Stones for Bread, Snakes for Fish

[Mountain Man]

There's nothing like lowering one's standards....

Which you misapply to the current situation, MM, being that you and others in this discussion do NOT live within those kinds of cultures (h/s).

And I suppose you have a compelling reason why we shouldn't apply their standards to ours? Frankly, I look at the long list of atheists and skeptics -- including Pai -- who have been turned into a laughing stock around here, and I can't think of any reason why using ridicule to strip one's opponents of honor is not appropriate.

[FlimFlamboyant]

...I've seen many more who persist in their faith only because they refuse to accept the validity of scientific discoveries.

Do you think it's fair to call that "faith"?

[Mountain Man]

Sam, thank you for staying on topic. MM and the name callers have strayed off topic, perhaps intentionally.

Nope, I've been on-topic with you the whole time. Fact is, you can't answer any of my questions.

I'm actually on Christianity's side here.

Sure you are.

Ham and Comfort are unconsciously keeping it from growing.

Yep, there's another one of your unsupported assertions. Let me guess: it'd be "off-topic" if I asked you to support this claim with data, m i rite?

[FlimFlamboyant]

I'm actually on Christianity's side here.

Oh really? When was the last time you told someone about the good news concerning Christ's death for their sins, and his resurrection? That's Christianity. That's our commission; the very thing we've been left on this rock to promote. Statements like this lead me to believe that you don't understand that; and likely never did. It further explains your continued, and very narrow focus on an issue that just doesn't matter to us who understand the central doctrines of Christianity. We believe them to be central, not because we uncovered them with a microscope, or saw them through a telescope, but because we read God's own words and believed them to be true.

I'm simply asking why they, and others like them, don't grow a pair on this issue and come back SWINGING when Sproul, for instance, says they are playing "hermeneutical gymnastics" with Genesis 1 and 2.

Probably because their skin isn't so thin as to be transparent?

The end result is more respect for Christianity and less "fencesitters" choosing atheism because they've been told evolution is evil. That makes sense, right?

From where you're looking at it, yes, it does make sense. From my perspective, however, no. The choice between atheism, and true, faith (trust)-based Christianity is not simply the result of examining data, formulating a theory, and thereby making a decision, as if we were nothing more than fancy biological calculators.

I asked you this question earlier, and you avoided the important part:

"Let's pretend that you do end up persuading us all. You'd then be left with a bunch of people who believe the Earth is super old, and that a guy died for our sins and rose from the dead 2000 years ago. Now what? "

Forget the geochronology bit, because that was just a literary device. Let's assume that we all do as you say, and that we end up "winning more respect for Christianity". Would you then have any more respect for the idea that a Jewish carpenter died for our sins and arose from the dead?

[Ansgar Seraph]

Sam, thank you for staying on topic. MM and the name callers have strayed off topic, perhaps intentionally.

Correct me if I'm wrong. If evolution is entirely compatible with Christianity--as D'Souza and Craig and, more importantly, TD say--then something is missing in Christian apologetics. And I think "fencesitters," as TD calls them, are savvy enough to percieve that. After all, the concessions for TE are being made BECAUSE OF THE STRONG EVIDENCE. Strobel and Sproul would argue the concessions are being made because of compromise, or worse, the evil impulse of unbelief. That makes me mad. It makes me angry on behalf of the Craigs and D'Souzas who relented because they found the natural history record to be, well, accurate.

I'm actually on Christianity's side here. Ham and Comfort are unconsciously keeping it from growing. Whatever converts they win are sold a bill of goods about saddled triceratops. Whatever converts Strobel wins are left with the impression evolution is "atheistic." Strobel then becomes bedfellows with Dawkins without even realizing it. This bears repeating: EVOLUTION IS GOD'S ENGINE OF CREATION. To say that is "evil" is to slap The Creator across the face. It's simply another form of blasphemy.

How is calling God's method of creation "evil" not blasphemous?

In sum, what we have is Christians like Craig and D'Souza who say there is no conflict. Their concession has been made because of the preponderance of the evidence. I'm simply asking why they, and others like them, don't grow a pair on this issue and come back SWINGING when Sproul, for instance, says they are playing "hermeneutical gymnastics" with Genesis 1 and 2. And that's one of the mildest charges levelled against them!
Where is the courage of their supposed convictions?

In no way does this mean they must break fellowship with their brethren. It simply means they must be honest about the epistemology that resulted in these extraordinary revelations. The end result is more respect for Christianity and less "fencesitters" choosing atheism because they've been told evolution is evil. That makes sense, right?

There is nothing at all radical about what I've proposed. I'm certainly not saying people should "hate Christianity." Where MM and TD get that I have no idea, because I've said nothing of the sort in this thread.

I like Christians like Sam and Vivian very much because they show restraint. The adrenal gland can be very excitable, as MM, LPOT, and TD have shown. ANYONE can tack "moron" at the end of a sentence. It's just not persuasive at all.

From my perspective, it's a matter of "first loves" or priorities. I agree whole-heartedly that the issue ought to be dealt with gently but sternly in the public discourse of the Body. There are two reasons why I'm ambivalent, however: foremost, the effort to bring people closer to Christ is more important than scientific accuracy. There certainly should not exist deception or willing ignorance among these apologists but I think that we can, until we know better, graciously attribute their dismal scientific accuracy to their different perspective. If they accept inerrancy/infallibility as a baseline for their epistemology, then the scientific nonsense becomes understandable . . . a version of Morton's Demon (and we all have that demon working for some aspect of our epistemology). Raising a whirlwind, purging the ranks of the unscientific, may do more harm than good.

People like Ham, though, who gleefully print falsehood after falsehood unrepentantly need to be stopped, I will grant unequivocally.

Second, as I mentioned awhile ago, it's an effort of herding cats. We have a dozen or so "popular" apologists today. If every one of them went to proper science classes and came out espousing good science (though, we will still allow that it's not likely to be exactly the same affirmation of the same principles), there would be a half dozen more espousing the same bad arguments within a month.

I think these gentlemen's misunderstandings and mischaracterizations need to be dealt with, both privately and publicly. I'm not sure how that would best happen, however. The best thing to happen might be that more Christians expose themselves to deep study of the sciences, as lil' Pixie suggests.

It definitely makes sense that Christians ought not to perpetuate bad science to save religious face. That is a problem, like you note. It will undoubtedly be a perennial problem, due both to certain Christian sects and others who make a false dichotomy between Religion and Science.

I hope you'll forgive a little more off-topic discussion with Mountain Man; I think we might as well have this out a little bit; it's another big problem for the Church

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

Do you think it's fair to call that "faith"?

True — and I certainly don't try to force proper science on such folk; I explain why it's accurate, how it can fit in a Christian paradigm and leave it at such.

But what a tenuous faith! The weight of the evidence can't be resisted for long without one either being crushed or turning a blind eye on a truth which, though it's relatively insignificant in the broad context, is a truth nonetheless. I think that it puts an unnecessary stress on faith.

—Sam

[FlimFlamboyant]

True — and I certainly don't try to force proper science on such folk; I explain why it's accurate, how it can fit in a Christian paradigm and leave it at such.

But what a tenuous faith! The weight of the evidence can't be resisted for long without one either being crushed or turning a blind eye on a truth which, though it's relatively insignificant in the broad context, is a truth nonetheless. I think that it puts an unnecessary stress on faith.

—Sam

Well, here's my point. Pai is very, very hung up on the idea that people will "lose their faith" when they discover that their scientific outlook doesn't hold any water. What I contend is that a "faith" which hinges upon the sciences really isn't faith at all. This includes not only those who bend the Bible to fit their scientific dogma, but also those who bend their scientific dogma to fit what they believe the Bible to be saying. I think it's needless. Sure, I have my opinions, and I discuss them from time to time, but my faith isn't founded on such things, nor should it be.

If Pai is truly "concerned" about this, he would be better off focusing on the real problem.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Which is exactly my point. Swapping anecdotes is not going to move the debate forward or validate Pigeon Pai's allegations. What we need is hard data showing that his claims have merit.

No we don't; pull the popular apologetics books off the shelves and leaf through them. I've got four here on my shelf; three of them completely mischaracterize evolutionary theory in some vital way and wrongly promote Intelligent Design as more scientific. You've got the majority of Americans believing in the biblical Creation account as historical fact.

What "hard data" should the atheist ask for when one of us alleges that God created the world or that He strikes the wicked down from their high places?

The videos that Pai has linked to demonstrate some of the most popular apologists saying that evolution is not compatible with Christianity. They are the most popular, of course, because the majority of the culture's populous agrees with them.

Yes, I am putting blame on the "victim". You make it sound like people in American churches are somehow brainwashed and incapable of thinking rationally. Oh, and I'd also like to see the data to support your claim that churches teach people "a large set of untruths". Like Nut Pai, you're greatly overstating whatever problem might exist.

Not from my experience. I've yet to see a denomination where the bulk of people were anything but creationist/ID proponents. You'll find small groups around the nation still using "The Case For Faith" as a study book — and I haven't heard anyone publicly complain about Objection #3. Down in Dallas, visiting friends, I saw huge mega-churches which all but put the rubber stamp on creationism. My college experience was one of the saddest experiences in this regard: 300 feet away from our science building, they taught a Christian Apologetics class where the textbooks included "Refuting Evolution", volumes 1 and 2. I don't think I'm overstating anything.

Except that stripping people of public honor is a very important rhetorical tool.

For whom? And is there only one way to strip honor from someone? Need they be slapped when a gentle wit will suffice?

I don't think people who whip out the phrase "pull out of your stink-hole . . . and I don't mean your mouth" or "You haven't answered squat, little man," should be the ones determining the proper vehicles of honor and shame.

I'm sorry, and when did Caesar publicly challenge Jesus?

You justified Christ's behavior because it extended to the Father. Caesar tried to have his statue placed in the Temple as a god during Christ's lifetime. If that's not a public challenge, I don't know what is.

"Get behind me, satan!" (Matthew 16:23, Mark 8:33)

1. Peter can easily be considered a "religious leader"

2. Calling Peter "adversary" and immediately explaining it in the context of being a stumbling block is still far-removed from Christ's treatment of the Pharisees and your treatment of Pai here.

That's because you know nothing about honor/shame cultures and agonistic discourse.

Ah, of course. It's because I'm ignorant.

Or maybe it's because I extend respectful discourse even to places where I have relative anonymity.

—Sam

[Mountain Man]

If Pai is truly "concerned" about this, he would be better off focusing on the real problem.

Pai's strange obsession reminds me of an exchange between Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes:

A Study in Scarlet

His ignorance was as remarkable as his knowledge. Of contemporary literature, philosophy and politics he appeared to know next to nothing. Upon my quoting Thomas Carlyle, he inquired in the naivest way who he might be and what he had done. My surprise reached a climax, however, when I found incidentally that he was ignorant of the Copernican Theory and of the composition of the Solar System. That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to me to be such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.

"You appear to be astonished," he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. "Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it."

"To forget it!"

"You see," he explained, "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. A fool takes in all the lumber of every sort that he comes across, so that the knowledge which might be useful to him gets crowded out, or at best is jumbled up with a lot of other things, so that he has a difficulty in laying his hands upon it. Now the skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is a mistake to think that that little room has elastic walls and can distend to any extent. Depend upon it there comes a time when for every addition of knowledge you forget something that you knew before. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones."

"But the Solar System!" I protested.

"What the deuce is it to me?" he interrupted impatiently: "you say that we go round the sun. If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work."

© source where applicable

The reason he doesn't see Christians biting each other's heads off over this issue is because we recognize what's really important: "In the beginning, God..."

[Ansgar Seraph]

Well, here's my point. Pai is very, very hung up on the idea that people will "lose their faith" when they discover that their scientific outlook doesn't hold any water. What I contend is that a "faith" which hinges upon the sciences really isn't faith at all. This includes not only those who bend the Bible to fit their scientific dogma, but also those who bend their scientific dogma to fit what they believe the Bible to be saying. I think it's needless. Sure, I have my opinions, and I discuss them from time to time, but my faith isn't founded on such things, nor should it be.

If Pai is truly "concerned" about this, he would be better off focusing on the real problem.

I understand that and I agree that faith should not be hinged upon the sciences. What I've seen happen, and I believe that Kabane mentioned a similar situation in his NatSci thread earlier this month, is that a lot of people right say "I was lied to." When teaching falsehoods, either through negligence or deception, there are going to be a set of people who, upon learning the scientific truth, look back at the false teachings and apply that truth value to everything connected with it.

In my experience, it's often come around as "If Genesis isn't true, why should I believe the Gospels are true?" I have heard this line from a large number of Christians and the implication doesn't change once someone decides that Genesis is scientifically or historically false.

We ought to largely separate scientific inquiry from religious inquiry, I agree — Augustine taught as much, as did Aquinas. But cultivating people to believe a series of falsehoods and then pulling the rug out from under them is a problem we have to deal with. I would say that Faith is adhering to Reason, even in the moment of doubt — but what can be done when the person hasn't been given the right tools for reason to begin with?

—Sam

[Mountain Man]

What "hard data" should the atheist ask for when one of us alleges that God created the world or that He strikes the wicked down from their high places?

The hard data I'm asking for is proof that some Christian's approach to science is stunting Christianity's growth and creating an alarming number of apostates. I've seen not so much as a single piece of evidence to back this up.

Not from my experience. I've yet to see a denomination where the bulk of people were anything but creationist/ID proponents. You'll find small groups around the nation still using "The Case For Faith" as a study book — and I haven't heard anyone publicly complain about Objection #3. Down in Dallas, visiting friends, I saw huge mega-churches which all but put the rubber stamp on creationism. My college experience was one of the saddest experiences in this regard: 300 feet away from our science building, they taught a Christian Apologetics class where the textbooks included "Refuting Evolution", volumes 1 and 2. I don't think I'm overstating anything.

That these things are taught by some I do not dispute. That they're causing grievous and widespread harm to the church is the point I'm contesting.

I also have to question Pai's motivation here. He obviously doesn't believe that Christianity is true, so what does it matter to him what the "church" believes? If he somehow managed to convince every believer in America to become a theistic evolutionist, then what? He'd still be a nutball apostate who was too stupid to stay Christian.

...is there only one way to strip honor from someone?

Probably not, but some ways are certainly more immediate and effective than others.

Need they be slapped when a gentle wit will suffice?

What exactly is "gentle wit"?

I don't think people who whip out the phrase "pull out of your stink-hole . . . and I don't mean your mouth" or "You haven't answered squat, little man," should be the ones determining the proper vehicles of honor and shame.

To be frank, I really don't care what you think.

You justified Christ's behavior because it extended to the Father. Caesar tried to have his statue placed in the Temple as a god during Christ's lifetime. If that's not a public challenge, I don't know what is.

Let's say you're correct and that Jesus had every right to march into Rome and ridicule Caesar to his face. What do you suppose that would have accomplished other than a swift execution?

1. Peter can easily be considered a "religious leader"

Not at the time he couldn't -- seriously, who was he leading? -- and most certainly not on par with the pharisees. But nice of you to jump through a few hoops for my amusement.

2. Calling Peter "adversary" and immediately explaining it in the context of being a stumbling block is still far-removed from Christ's treatment of the Pharisees and your treatment of Pai here.

So being sharply rebuked and identified as satan is "far-removed" from the pharisees being sharply rebuked and identified as a brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs? You're gonna have to explain that one.

maybe it's because I extend respectful discourse even to places where I have relative anonymity.

I can be and am respectful when the situation warrants. Confronting an apostate who is attempting to sow division within Christianity over a petty issue is not one of those situations.

[TheologicalDisc]

Using Christ's behavior towards the Pharisees is an exercise in circularity; it is incumbent on you to demonstrate how Pai's behavior is like that of the Pharisees for you to justify your behavior as Christ-like. You also conflate the two examples you cite; you say that you speak of "ignorance" only in the way Christ spoke of Samaritans as "dogs" but you also justify your sarcasm because Christ was sarcastic towards the Pharisees. To whom are you speaking, the woman or the Pharisee?

Because Pai's nonsense has the potential to lead people further from the faith, just like the Pharisees nonsense had the potential and did in fact lead people from teh faith. The Pharisees were non believers to. To answer your questions, it is both, I was using an example of both.

It doesn't matter anyhow; objective people can see the difference between Christ's actions and your comments on the thread.

Oh, speaking for the objective person now huh? I can do that too.

It doesn't matter anyhow; objective people can see the similarities between Christ's actions and my comments on the thread.

And how is Pai acting like a Pharisee on this thread? As for the secular powers, you've got Christ, eventually crucified as a political insurgent, who lives during a time period where Caesar is trying to set his image in the Temple and Pilate is murdering Jews who protest his use of Temple funds. You've got tax collectors with license from Rome to steal from people. Christ was given ample opportunity to use His harshest language for these demons and apostates . . . can you find such language used against them in the Gospels?

I don't need to find 'such language' used against them in the Gospels, because Christ never encountered Caesar like He encountered the Pharisees nor Pilate. What part of 'Christ didn't encounter 'secular' Pharisees do you not understand? in fact, the simple discourse Christ had with Pilate shows Pilate was already different from the Pharisees on the basis that Pilate actually possessed logical thought and came to the conclusion that Christ was innocent, and that Pilate showed an open heart and willingness to believe, He listened, which was also a far cry away from the Pharisees and a far cry away from Pai.

So take Pilate and Caesar, both of whom expressly sought to place a pagan god in the middle of God's Temple. If that's not worse than what any atheist has sought to do on this board, I don't know what is. What scathing language akin to the Pharisees does Christ have for Pilate and Caesar?

Since Christ never once encountered Ceaser that point is moot and since Christs encounter with Pilate was completely different than the Pharisees that is also a moot point, not to mention Pilate and Caesar wanted to put a pagan god in the middle of Gods temple does not = the secular version of the Pharisees.

Well, one of those cases is in this thread, in the first sentence of your first response. You owe Pai an apology for it.

mockery and sarcasm?

I've never once said that being nice in a worldly sense is all that matters. I've explicitly said that what truly matters is living for others, being charitable, becoming selfless.

I think you're confusing charitability, selflessness and living with others with being nice in the wordly sense.

And I'll maintain that is the sacrifice God desires from His children and that it is truly one of the most difficult things to consistently practice. I don't believe that a propositional affirmation in Christianity is necessary for all people to attain Heaven, since a great many never hear the Gospel and many more have factors outside their control that virtually prohibit such propositional affirmation.

Whoopsie, sin gets you to hell not unbelief. Progressive revelation doesn't seem to apply here at least not to people like pai.

I suggest that all people are ministered to by Christ, in Reality as it truly exists.

No problems here.

Sometimes, this might happen after their physical bodies have died. Some choose Christ and some choose Themselves (what little remains of them) If you don't buy that, I'm not forcing it on you.

Got anything biblical to back this up?

You will find it espoused by men like Lewis in "The Great Divorce" and something similar by MacDonald, as well as it being a well-developed position that a good number of modern theologians hold.

Yes, it is stuff like that that is the biggest problem for the 'Church' and peoples eternal salvation. I don't mind retracting the statement if you can find something biblical to support that assertion.

And yes, given the chance, I'll work towards being everybody's friend . . . "being at peace with all men" as much as possible, if you will.

This seems to override yoursense.

I was referring to your insinuation that I'm one of the Pharisees. And, yes, I still maintain that your conclusion is really an assumption in that thread; the examples don't follow unless one assumes the conclusion.

You sure were acting like one and I see you still want to continue.

If you'll remember, I had to swallow pride and apologize to you on that thread for being rude. I don't think I need to bother with your charges of hubris.

I have no problem at all with that, nor do I have a problem with people treating me how I treat others.

Love for the lurker overrides a merciful approach to Pai's person? That is straight-up analogous to a method Screwtape suggests Wormwood uses in Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters".

oh no, love for the lurker does not override a merciful approach to Pai. I've approached Pai mercifully before but when someone simply ignores what you say, refuses to answer questions, etc. etc. it becomes about the people that might read what Pai has to say now, as Pai has simply shuttered his mind closed. I still care about Pai, otherwise I would just let him be ignorant.

Pai has a valid point and it's something I have personally witnessed more than once. I'm aware of many more instances of the situation, in addition.

Not a valid point in the slightest, at least not for Christianity on the basis that everything that people argue about is compatible with Christianity which means that Christians should not be arguing about it and it shouldn't keep unbelivers away from it.

If you're suggesting that my agreement with him on what I consider to be a valid criticism should be checked because it might lead to more "problems" in the Body, that's exactly the "fraternal loyalty" that Pai is talking about and it's a terrible problem.

—Sam

No, I am suggesting that if you follow pais ridiculous logic which you seem to be doing, you should come to the conclusion that the things pai and other non believers like him say is a problem and you should address it and not stand idly by and let it continue.

[Pai Geacademe]

Oh really? When was the last time you told someone about the good news concerning Christ's death for their sins, and his resurrection?

Yes! And the interesting bit is that those I "helped" convert later peaked under the hood of reality. That's the danger of tying teleology to the atonement. The approach I used is precisely the approach of Strobel and Ham: tell the unbeliever that evolution is inherently atheistic and promote the idea of a literal or quasi-literal Genesis. Once they see the data, Christianity's epistemelogical credibility--which I represented-- went out the window. The insidiousness of this is very easy to understand. You're just being obstinate here.

That style of evangelism is currently happening to millions. Teleology-based apologetics is very popular and its only opposition seems to be coming from skeptics. That's the church's fault and it must change. I'm simply proposing that change must come from within Christian academic ranks. Mature belief is more important than a semblance of brotherhood.

Your misunderstanding is rooted in an absolutism that doesn't come close to reflecting the human heart and complexities of cognition. The heart and mind are key components of belief. Jesus would be silly to expect me to leapfrog over the baggage of 15 years of cultism, a lost job, and recently deceased daughter, and start evangelizing as you propose. That wouldn't even look genuine, fer criminy! It'd appear rote and rehearsed. No, Jesus, if he is indeed my owner, takes the heart and mind into account. He knows that I'm simply calling for more integrity in the church and the way they deliver the message. Perhaps this is a way of "working my way back into it," as it were.

Try to understand this: you're just a human being who doesn't know me in the slightest, and I'm already thoroughly convinced you're dead wrong about certain established facts about the earth's history. That makes your opinions of my supposed "intentions" quite puny. Understand that, and you're well on your way to becoming a more effective proselyte, Flim. =)

"Let's pretend that you do end up persuading us all. You'd then be left with a bunch of people who believe the Earth is super old, and that a guy died for our sins and rose from the dead 2000 years ago. Now what? "

Forget the geochronology bit, because that was just a literary device. Let's assume that we all do as you say, and that we end up "winning more respect for Christianity". Would you then have any more respect for the idea that a Jewish carpenter died for our sins and arose from the dead?

YES. Once you start to understand that considerarion of the TOTALITY of reality is essential to intellectually process metaphysical truths, you're close to being a spectacular witness. Your replies to me thus far have all the intellectual rigor of a Jack Chick tract. The era of Jack Chick is OVER, Flim. Deal with it.

[CodewordConduit]

Christ called people names to their faces, knowing full well that he could risk a beating if he rubbed someone up the wrong way. He didn't write anonymous letters to the Pharisees calling them a "brood of vipers" and then proclaim to all and sundry that he totally "pwned teh fundyjews".

The only person on here that I can imagine actually calling people idiots to their faces, even if the person they were insulting • Edited by a Moderator • is Theo. Beacause he just might be mad enough

ETA: I've been whacked in the face a few times for being too sarcastic to the wrong people. (This might make a few people smile - go for it!) I'm the same online as I am in general society.

Moderated By: themuzicman

Please do not use profanity

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Ansgar Seraph]

The hard data I'm asking for is proof that some Christian's approach to science is stunting Christianity's growth and creating an alarming number of apostates. I've seen not so much as a single piece of evidence to back this up.

And no amount of anecdotal evidence will suffice. Welcome to the world of the empiricist, where if it's not able to be quantified as "hard data", it's not meritorious. You are asking for hard data in the same spirit that others ask for for hard data about God's existence or nature.

That these things are taught by some I do not dispute. That they're causing grievous and widespread harm to the church is the point I'm contesting.

Popular apologists. Teaching falsehoods. Repeatedly. All of that equates to the majority of people taking falsehoods for truth, which you can see from Pew polls, if you want statistics.

I also have to question Pai's motivation here. He obviously doesn't believe that Christianity is true, so what does it matter to him what the "church" believes? If he somehow managed to convince every believer in America to become a theistic evolutionist, then what? He'd still be a nutball apostate who was too stupid to stay Christian.

"Too stupid", eh? Maybe, perhaps maybe, if the Church routinely stood for Truth in all it's forms, folks like Pai would see a strength, a resilience that was irresistibly tempting. Christ did not turn the hearts of men towards Himself because He spoke true propositions; He turned men's hearts because He acted like Christ.

Probably not, but some ways are certainly more immediate and effective than others.

What exactly is "gentle wit"?

You've surely been in situations where you've said something dumb and the pastor has smiled a little and quietly turned the tables. You can see it in Scripture, when Christ, without name-calling, calls into question underlying assumptions. If you want the best examples of it, you can find it all over Shakespeare's comedies.

Let's say you're correct and that Jesus had every right to march into Rome and ridicule Caesar to his face. What do you suppose that would have accomplished other than a swift execution?

Sort of like the consequence that arose from His verbal assaults on the Pharisees? Unless you are arguing that it's okay for you to abuse Pai because it's safe, you have to deal with the fact that Christ saved up His barrages for the religious leaders.

Not at the time he couldn't -- seriously, who was he leading? -- and most certainly not on par with the pharisees. But nice of you to jump through a few hoops for my amusement.

Being "first among equals" in a group that counted in the hundreds of disciples and thousands of loose followers counts for nothing? There was no authority given to the apostles? Or do you imagine that Christ's politic only arose after His death?

So being sharply rebuked and identified as satan is "far-removed" from the pharisees being sharply rebuked and identified as a brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs? You're gonna have to explain that one.

You're generalizing to win the point. Compare that single passage to the numerous passages where Christ assails the Pharisees and you'll see a stark difference in tone and context. Heck, just look at Matthew 23 if you're short on time. And mark the "marks of a Pharisee" and see if Pai fits the bill.

I can be and am respectful when the situation warrants. Confronting an apostate who is attempting to sow division within Christianity over a petty issue is not one of those situations.

And if I or another Christian brought up the same point? Kabane's thread, dealing with this very topic, is still over in NatSci — let's see you accuse him of being a "little man". You're treating Pai differently because he's not a Christian and that's so incredibly backwards from Christ's ethic.

I've said my piece and do not intend to carry this further with you or TD. Defending such behavior through morbid scriptural twists is disgusting to me.

—Sam