Posted on 10/11/2009 6:56:59 AM PDT by OneVike
Then your basic argument is that no creation doctrine other than YEC should be acceptable within the realm of Christian theology. Is that correct?
All your arguments rely on Biblical quotes. Amen.
I didn't say that you did. Just pointing out that a lots of people were pinged. Maybe that was the case for the other.
It also has priests, a messiah, and a holy scripture.
Hutton was the first to posit an age in the billion year range. Kelvin and other posited ages well beyond the 7000 year mark and in contradiction to the 6-day account of Genesis well before that.
The premise of the article is that YEC doctrine is an all or nothing proposition. If you depart from it at all, you depart from Christianity completely. The blasphemy did not originate with Hutton.
And that is why I wrote the article to draw those who wish to discuss it. So far I have yet to get many takers, a few, but not what i was hoping for.
This is an argument that needs to take place, however I feel it may have been a practice in futility seeings how those who are pure evolutionists and not Christian would rather come by and discuss other matters while the Christians are too worried about offending eachother to get into a serious debate about the particulars of my points.
Notice how I attacked the problem purely from a Scriptural basis, not scientific, because being an in-house debate it needs to be debated upon the merits of the Scriptures.
This is not a criticism of my fellow Christians, but it does show how we as Christians find it difficult to come to the table and properly discuss matters of such importance. Remember, even Western and Eastern Christendom permanently divided, never to have councils to hash out problems again. Christians sometimes are most stubborn when it comes to discussing differences withing the realm of our own faith.
I find this as important as the discussion of the merits and of the Trinity, others do not. In the long run it is our children who will suffer because we as Christians have compromised with the Devil.
As for the ID crowd, some agree with me and others disagree with me. I do find their investigative work to be very helpful, but I do with all honest scientific study. I have no problem with the ID label, as long as they claim the the only intelligent Designer is God. There are those debates that i will be standing with those who do not look to God as the designer, but that would only be in a debate that is discussing the merits of the studies and science, not theology.
Just as I can stand with a godless evolutionist when the debate is about Liberal Democrats and the laws they wish to pass. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine. We must know when and where to pick our battles.
Today, my battle is with those who profess a belief in Christianity, but give deference to Darwin’s theory of evolution instead of God through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit for Creation.
And it is your assertion that it has done that - that they practice a religion called "science"?
I already told you I didn't buy into the evolution theory...And what's that got to do with the Gap Theory???
Please answer my assertions before bringing more to the table, because you have yet to disprove anything I wrote.
Don't know what you are talking about...YOU are the one who said YOU would disprove the Gap Theory...
The topic and this discussion pertains to the words actually written in the Bible, their import throughout that Bible (not just in Genesis), and the faith in God that is demonstrated by taking His Word at face value, as Jesus, Moses, Peter and others quite clearly did, and the pitfalls of accomodating the Word of God to the words of man.
The only label of interest here is Christian, or not. If you want to go on about Yeckers and Oeccers and Geocentrists, Oh My! then that is your particular fixation. It's also your prerogative. But, beg your pardon if the boxes you want to put us in to study us, are not of primary concern.
Hutton's geological ages provided the foundation of modern evolution as far as linear time. It has been built upon and expanded, and continues to be built upon and expanded, now into the trillions of years. Kelvin had and has no such notoriety in this particular regard. Hutton does.
Now, I must put my notes together for my Sunday afternoon message with the Ladies of Windchime.
I wish more had delved into the debate, but alas as I have already said, we Christians find it difficult to get into deep theological discussions about internal problems.
If there are any comments to me I will address them when I get back from my Sermon later this afternoon.
God bless you all,
OV
IDers believe in evolution.
Those "boxes" were the basis of the article.
You, my friend have become what you wish to be... a god.
I now bestow upon you the right and honorary (if not moderately, yet significantly insignificant) title;
“GOD AND MASTER OF THE RELIGION FORUM”!
Of course I have as much authority to bestow that title upon you as you have thrusting your ego-driven supposition of all-knowing wisdom on other FR members.
Nevertheless, may you hold your title well and as usual...
whatajoke.
GG
Hutton and Kelvin based their estimates of the age of the Earth on different sets of evidence. Current estimates of the age of the Earth are based on radiometric decay measurements, which is yet another set evidence that doesn't depend on Hutton's work at all.
I am not sure, but it sure looks like you are calling Christain evolutionists atheists.
Particularly when you accuse those that do not believe in your 'religion' of blasphemy and condemned to eternal hell.
And the author of this thread has declared that anyone that does not believe in the literal six days of creation is not a Christian.
Religious viewpoint?
To the back of the bus with you.
how about defining “old earth creationism” before bashing it
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.