For everyone, but especially for Theistic Evolutionists

[rogue06]

**********************************************

I'm fairly certain that if you ask nicely, PixieTerror will make room for you on the back of her broomstick.

Jorge

Just wondering if you know have this urge to burn lpot at the stake like you do the others like Eugenie Scott who you imply are (or out-and-out call) witches?

[rogue06]

Looks like I got you there rogue or am I not the first one that has been said to be a 'witch'?

Get back to me when he lists you as someone he'd like to see tarred and feathered

[Ansgar Seraph]

Guess it's an honor than.

One that it looks like you have to share with technomage but an honor nonetheless, eh?

[lilpixieofterror]

Just wondering if you know have this urge to burn lpot at the stake like you do the others like Eugenie Scott who you imply are (or out-and-out call) witches?

Perhaps he'll next say that I turned him into a Newt!

[lilpixieofterror]

One that it looks like you have to share with technomage but an honor nonetheless, eh?

Oh well... I'll get my own... someday...

[lilpixieofterror]

Get back to me when he lists you as someone he'd like to see tarred and feathered

I've already got that one and I managed to make the list of 'militant theistic evolutionist', but I haven't beat you or Jim on the list.

[rogue06]

Perhaps he'll next say that I turned him into a Newt!

dmrdc5-5x3a9etgywh1ne11t18f_original.jpg
But I got better

[Catholicity]

I've already got that one and I managed to make the list of 'militant theistic evolutionist', but I haven't beat you or Jim on the last.

Can anyone top Jim on the list of Jorge's most despised?

[lilpixieofterror]

dmrdc5-5x3a9etgywh1ne11t18f_original.jpg
But I got better

Glad to see you recovered. Who would want to be doomed to politics, for the rest of their life? I would think I would rather be turned into a small lizard then that…

[lilpixieofterror]

Can anyone top Jim on the list of Jorge's most despised?

Rogue has tried and hasn't made it. I am already third on the list though, so I'm making progress.

[Tiggy]

Can anyone top Jim on the list of Jorge's most despised?

Man, what does a guy have to do to get some love around here?

[rogue06]

Rogue has tried and hasn't made it. I am already third on the list though, so I'm making progress.

Pshaw. I've topped Jorge's list upon occasion but can never hold onto that honor for very long. I guess I'm just too darn lovable. Yeah, it's a curse I tell you .

[lilpixieofterror]

Pshaw. I've topped Jorge's list upon occasion but can never hold onto that honor for very long. I guess I'm just too darn lovable. Yeah, it's a curse I tell you .

Awe, I haven't reached the top yet.

[phank]

Man, what does a guy have to do to get some love around here?

Amen, brother.

[oxmixmudd]

I don't go around making accusations - heaven forbid!

Yes you do. You said:

As for your particular brand of "Christian theology" - you mix truths that God Himself has revealed to
us with your own opinions and desires.

Then you compared this to:

If I recall the story, that's how Jim Jones operated. Yikes!!!

Accusation: To charge with a shortcoming or error.

The accusations are: A) I mix God's truth with my own desires. B) I operate like Jim Jones.

To KBertsche I just wrote :

"B.B. Warfield was correct on many points and did many good things to promote Christianity.
Does that mean that he was right on all points? Was Warfield perfect / inerrant? Rhetorical.
Also, Warfield was not a militant Theistic Evolutionist a la Kenneth Miller.

Nonetheless, on THAT point - Theistic Evolution - Warfield was w-r-o-n-g and did indeed harm
Christianity. God only knows how many people have been led astray because these people
admire / respect Warfield and so adopt the attitude of, "If Warfield said it, then I believe it!"

Not me! My guide is God's Word and if anyone -- even an angel from heaven -- preaches
anything contrary to that Word then that entity is w-r-o-n-g, period! Theistic Evolution
is a different gospel than what Scripture clearly teaches - live with it.

I trust that I've made my position clear enough."

That's nice, but it has nothing at all to do with whether or not you made accusations of me.

You may especially apply that with regards to the "gospel" that you preach below ... brrrrrrrr ...






brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr .............

Perhaps you should review what the 'gospel' is Jorge. It is the 'good news'. The good news that God became man, lived a sinless live, then suffered and died on the cross paying the penalty for our sins, and then rose again conquering hell and the grave. Who now sits at the right hand of God and the father and that 'whosoever believes in him shall no perish but have eternal life". This is the Gospel Jorge. The precise mechanics of how man was made and how his soul was infused is not the gospel.

We have been over this more times than I can remember. Would you try harder to 'GET IT' ???

Yes, we've been over it multiple times. And I've answered it multiple times. And you have multiple times simply walked away and ignored the rebuttal.

Let me make it as simple as I can : whether the Earth is 6,000 years old or 60 billion years old is indeed
"marginal" in importance. God could have done it in an instant or in a trillion years - that's not what's important.

This is true.

What is NOT of "marginal" importance is if God TOLD US - as only He could - the history of this event,

This is your assumption. An assumption that is contrary to the text and to the revelation of the natural world.

and then we wish to alter what He told us because it doesn't sit well with us or because we choose to believe
another story than the one God Himself gave us.

I have altered nothing. The text is what it is. When I read it the text remains unchanged, unaltered. We simply disagree on its purpose and message.

That amounts to one of the following : dismissing God's
Word / superseding God's Word with man's word / calling God a liar / similar ... Hardly "marginal" points!

No, it amounts to saying Jorge is wrong, which perhaps in your world is a mortal sin, but in reality hardly ranks above the importance of what TV show I'll watch this evening.

Look - you are aware, I am sure, that there are "Christians" saying that the Resurrection "must have been
in spirit" because MEDICAL SCIENCE has proven with mountains of evidence that 3-day-dead bodies cannot
in any way become alive again. These "Christians" will fist-fight with you that the Resurrection MUST be in
spirit only and if you believe otherwise then you are anti-science and are harming the credibility of Christianity.

A) The bodily resurrection is THE fundamental tenet of the faith.
B) These people are misguided: science has nothing to say about what can happen miraculously
C) There is no physical evidence the resurrection did not take place.

You are wrong in almost every way to try to compare this issue with the issue of the time frame of creation:

A) The amount of time creation took is not part of ANY historical creed or declaration of faith in Christ
B) The physical creation and scientific theory has a very great deal to say about the evidence which remains of the processes which have shaped this Earth and universe
C) The are mountains (literally) of evidence this Earth is many orders of magnitude older than 6000 years.

Sound familiar?

Only in that you've repeated the same misguided and brain dead illogic more times than I can remember at this time.

It should - that is EXACTLY what you people say to Biblical Creationists regarding the age issue.
It ISN'T that the age issue in and of itself is important. What IS important is that if God said it and meant it
(as studies have shown) then it must be upheld in its pure form. If you disagree then you are challenging God --
you are not challenging me or Ken Ham or John Baumgardner or ... worse yet, that would mean that you are
in fact preaching a different gospel than what God had intended. This is VERY serious, indeed!!!

Your illogic betrays a good deal of the reason you simply can't think clearly on this issue. Not being competent to understand the differences I outline above shows you are utterly incompetent to evaluate the science or theological issues involved - or that you are simply not honest enough to accept and admit its fallacy. And again, the 'gospel' does not encompass the age of the Earth Jorge, nor does it encompass ALL elements of Christian doctrine. This tendency to try to make every possible element of Christian Doctrine 'the gospel' is a relatively recent trend in redefinition of terms in certain circles whose primary purpose as far as I can tell is to exclude all but the special few from being "True Christians".
The Gospel is Christ crucified, dead, and raised. The fundamental tenets of the faith as described in the creeds and basic declarations of the faith. The more you add to it, the more you engage in distortion of the term - the very thing you accuse me of.

So what do you people do to get around this dilemma? Easy! You distort God's Word -- reinterpret, add,
delete, mythologize, allegorize, etc. -- so that it "says" precisely what you want it to say so that there is no
conflict between your story and God's story.

This is your accusation (which of course you never make).

THAT is why this is a MAJOR issue, not because I / we argue that a true Christian must believe in a
6,000 year creation or else (s)he will go straight to Hell.

Try meditating on that for a while.

Jorge

Sure Jorge. I always listen to and consider your words, in spite of the utter disdain which drips from every syllable. But hey, if God can use Balaam's donkey - it is certainly possible He can use you.

Jim