of Christ), and be enlarged (in understanding); because the abundance of the sea (of Western nations) shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles, (Christians, now two billions in number), shall come unto thee.

Isa. 60:6 The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come (to pilgrimage in the Holy Land): they shall bring gold and incense (the revenue of their tourism); and they shall show forth the praises of the LORD (in his Promised Land).

[Faramir]

I think we need to find some way to get the YEC's/OEC's/ID's to make peace and make common cause against the real enemy.

But this would also require people to stick to fighting battles that can actually be won in the near term.

Perhaps I hope for to much.

But does anybody think this is possible apart from me ?

Jason
I envision a slightly different peace. One that would not limit us to battles that can actually be won in the near term.

Why can't we just agree to disagree, and remember that we are united in Christ.

Why is it that we have this us v. them mentality? With Christian attacking other Christian's along side atheist? Or Chiristian's questioning the salvation of other Christian's because they happen to interpret the Bible and science differently?

This is a non salvation issue!!!!!!!

Why can't this:
Athiest: You YEC'ers are so dumb!!!

Non YEC Christian: Yes you are, you YECer your.

YECer: You Non YEC Christian are a dirty compromiser.

Be this:

Athiest: You YEC'ers are so dumb!!!!

Non YEC Christian: I agree with Atheist on scientific matters, but the beauty of Christianity is that we can have disagreements over minor issues, but still be united in Christ.

YECer: Well, while I disagree with both Atheist and non-YEC Christian, it is not necessary to believe in a young earth to be saved.

Now I realize that this is overly simplistic and am not suggesting that every post be a gushing love fest. But I think the atitude of unity needs to be shown to our fellow Christians regardless of our cosmological position.

What does scripture say?

The will know we are Jesus' disciples because we:

A. Have great scientific knowledge
B. Take the first 11 chapters of Genesis literally
C. Love one another

(Hint, it is not A or B)

(Hint, it is not love one another, only if they agree with us on non-salvation issues)

What kind of message are we sending to the skeptics here if we treat each other with animosity? Are we any different than the world?

Is it OK to disagree? Sure. This is a debate forum. But why can't we disagree on non-essentials in a spirit of unity?

Just my :2cents:

[Duder]

I think we need to find some way to get the YEC's/OEC's/ID's to make peace and make common cause against the real enemy.

I wonder about the choice of words in characterizing those who do not hold, as we do, that God created the earth as geing our enemies. Would you prefer to extend an inviting hand to them, or to conquer them?

[kofh2u]

I envision a slightly different peace. One that would not limit us to battles that can actually be won in the near term.

Why can't we just agree to disagree, and remember that we are united in Christ.

Why is it that we have this us v. them mentality? With Christian attacking other Christian's along side atheist? Or Chiristian's questioning the salvation of other Christian's because they happen to interpret the Bible and science differently?

This is a non salvation issue!!!!!!!

Why can't this:
Athiest: You YEC'ers are so dumb!!!

Non YEC Christian: Yes you are, you YECer your.

YECer: You Non YEC Christian are a dirty compromiser.

Be this:

Athiest: You YEC'ers are so dumb!!!!

Non YEC Christian: I agree with Atheist on scientific matters, but the beauty of Christianity is that we can have disagreements over minor issues, but still be united in Christ.

YECer: Well, while I disagree with both Atheist and non-YEC Christian, it is not necessary to believe in a young earth to be saved.

Now I realize that this is overly simplistic and am not suggesting that every post be a gushing love fest. But I think the atitude of unity needs to be shown to our fellow Christians regardless of our cosmological position.

What does scripture say?

The will know we are Jesus' disciples because we:

A. Have great scientific knowledge
B. Take the first 11 chapters of Genesis literally
C. Love one another

(Hint, it is not A or B)

(Hint, it is not love one another, only if they agree with us on non-salvation issues)

What kind of message are we sending to the skeptics here if we treat each other with animosity? Are we any different than the world?

Is it OK to disagree? Sure. This is a debate forum. But why can't we disagree on non-essentials in a spirit of unity?

Just my :2cents:


The unfolding "fig tree leaves" of the Jews' return to their homeland marks this as the moment of voting for Him or against him regardless of your ideology or philosophical reasons....

Rev. 22:11 He (that represents just 6% of the world population) who is unjust (in the economic distribution of resources), let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy (with the whoredom of the
socio-political economic system), let him be filthy still: and he that is (so self) righteous (and self assured in his own conceits), let him be (self)
righteous still: and he that is holy, (the first 144,000 pilgrims), let him be holy still.

Rev. 22:12 And, behold, I, (the Word of the scripture), come quickly, (for a congregation of two billion awaits my revelations); and my reward (of peace on earth) is with me, to give (financial blessing) to every man (in the Promised Land) according to his work (of hospitality).

[{Tim}]

Why can't this:
YECer: You Non YEC Christian are a dirty compromiser.

Be this:
YECer: Well, while I disagree with both Atheist and non-YEC Christian, it is not necessary to believe in a young earth to be saved.First off, I have read a fair amount of YEC material, and I have never seen it claimed that non-YEC christians are unsaved -- have you had experience otherwise?
However, it is very true that this debate is often much more heated, and even unchristlike, than it should be (in this I am referring particularly to debates and rebuttals -- I think a lot of their other non-debate material is much less so). I think that part of the problem is that both sides consider the other to be doing a disservice to the faith (i.e. putting people off from Christ) by holding the views they do. This hardly makes for a good relationship!

Jason:
I, also, think that it would be a good thing for Christians to cooperate against their common 'enemy'. But what sort of thing did you have in mind, exactly? I can't get enough detail from your post to know whether I agree with you or not! :smile:

Tim

[kofh2u]

First off, I have read a fair amount of YEC material, and I have never seen it claimed that non-YEC christians are unsaved -- have you had experience otherwise?
However, it is very true that this debate is often much more heated, and even unchristlike, than it should be (in this I am referring particularly to debates and rebuttals -- I think a lot of their other non-debate material is much less so). I think that part of the problem is that both sides consider the other to be doing a disservice to the faith (i.e. putting people off from Christ) by holding the views they do. This hardly makes for a good relationship!

Jason:
I, also, think that it would be a good thing for Christians to cooperate against their common 'enemy'. But what sort of thing did you have in mind, exactly? I can't get enough detail from your post to know whether I agree with you or not! :smile:

Tim


Common enemy?....

"Love thy (common) enemy," is the second command, as we know.

Now what better might Christians do than forget the proseltyzing and membership building and refocus on the body of Christ now so large... a good example of a new social force active in the world...

Isa. 60:8 Who are these that fly as a cloud (from the Americas), and as the doves of peace to their (cathedral) windows?

Isa. 60:4 Lift up thine eyes (you people of Israel) round about, and
see: all, (the two billion Christians, they) gather themselves together,
they come to thee (tourists in the Promised Land): thy sons (of the diaspora) shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side.

Isa. 60:5 Then thou shalt see (these hoards of Christianity), and flow together (with them), and thine heart shall fear (the truth of Christ), and be enlarged (in understanding); because the abundance of the sea (of Western nations) shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles, (Christians, now two billions in number), shall come unto thee.

[Faramir]

First off, I have read a fair amount of YEC material, and I have never seen it claimed that non-YEC christians are unsaved -- have you had experience otherwise?
Actually I have, but this is rare, and was not really my point. My point is that we need to acknowledge unity.

And while it is rare that a YECer will say a non-YECer is not saved due to their creation position, it is not at all uncommon for a YECer to call a fellow believer a "compromiser" or "yolked with atheist". (and I give this example because it is the one you brought up, there are equal "non-unity" statements on all sides)


However, it is very true that this debate is often much more heated, and even unchristlike, than it should be (in this I am referring particularly to debates and rebuttals -- I think a lot of their other non-debate material is much less so). I think that part of the problem is that both sides consider the other to be doing a disservice to the faith (i.e. putting people off from Christ) by holding the views they do. This hardly makes for a good relationship!
That was my point. We need to be more cognizant (sp?) of the fact that we are not only one in Christ, but that we are His light to the world. If the world sees us as divided, then we are not a very good light, are we?

Now, I am not saying that we all need to agree on everything. But we do, (as Augustine so aptly put) united in the essentials and have liberty with the non-essentials.

I also agree that both sides (at least some people on both sides) feel that the other side is doing a great disservice to Christianity. And to some extent I agree. Whicherver side is wrong is perpetuating an incorrect version of the reality of God. But this is true with the Arminian/Calvanist/Molinism/OVT debate and the Futurist/Historicist/Idealist/Preterist debate as well. (these debates can get unpleasant at times as well, but not IMHO to the extent that creation debate does.)

IMHO a much greater disservice is done to the Kingdom and Body of Christ when members of that body show hostility towards one another to the outside world instead of love and unity.

Disagreement is unavoidable, but if we show unity on the essentials of the faith and liberty in the non-essentials and charity in all things, I think we will be a better witness to the lost than if we gang up on each other.

Just my :2cents:


Jason:
I, also, think that it would be a good thing for Christians to cooperate against their common 'enemy'. But what sort of thing did you have in mind, exactly? I can't get enough detail from your post to know whether I agree with you or not! :smile:

Tim[/QUOTE]

[jason]

First off, I have read a fair amount of YEC material, and I have never seen it claimed that non-YEC christians are unsaved -- have you had experience otherwise?
Oh I think calling people compromising churchians and "yoked with atheists" is pretty much the same thing. I think it is a pretty clear example of the sort of forked tounge some YEC groups have when they say things like that then say that it is not a salvation issue.


I, also, think that it would be a good thing for Christians to cooperate against their common 'enemy'. But what sort of thing did you have in mind, exactly? I can't get enough detail from your post to know whether I agree with you or not! :smile:
I think on the issue of science and faith we should stop wasting time fighting amougest ourselves, put the age of the earth issue aside (etc) and sit down and attack the naturalist philosophy behind the atheists position. I think Christians should simply stop bickering over things everybody says is a non-essential and band together to fight the real enemy.

We should start to pick the battles we fight and fight them in unity. Fight the battles we know that can be won easily as a place to turn the tide.

Jason

[{Tim}]

Oh I think calling people compromising churchians and "yoked with atheists" is pretty much the same thing. I think it is a pretty clear example of the sort of forked tounge some YEC groups have when they say things like that then say that it is not a salvation issue.I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here; it's not at all the same thing. Sure it's equally "rude", in that it's clearly accusing them of doing something they shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean that the 'wrong' actions are equally bad.

Also, while it's not a salvational issue for the person believing it, I think both sides are concerned that their opponents 'false' views will lead others to abandon the faith, as I mentioned in my previous post.

However, I will also reiterate what I said before: yep, we could certainly stand to be more civil in our exchanges (whatever our views) with fellow Christians.


I think on the issue of science and faith we should stop wasting time fighting amougest ourselves, put the age of the earth issue aside (etc) and sit down and attack the naturalist philosophy behind the atheists position. I think Christians should simply stop bickering over things everybody says is a non-essential and band together to fight the real enemy.

We should start to pick the battles we fight and fight them in unity. Fight the battles we know that can be won easily as a place to turn the tide.

JasonWell, everyone (I think? ... Faramir?) admits that eschatology is non-essential, but that doesn't stop people arguing about it. So I doubt that people are going to stop debate over this issue either. But OTOH, I agree that it would be great if both sides could work together against the real enemy (... what/who would you regard as the enemy, btw?).
And:
We need to be more cognizant (sp?) of the fact that we are not only one in Christ, but that we are His light to the world. If the world sees us as divided, then we are not a very good light, are we?I was reminded of this recently by some comments my workmates made. And YES, this is SO important! Why should nonbelievers be attracted to church, if christians seem to be fighting each other all the time?

Another thing, though: I think it is related to the fact that this issue has to do with non-Christians as well; i.e. secular science is very opposed to YEC claims (or any claims to do with God, for that matter, but these in particular). With calvinism, for example, no-one can accuse their opponents of either "believeng something just because it's current 'science'" or of "believing something that science has refuted". This, IMO, is probably one reason for the excess heat. What the implications of this are, I'm not sure right at the moment, since I've only just started rolling this around in my head. Any thoughts?


Anyway, overall, I don't think we should totally stop thinking and arguing about the age of the earth etc, any more than about eschatology etc (and I doubt that it would happen anyway), but we should DEFINITELY be more polite about it. I guess critics could still beat it up that we disagree, but if we do it in a Christlike manner then hopefully anyone sensible will see that, and wonder why. Ahh, a nice ideal for the future... so how should we go about achieving it then?

Tim

[Faramir]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here; it's not at all the same thing. Sure it's equally "rude", in that it's clearly accusing them of doing something they shouldn't be, but that doesn't mean that the 'wrong' actions are equally bad.While I agree with most of your post, I have to disagree with you here. I agree with Jason that YECers who do use the terms "yolked with atheist" and "churchians" (not all do) are at the least accusing the brothers in Christ of somehow being "less Christian" than YECers, and at the most it is a backhanded way of saying these people are not saved.

Of course we both (I think?) agree that such tactics are inappropriate.


Also, while it's not a salvational issue for the person believing it, I think both sides are concerned that their opponents 'false' views will lead others to abandon the faith, as I mentioned in my previous post. I agree that some people on both (all three or four) sides of the issue think that the 'false' views will lead others to abandon the faith. I think this argument is blown way out of proportion. While some people use one side or the other as an excuse as to why they left the faith, IMHO there is too much "wiggle room" in orthodoxy for this excuse to hold much water.

I also think that as much harm as may come from the 'false' view, much much more harm comes from the open hostility shown between people who are supposed to be indentifiable by their love for one another.


However, I will also reiterate what I said before: yep, we could certainly stand to be more civil in our exchanges (whatever our views) with fellow Christians.Amen and Haleluiah.


Well, everyone (I think? ... Faramir?) admits that eschatology is non-essential, but that doesn't stop people arguing about it. So I doubt that people are going to stop debate over this issue either. But OTOH, I agree that it would be great if both sides could work together against the real enemy (... what/who would you regard as the enemy, btw?).Yes. I will take credit for that. My "vision" of the peace is (I think) somewhat different than Jason's. I don't think we should stop arguing about our differences (non-Salvific differences that is) in the traditional sense of the word argue. That is a rational and civil exhange of ideas (if I didn't want that I sure wouldn't be here at TWeb).

What I think we as Christians need to do is to stop bickering about our differences and agree to disagree (but still argue in a civil manner). But when we are interacting with the "true enemy" ie non-believers/philosophical naturalism we should be united.

An example from eschatology. I while back a sceptic came to TWeb saying that Jesus predicted a 1st century return and didn't follow through. IOW Jesus was a false prophet. As a preterist I attempted to show the sceptic how that was not true. Futurist chimed in to say, "while I disagree with Faramir's eschatology, it is an acceptible one within Christianity and should not be a stumbling block to your acceptance of Christianity."

IOW. It may be true that YEC is a stumbling block for some peoples acceptance of Christianity. If that is the case then YECers should graciously bow out. And if it is the case that TE is a stumbling block for some people then YECers should graciously bow out of the argument.

Instead what happens is both sides fight (not argue, but :fight: ) with each other and the sceptic/doubter is left wanting no part of either side.



And:I was reminded of this recently by some comments my workmates made. And YES, this is SO important! Why should nonbelievers be attracted to church, if christians seem to be fighting each other all the time?
I was talking about this last night. Why is it that some Christians get angry if you do not agree with them 100% (and the issue that brought this up was not cosmogony). I think we would be more impressive to the world if we could disagree with love and civility.


Another thing, though: I think it is related to the fact that this issue has to do with non-Christians as well; i.e. secular science is very opposed to YEC claims (or any claims to do with God, for that matter, but these in particular). With calvinism, for example, no-one can accuse their opponents of either "believeng something just because it's current 'science'" or of "believing something that science has refuted". This, IMO, is probably one reason for the excess heat. What the implications of this are, I'm not sure right at the moment, since I've only just started rolling this around in my head. Any thoughts? Well I think the accusations of "believe science" or "believe something science has rejected" is a symptom not a cause. This is a symptom of being too dogmatic on a non-dogma issue.

For example. I think many OEC/TE over emphasize science and fit their interpritation of scripture to match their science. Statement's like "science has refuted" are proof enough of that. Science has refuted many things that later science has un-refuted. Too much dogmatism regarding science. (and I speak from experience because I was just as guilty of this as anyone at one time).

On the other hand, YECers over emphasize thier own interpretation of scripture and make thier science fit it. Statement's like "your just saying that because it is current science" is proof enough of that. Dismissing current science simply because it dosn't mesh with your interpritation of scripture is being too dogmatic about your interpretation of a non-salvivic issue.

I think both science and interpretation of scripture need to be considered. Ex. for years there were some theologians who beleived that scripture taught that the world was the center of the universe. Our understanding of science and scripture has shown this to be erroneous.

Now of course there will be disagreements, but ideally there will not be dogmatism.


Anyway, overall, I don't think we should totally stop thinking and arguing about the age of the earth etc, any more than about eschatology etc (and I doubt that it would happen anyway), but we should DEFINITELY be more polite about it. I agree. What a boring world that would be.

I do not think we should pretend that there is no disagreement. What I do think that all sides need to do is drop the dogmatism.


I guess critics could still beat it up that we disagree, but if we do it in a Christlike manner then hopefully anyone sensible will see that, and wonder why Ahh, a nice ideal for the future... so how should we go about achieving it then?

TimI agree 100%. The sceptics could use disagreement as an excuse, but it would not be valid. Right now though, I think the sceptics do have a valid excuse. After all who would want to be a part of a group that is supposed to be about love for each other when all they see is hostility.

Just my :2cents:

[{Tim}]

While I agree with most of your post, I have to disagree with you here. I agree with Jason that YECers who do use the terms "yolked with atheist" and "churchians" (not all do) are at the least accusing the brothers in Christ of somehow being "less Christian" than YECers, and at the most it is a backhanded way of saying these people are not saved.Well, I guess it depends on your point of view... but as I think about it, yes, I think "churchians" does imply people who are potentially not saved. However I think that, if YECs are right, then "yoked with atheists" is a valid description of those who "interpret the bible to conform with current science". Which means it comes down to who's right (and whether the person in question really is placing science above scripture, or sincerely believes that scripture allows their interpretation -- so it shouldn't be used as a generalisation).

And then there is a lot simply in the way in which things are said... I can imagine a use of 'yoked with atheists' that is accusatory and angry -- or alternatively a humble warning that someone take care to avoid being yoked with atheists by accepting them too uncritically. And that can be hard to judge, often, espcially when you are writing something as opposed to speaking in person.


Of course we both (I think?) agree that such tactics are inappropriate.Yep, although as I said there are some things which can seem very 'nasty', and yet are at times valid descriptions. The trick is making sure of using them only when they're valid... and I acknowledge that IMO AiG writers sometimes go too far with this (note: I expect others do too; these are just the group I am most familiar with).



Dismissing current science simply because it dosn't mesh with your interpritation of scripture is being too dogmatic about your interpretation of a non-salvivic issueI agree; but in many cases I don't think YECs are actually dismissing current science. Yes, they are diagreeing with the conclusions, but they are also doing work to show that if certain premises/assumptions are changed, the same science can give different results. As an example: if we think that most fossils were laid down by Noah's flood, we come to different conclusions than if we think they were laid down gradually over time.

And on a side note (slightly related):

for years there were some theologians who beleived that scripture taught that the world was the center of the universe. Our understanding of science and scripture has shown this to be erroneousActually there are some interesting new results on that... no, AiG hasn't proved the sun goes around the earth :wink: but there is evidence that suggests that our solar system could be near the center of the universe (note, 'suggests', not 'proves'!). If you're interested, search on AiG for articles about "quantised redshifts".


OK. We've agreed that less hostility in debates on this issue would be a good thing. That is something we can do personally; but do you have any suggestions on how to spread this orientation to others? Especially those more in the 'public spotlight'...

"I like this thread, people are being polite!"
Tim

[Faramir]

Well, I guess it depends on your point of view... but as I think about it, yes, I think "churchians" does imply people who are potentially not saved. However I think that, if YECs are right, then "yoked with atheists" is a valid description of those who "interpret the bible to conform with current science". Which means it comes down to who's right (and whether the person in question really is placing science above scripture, or sincerely believes that scripture allows their interpretation -- so it shouldn't be used as a generalisation).

And then there is a lot simply in the way in which things are said... I can imagine a use of 'yoked with atheists' that is accusatory and angry -- or alternatively a humble warning that someone take care to avoid being yoked with atheists by accepting them too uncritically. And that can be hard to judge, often, espcially when you are writing something as opposed to speaking in person.

Yep, although as I said there are some things which can seem very 'nasty', and yet are at times valid descriptions. The trick is making sure of using them only when they're valid... and I acknowledge that IMO AiG writers sometimes go too far with this (note: I expect others do too; these are just the group I am most familiar with).
I agree somewhat, that there are "Christians" who are so into naturalism (to the extent that they are more "Diest" than "Christian", that it is difficult to tell there position from philosophical naturalism, and that this needs to be addressed. However, this is an internal issue, not an external issue.

My point in this thread is that when we are discussing issues "in house" it is OK to disagree, but we need to be united when discussing with those outside the house. I am not suggesting we hide our disagreements, but rather show our unity despite our disagreements.



I agree; but in many cases I don't think YECs are actually dismissing current science. Yes, they are diagreeing with the conclusions, but they are also doing work to show that if certain premises/assumptions are changed, the same science can give different results. As an example: if we think that most fossils were laid down by Noah's flood, we come to different conclusions than if we think they were laid down gradually over time.
Well, that was not quite my point. I think some YECers are so convenced of the rightness of thier interpretation that they do not even consider the possibility that YEC may not be theologically correct (regardless of science).

An honest approach would be to consider that many scientist beleive that the evidence supports a young earth. I believe that the bible teaches a young earth, but I need to re-examine that position through scripture to make sure.

IMHO many YEC favor thier interpretation so much that they will not consider others.

OTOH. I think Many OEC/TE look at thier interpritation of science and conclude that the Bible must mean what their view of science holds that the earth is really old. (In fact this was me for several years.)

Eventually though I realized that my interpretation of the Bible was not based on exegisis but on filtering through my understanding of science.

I eventually attempted to study scriputure without any consideration of sceince. Doing this I found serious problems with OEC interpretation. But I also found serious problems with YEC interpritation (and this thread is not the place to get into that). However, I eventually discovered framework interpritation and found it to resolve the problems I had with both of the other views. (Of course I may find problems with it as well as I am fairly new to this position).

Now framework theory states that scripture is silent on the age of the earth, so from a scriptural pov I am agnostic as to the age of the earth and there is no conflict between my interpritation of scripture and OEC or YEC science. Either fits.

Now, someone can use this some process and come to a different conclusion, but if all Christians used this process I think we would all be a little less dogmatic. If for no other reason, it helps us (or at least it helped me) to understand the "other side" a little better.

And I am sure that many OEC/TE/YEC have done this. But it is clear to me that a large amount of YEC have never really considered that thier interpritation may be wrong, and a large amount of OEC/TE have never really considered the possibility that their science may be wrong.

IOW, what I think we need is balance. (some) YEC focus too much on thier interpitation of scripture, and (some) OEC/TE focus too much on thier interpitation of science. I think if all parties examine both science and scripture independently, then I think it would be easier for all to get along.

However, what we have now is "my science trumps your theology" and "my theology trumps your science".

My approach was to examine both science and scripture and hope for a mesh. Fortunately for me I found one. Scince I hold OEC science (but not evolution) to be more accurate than YEC science I needed an interpretation that either promoted an old earth or that was silent.

Please note!!!!! I did not go looking for such an interpretation in order to resolve the dissonance but since I found one the disonance is removed for me. I lived for quite some time with disonance because I had problems with both YEC and OEC interpritations of scripture. I chose framework, because it made sense to me exegetically, not because it resolved the disonance.

If I had accepted YEC as the best interpritation there would still be dissonance which I would either have to live with or attempt to resolve.

And that, I think, is what is the cause of so much "hostility" over this issue today. Some (not all) OECers (me included for a long time) choose the OEC interpritation of scripture to resolve the dissonance with their strongly held scientific beliefs. Some (not all) YECers choose to accept YEC interpritation of science to resolve the dissonance with their strongly held scientific beliefs.

The end result is YEC basing their science on thier understanding of scripture (which could be wrong) and OEC/TE basing their understaning of scripure on thier science (which could be wrong).

For example. If I did find YEC to be the best interpritation of Gen 1, yet still found OEC science to be the best interpritation of the natural evidence. The intilectually honest thing to do would be to admit the dissonance. Yet few are willing to do this. (I have seen an attempt at this by a YEC saying that the fall caused the natural evidence to be so corrupt that we can not get valid science from it).

Now since I beleive in the infallability of scripture, if I believed YEC to be the best interpritation of scripture and OEC to be the best interpritation of science I would have to concede that I was wrong either in my understanding of science or my understanding of scripture. Few people are willing to do this. I know it is very uncomfortable, because before I found the framework theory, I believed that YEC was the better of the two (though I still had problems with YEC, so I was far from dogmatic on this). In fact of the two, OEC v. YEC, I find YEC to be slightly more convencing than OEC on scriptural grounds, but the framework the most convencing of all.

However, I find OEC science far more convencing that YEC science. With the exception of evolution. I was very briefly TE, but rejected evolution on scientific grounds. Now, I reject TE on both scientific and scriptural grounds (at least the evolution of man I reject on scriptural grounds as it is clear to me that man is a special creation apart from the other animals).

Now maybe I am the only one who forced their interpritation of science into their interpretation of the bible. But I doubt it.

I also doubt that there are no YECers who, if they were honest with themselves, would say that OEC science is more convencing, at least in some areas.

However, we as humans are so reluctant to accept intelectual dissonance.

And though I am still OEC in that I believe that the bible is silent on the age of the earth and science supports an old earth. By going through the process of re-examining my position I have come away with a greater understanding and a greater respect for my YEC brothers and sisters as well as my TE brothers and sisters.

Because, to be honest, I used to think that OEC was the sane middle ground and YECers were too devoted to tradition and TE were too devoted to science. I have a lot more respect for both position now, though I still disagree with both.


And on a side note (slightly related):
Actually there are some interesting new results on that... no, AiG hasn't proved the sun goes around the earth :wink: but there is evidence that suggests that our solar system could be near the center of the universe (note, 'suggests', not 'proves'!). If you're interested, search on AiG for articles about "quantised redshifts".
That would be intersted, but I do not think that scripture requires this. (Though if this is true it would be interesting, since I do think that humans and therefore earth are at the "center" of God's plan for creation and it would be a fantastic "coincidence" if this were true.)



OK. We've agreed that less hostility in debates on this issue would be a good thing. That is something we can do personally; but do you have any suggestions on how to spread this orientation to others? Especially those more in the 'public spotlight'...

"I like this thread, people are being polite!"
Tim
Three suggestions.

1) Public discussion of the issues like this thread.

2) Lead by example. (also like this thread)

3) Privately address those on our side who are starting to get over the line. Publicly address those on our side who get way out of line. (ie a YECer needs to call down a fellow YECer who gets out of line and vice versa for OEC/TE).

Just my :2cents:

[Sinai]

Jason, Faramir, Tim: Many thanks for some good posts with some excellent points. It is a shame that we have sometimes let issues such as this divide us to the extent it has done--especially if it also hinders our witnessing to a lost world that needs the Savior. When I get too caught up in cosmogony (I confess that I do enjoy studying both God's word and God's works as revealed through science), I sometimes remind myself that the Bible takes only 31 verses to move all the way from God's creation of the universe through the creation of mankind in His image--which is 12 verses less than is used for describing the priestly garments to be worn by Aaron and his sons in Exodus 28.

We sometimes forget that the Bible doesn't give an age other than six periods of time--each identified as a יוֹם (pronounced yom)--plus the period of human history since the time God created a soul for Adam. Although יוֹם is most commonly translated as "day" it can also mean an age, an era or an unspecified period of time.

We also sometimes forget that even a literal reading of the original Hebrew can support either the YEC position that the universe is a few thousand years old (generally YECs claim it to be in the range of 6-58 thousand years) or the OEC position that the universe is billions of years old (i.e., OECs generally agree with modern mainstream science in this area), since the first chapter of Genesis says that God created in six יוֹםs.

Since יוֹם is most commonly translated to mean day, YECs generally think the most logical interpretation is for each יוֹם to mean a period of about 24 hours. Fine. I can see that argument and have no problem with YECs who think the most logical or accurate interpretation for יוֹם is to mean a 24-hour day.

On the other hand, I can also see the OECs' argument (based upon the Bible's failure to close out the seventh day and the language of Psalm 95 and Hebrews 4) that the seventh "day" has extended thousands of years--and I have no problem with OECs who think the most logical or accurate interpretation for יוֹם is to mean an age or unspecified length of time.

For that matter, I can also see and have no problem with the interpretation that each יוֹם should be of approximately 24 hours in length--but should be measured forward in time as it occurred rather than backwards in time looking back toward the time of creation. Because measuring it forward in time as it occurred would mean it would be measured at the speed of outward thrust following the initial creation of the universe (i.e., what scientists generally call the "big bang"), time dilation would cause six consecutive periods of around 24 hours each to total the billions of years (measured looking backwards in time against the creative process) mainstream science says occurred.

My point is that the Bible will support any of those positions. Thus, I think we are doing a terrible disservice to the Lord and the Great Commission He gave us when we allow this issue to become a stumbling block to winning the world for our Lord and Savior. More power to you in your effort to "broker a peace deal."

[{Tim}]

[b]I sometimes remind myself that the Bible takes only 31 verses to move all the way from God's creation of the universe through the creation of mankind in His image--which is 12 verses less than is used for describing the priestly garments to be worn by Aaron and his sons in Exodus 28.I like that! :smile: Evidently the fact of God's creation is less important than His relationship with us.


We sometimes forget that the Bible doesn't give an age other than six periods of time--each identified as a יוֹם (pronounced yom)--plus the period of human history since the time God created a soul for Adam. Although יוֹם is most commonly translated as "day" it can also mean an age, an era or an unspecified period of time.I assume you are aware of the debate over this... it's not just 'yom' by itself that suggests a 24 hour day -- but I don't want to debate that in this thread.



Because measuring it forward in time as it occurred would mean it would be measured at the speed of outward thrust following the initial creation of the universe (i.e., what scientists generally call the "big bang"), time dilation would cause six consecutive periods of around 24 hours each to total the billions of years (measured looking backwards in time against the creative process) mainstream science says occurred.Actually, there are some good technical papers on this, involving relativity and expansion of space (see AiG's TJ archives), since under such conditions, 24 hours on earth will not equate to 24 hours elsewhere.
(However, note that another complaint of YECs regarding 'traditional' old-earth/old-universe science, even if it occurs over 6x24hrs as measured from earth, is that current theory contradicts the order of creation stated in the bible.)


My point is that the Bible will support any of those positions. Thus, I think we are doing a terrible disservice to the Lord and the Great Commission He gave us when we allow this issue to become a stumbling block to winning the world for our Lord and Savior. More power to you in your effort to "broker a peace deal.Amen!


I eventually attempted to study scriputure without any consideration of sceince. Doing this I found serious problems with OEC interpretation. But I also found serious problems with YEC interpritation (and this thread is not the place to get into that). However, I eventually discovered framework interpritation and found it to resolve the problems I had with both of the other views. (Of course I may find problems with it as well as I am fairly new to this position).I would be interested to hear more of this somewhere. Do you have a thread about it?


And finally: Jason, since this is your thread, do you have any comments about this? You've been a bit quiet...


Tim

[Faramir]

I would be interested to hear more of this somewhere. Do you have a thread about it?
By 'this' I assume you mean framework theory. There is an excelent article here on TWeb on that subject. (or at least there was). I will try to find it and edit in a link to it.

Edit to add:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13180

The article is quite good. While I was somewhat familiar with FI before I read this article. The article was the first explanation of FI that sounded plausable to me. Enjoy.

[Socratism]

Don't forget to read the following:

http://capo.org/cpc/pipa.htm

http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/Framework.pdf

[Sinai]

I assume you are aware of the debate over this... it's not just 'yom' by itself that suggests a 24 hour day -- but I don't want to debate that in this thread.
Of course. Both the YECs and the OECs have plenty of additional scriptural support for their respective beliefs. As I said, the Bible will support any of those positions. And that's why I think we are doing a terrible disservice to the Lord and the Great Commission He gave us when we allow this issue to become a stumbling block to winning the world for our Lord and Savior. And that's also why I wish the best to you, Jason and Faramir (and probably Dee Dee, for that matter) in your effort to "broker a peace deal."

[kofh2u]

Of course. Both the YECs and the OECs have plenty of additional scriptural support for their respective beliefs. As I said, the Bible will support any of those positions. And that's why I think we are doing a terrible disservice to the Lord and the Great Commission He gave us when we allow this issue to become a stumbling block to winning the world for our Lord and Savior. And that's also why I wish the best to you, Jason and Faramir (and probably Dee Dee, for that matter) in your effort to "broker a peace deal."


You seem open minded and reflective. Your point makes sense in that each person is both free to read Genesis as suits their individual preference, and hopefully self satisfied with their particular take. Assuming that this personal choice does not inhibit them from reaching further into the Word it is hardly an impediment to their faith.

And, assuming they have the courtesy to democratically refrain from insisting that others view Genesis their way, for argument sake, an analogy with Evolution for other people does no harm.

Neither person is faulting the bible as erroneous, so the secular ridicule present today can be dismissed. Seculars can see the analogy as amazingly close to their science. Fundamentast can content themselves with their own spin.

Each of us will be informed in yime to come, gentlely as possible IAS.

Isa. 42:3 A bruised reed (of doctrine) shall he not break (down), and the smoking flax (of dogma) shall he not quench: (But), he shall bring forth judgment unto truth (when the book of seven seal is opened).

[brett]

I think we need to find some way to get the YEC's/OEC's/ID's to make peace and make common cause against the real enemy.

But this would also require people to stick to fighting battles that can actually be won in the near term.

Perhaps I hope for to much.

But does anybody think this is possible apart from me ?

Jason

Peace sounds great to me! Man I’ve never endured so much abuse before entering into Nat. Science and Cosmogony. :poke: According to some I’m a heretic, stupid, dangerous, a liar, a nose picker, you name it. And when they run out of names they start pointing out my type os (is that how you spell type os?). That’s tough when you’re the world’s worst speller.

I’ll be honest with you though, I think the moderation in these particular forums is very poor. On the soccer field, when the refs are bad, things can get out of control fast. I broke my nose about a year ago in a game because the ref. just refused to blow his whistle. Things just kept escalating on both sides (yes on my part as well) and finally one guy got so out of control I ended up catching his elbow (was an accident, but an avoidable one). After the game was over, both teams chewed out that ref. like he’d probably never heard before. We never saw him again after that. Now wasn't that a fun story?

You see I think there are gracious debaters on both sides of this issue. But there’s also some guys with no self control at all and they’re the ones bringing down the whole forum—not many just a handful. :rant: I personally have reported a few posts, but after no response found myself dish’n it right back. So if you really want to broker a peace maybe you should start by pulling out some yellow and red cards! Maybe you need a new system. :idea: Hey you could even model it after official soccer rules. Right now it’s too much like hockey!

Anyway, I hope I don’t pay a price for being candid like this. :uhoh: One thing I’ve learned is it’s always beneficial to stay on the referee's good side. :innocent:

[jason]

is that how you spell type os?
I always spelt it typo's


I’ll be honest with you though, I think the moderation in these particular forums is very poor.
Really ?


I personally have reported a few posts, but after no response
What sort of a response were you expecting ? All reported posts are looked at and if warranted action is taken, be it an edit and warning or what not.

But posts are only moderated if they are inviolation of forum rules. We could change the rules, but we can't really just make them up as we go along.


Maybe you need a new system. :idea: Hey you could even model it after official soccer rules. Right now it’s too much like hockey!
Suggestions ? Seriously, what did you have in mind. I agree that moderation in science is a problem because of animosity and the like, I hardly ever post in science these days because if the wolf pack that circles there. But short of bannind a bunch of them, what did you have in mind. If they break the forum rules they will get official warning and be placed in moderation etc, but if they stick within the rules there is not much that can be done at the moment.

Jason

[{Tim}]

Thanks for the links Faramir, I will look at them and maybe get back to you. Should I PM you if I want to ask something, or start a thread?

Brett: I can understand what you mean! I am also wary of posting because people who presumably have more knowledge of various disciplines than me (e.g. geology) will tell me that I'm wrong (and sometimes stupid, while they're at it), and I can't refute them about it, even if they are wrong, because I don't know enough about that subject. Not to mention that I don't like dealing with people who are aggressively opposing me - though not everyone does that.
Especially true though with YEC ideas, and that relates to the topic of this thread -- in my experience too many people - including some Christians - are quick to simply dismiss them as 'stupid', 'unscientific', 'ignorant' etc., without explaining *why* they disagree with the ideas (except maybe "everyone knows they're wrong"). Though again, this is clearly not everyone.

I really don't have any ideas what to do about it though... how do you define how far you can go before it's too heated?

Anyway...
Tim

[brett]

Hi Tim.



I can understand what you mean! I am also wary of posting because people who presumably have more knowledge of various disciplines than me (e.g. geology) will tell me that I'm wrong (and sometimes stupid, while they're at it), and I can't refute them about it, even if they are wrong, because I don't know enough about that subject.

The tactic alone should tell you something. I find it more common in the science forum than anywhere else. Instead of a willingness to explain deeper ideas, there’s almost a desire to keep layman in the dark and to simply ask them to trust the majority. This is why I love YEC scientists as they seem willing to break it down for the masses.

But the way I handle such individuals is not to comment in areas that I’m not personally familiar with. Rather, I like to steer the conversation toward my strengths (if you will). For instance, most TEs have no idea how to handle the subject of miracles (Not all mind you. Some, like George for instance, have put quite a bit of thought into it.). The fact is, though, most of them deny that creation was a miracle in the same sense that, say the Resurrection or the changing of water into wine were. To me this is a huge problem. Does the Bible portray the creation of the universe as a miracle or a natural process (in which God merely established the physical laws beforehand)?



Not to mention that I don't like dealing with people who are aggressively opposing me - though not everyone does that.

Personally, I don’t mind aggressive opposition. But I think we have more than that going on here.



Especially true though with YEC ideas, and that relates to the topic of this thread -- in my experience too many people - including some Christians - are quick to simply dismiss them as 'stupid', 'unscientific', 'ignorant' etc., without explaining *why* they disagree with the ideas (except maybe "everyone knows they're wrong"). Though again, this is clearly not everyone.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I really don’t mind it if that’s how they feel, but then they start shouting insults left and right. Again, I don’t understand why the mods let this type of stuff go unchecked. There was a controversy a while back about the term “churchian” used by a YEC. It had everybody up in arms because it was viewed as a personal insult or attack or whatever. Yet I’ve been called far worse and the mods don’t blink an eye. I’ve reported some of these posts with not even so much as a reply. I’ve pretty much given up at this juncture. Again, I’m not broad brushing here. There really is only a handful of troublemakers. But without moderation it only takes a handful.



I really don't have any ideas what to do about it though... how do you define how far you can go before it's too heated?

All you can do is try to keep yourself from becoming heated. Turn it around and have fun with it is one option (but that’s sometimes not a good idea either I’ve found). And never respond angry. Cool down first if you need to. And once you see a thread becoming downgraded to an insult trading match, stop trying to reason. A reasoned debate can only occur between two willing parties. That’s my philosophy anyway.

So I’m speaking out about the moderation again! I really didn’t plan on it, (kinda wanted to let the whole matter die) but Tim’s comments stirred me again. I don’t claim to have the truth cornered on this matter, so by all means, if a mod wants to explain, defend or rebuke, have at it. I could be misinterpreting this whole issue.

[kofh2u]

Peace sounds great to me! Man I’ve never endured so much abuse before entering into Nat. Science and Cosmogony. :poke: According to some I’m a heretic, stupid, dangerous, a liar, a nose picker, you name it. And when they run out of names they start pointing out my type os (is that how you spell type os?). That’s tough when you’re the world’s worst speller.

I’ll be honest with you though, I think the moderation in these particular forums is very poor. On the soccer field, when the refs are bad, things can get out of control fast. I broke my nose about a year ago in a game because the ref. just refused to blow his whistle. Things just kept escalating on both sides (yes on my part as well) and finally one guy got so out of control I ended up catching his elbow (was an accident, but an avoidable one). After the game was over, both teams chewed out that ref. like he’d probably never heard before. We never saw him again after that. Now wasn't that a fun story?

You see I think there are gracious debaters on both sides of this issue. But there’s also some guys with no self control at all and they’re the ones bringing down the whole forum—not many just a handful. :rant: I personally have reported a few posts, but after no response found myself dish’n it right back. So if you really want to broker a peace maybe you should start by pulling out some yellow and red cards! Maybe you need a new system. :idea: Hey you could even model it after official soccer rules. Right now it’s too much like hockey!

Anyway, I hope I don’t pay a price for being candid like this. :uhoh: One thing I’ve learned is it’s always beneficial to stay on the referee's good side. :innocent:


Well, just remind yourself that everyone to whom you speak is wrong to a degree.

The secular community pretends that God and Creationism are ridiculous assumptions. Yet, with all the facts and observations of Science, there is still is no rational First Cause. And, Nilihism, an admission that life, as seen by these cold minded science people, is meaningless and apparently void of purpose.

The one thing these science people do NOT dispute is that Change is the only thing permanent.

In this, they recognize that life forms, including man, must also change. Given enough time, changes can not avoid the sum of a new creature in this God who is external to our the skull of trapped minds.

1Cor. 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump (the final moment of the second coming): for the trumpet (of awakened Unconscious Mind) shall sound (in our thoughts), and the dead (Collective Unconscious Minds) shall be raised incorruptible (unperverted in clarity and memory), and we shall be changed (into Homoiousian beings).

[learning]

Hi, here is a link that I thought was lost, but I found it again. It is called 'Young and Old Earth Creationists, can we even talk together?' and it has wonderful points of view to do with both sides of this issue. I really found the information to do with the African cultural point of view (in that the Africans said that when they made up their kings lists, they found their illiterate people couldn't remember the names of kings after a certain number - i think 17 - and so would only put the important kings in a drop the less important. They wondered why the Hebrews had a different number for that, say 14, in like Matthew). It helps one look at the scriptures in a different cultural view, which helps us perhaps realize that maybe our 'counting' of generations could be off a bit.

www.sonlight.com/young_or_old_earth.html

[{Tim}]

Hi learning! Just a quick response: I've heard something about that before, and I think it's valid; for example Matthew left out some names so that the total would be a symbolic number (and also the word translated as 'father' can mean 'ancestor'). Homever it is more difficult when dealing with Genesis because there we have specific ages, i.e. "X became the father (ancestor) of Y when he was Z years old". This makes it a lot harder to support extra time (though extra generations are possible, within the same timespan).

Also, I'm not sure of the details here, but didn't the jewish people have a long scribal tradition (or the oral equivalent?) - something about memorising large portions of scripture very accurately? So I'm not quite sure about 'needing to make it shorter so people can remember it'. I think maybe tektonics has articles on this? (I'm pretty sure it's not the case in the NT at any rate, though as I said, Matthew omitted names for other reasons).

Also I found AiG's response to the article you referenced: here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0322holzmann.asp).

- Tim

[kofh2u]

Hi learning! Just a quick response: I've heard something about that before, and I think it's valid; for example Matthew left out some names so that the total would be a symbolic number (and also the word translated as 'father' can mean 'ancestor'). Homever it is more difficult when dealing with Genesis because there we have specific ages, i.e. "X became the father (ancestor) of Y when he was Z years old". This makes it a lot harder to support extra time (though extra generations are possible, within the same timespan).

Also, I'm not sure of the details here, but didn't the jewish people have a long scribal tradition (or the oral equivalent?) - something about memorising large portions of scripture very accurately? So I'm not quite sure about 'needing to make it shorter so people can remember it'. I think maybe tektonics has articles on this? (I'm pretty sure it's not the case in the NT at any rate, though as I said, Matthew omitted names for other reasons).

Also I found AiG's response to the article you referenced: here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0322holzmann.asp).

- Tim


"...didn't the jewish people have a long scribal tradition (or the oral equivalent?) - something about memorising large portions of scripture very accurately?"

ABSOSUTELY.

This was the duty of the Kohanim. The reason for both Matthew and Luke genealogies is that they deminstrate the method of tge Kohanim, which had to do with a mnemonic system tied to the anatomy of their hands. The digits on their fingers, the bones of the metacarpal, the sets of numbered groups available on these bones were used in association memory with the names.

Matthew 1:1-19 is really 6 sets of seven names. Plus, it contains a dramatic element related to the presentation which leads into the story told in Matthew 2.

Notice that in Luke, the genealogy was obviously different. It was told by Luke who was not privy to the direct instruction of the master, director, Jesus. It contains "non-sense" names not confirmable as recognized descendents... names used more for illustration of the met od of the resurrected Kohanim, the original temple priest, the heirs of Aaron.

The bracketed additions at first might seem a stretch. However, if the "keys" are really, as suggested, a memory association technique, then the ancient language fits the "adjectival phrases in those brackets quite well. The hypothesis, that the anatomy of the Kohanim hands are the "keys" is followed by the empirical application of that hypothesis to Matt. 16:19. This is sort of an empirical step into an Oscam's Razor proof that I am correct.

Matt. 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven, (the Hand Blessing): and whatsoever (as scripture) thou shalt bind (encoded upon the hand, physically), on earth, shall be bound in heaven, (or the realm of mind): and whatsoever (as scripture) thou shalt loose (or unlock) on earth, (physically, by association with the hand mnemonics) shall be loosed in heaven (of your memory).

But, as regards this manner of proof, Matt. 16:19 is child's play. The whole Book of Genesis bears testimony to me, here. As does the mystery of the Book of Ezekiel.

[Jorge]

Black = Faramir : Why can't we just agree to disagree, and remember that we are united in Christ.

Blue = Jorge : We can do that in minor issues and as long as we basically keep to ourselves. Problem is this: this is NOT a 'minor issue' -- fact is, it's a very major issue. Furthermore, with existing technology it is today possible to spread a lot of bad teachings/doctrine to millions in a microsecond. This is serious stuff.

Why is it that we have this us v. them mentality? With Christian attacking other Christian's along side atheist? Or Chiristian's questioning the salvation of other Christian's because they happen to interpret the Bible and science differently?

Some unfortunately do that but I don't. I certainly wouldn't "attack" those in Christ. It is, however, possible to be perceived as attacking when no such thing is being done.

This is a non salvation issue!!!!!!!

I often hear that (and with an equal number of exclamation points). However, reality isn't so simple. A non-salvation issue may nontheless plant doubt and most people (Christian and non-Christian alike) often wilt under social pressures. It is certainly true that many a believer has had reason to question his/her faith because of conflicts created by this 'non-salvation issue'. And what about those 'on the fence'? If the authority & reliability of God's Word is questioned by Christians themselves, what clear message does that send to these people? Hence, again we come to the fact that it is an issue of major significance.

Why can't this:
Athiest: You YEC'ers are so dumb!!!

Non YEC Christian: Yes you are, you YECer your.

YECer: You Non YEC Christian are a dirty compromiser.

Be this:

Athiest: You YEC'ers are so dumb!!!!

Non YEC Christian: I agree with Atheist on scientific matters, but the beauty of Christianity is that we can have disagreements over minor issues, but still be united in Christ.

On purely scientific matters we can certainly all agree (Buddhists, Atheist, Hindus, Islams, YEC Christians, Non-YEC Christians, etc.). Problem is there's LOTS of "science", falsely so called, out there and when we disagree with that then we're labeled as "anti-science, ignorant, fanatics, etc.'.

YECer: Well, while I disagree with both Atheist and non-YEC Christian, it is not necessary to believe in a young earth to be saved.

Correct, it is NOT necessary to believe in a young earth to be saved - I agree. However - and this is the difficult part - is the Word of God being displaced in order to accomodate the edicts of materialistic science? We YEC's believe that this is often the case and therein lies the root of our struggles against non-YEC Christians. The bottom line is this : it is a very difficult subject which should be demanding a great deal of our attention and is certainly not going to be resolved soon. I will ask this: How many Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, New Agers or even agnostics belong to the young Earth club? How many Christians belong to the old Earth club? Who is intermingling with who? [Just something to think about - it doesn't resolve anything.]


Now I realize that this is overly simplistic and am not suggesting that every post be a gushing love fest. But I think the atitude of unity needs to be shown to our fellow Christians regardless of our cosmological position.

Agreed - we can, and should, retain the love for Christ and of Christ while we settle our differences. Mind you (this has happened to me a lot), one may have love and yet still be "hard". Christ loved Peter and the other disciples and yet very harshly reprimanded/corrected them on more than one occasion.

What does scripture say?

The will know we are Jesus' disciples because we:

A. Have great scientific knowledge
B. Take the first 11 chapters of Genesis literally
C. Love one another

(Hint, it is not A or B)

(Hint, it is not love one another, only if they agree with us on non-salvation issues)

What kind of message are we sending to the skeptics here if we treat each other with animosity? Are we any different than the world?

Is it OK to disagree? Sure. This is a debate forum. But why can't we disagree on non-essentials in a spirit of unity?

Mostly agree on everything except on the correction that I made regarding the "non-essential" aspect.
Repeating, just because something is non-essential does not mean that it isn't extremely dangerous and may even become a powerful hindrance to salvation. This, if you didn't know, is the number one reason why we YECs feel as strongly about this as we do. Most non-YEC Christians simply shrug it off as "unimportant/non-essential". That attitude, we believe, is a mistake that plays right into the hands of the opposition.

Just my :2cents:

And mine, too.

Jorge