It is shameful for Christians to embarrass the church!

All are welcome to this forum, which is for debating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in schools. This forum can be boisterous, and you should not participate if easily offended.

Moderator: Moderators

It is shameful for Christians to embarrass the church!

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 17, 2014 8:55 pm

Even if the topic is very important or interesting. Such as the massive divergence of opinion and conviction between the 'young Earth worldview' and the 'old Earth worldview'.

But how the Christian god must LOVE Christians disagreeing over the age of the Earth (if they dare speak of such a thing) by planting masses of physical evidence that TOTALLY contradicts the sort of miniature timescale of the universe's and the planet's history that a common sense reading of the Bible would indirectly suggest.

http://www.gospelherald.com/articles/51 ... church.htm
"Pastor Eric Wildhern of Northview Baptist in Chattanooga, TN, says it is a shame that Christians attack each other over non-essential matters, calling such disputes "a very poor example for non-believers.""
"According to a 2011 LifeWay Research poll, Protestant pastors are split on the age of the Earth, with 46 percent saying they believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, and 43 percent disagreeing."

Ken Ham has highlighted this article on his facebook page.
"Pastors who do not understand the vital importance of upholding the authority of the Word of God from the very first verse ... Sadly, many Christian leaders have compromised millions of years with God’s Word. As a result, countless people have been led to doubt God’s Word in Genesis, with many ending up on a slippery slide of unbelief regarding the rest of Scripture ... You see, the message of salvation comes from the WORD of God—and if people are led to doubt and not believe the WORD, they increasingly won’t listen to the message of the gospel."

No wonder that sincere Christians who believe the Bible is 'divinely inspired' frequently steer well clear in public of this 'non-essential' matter (non-essential as a 'salvation' issue over which NO dissent should be tolerated) either due to general ignorance/apathy or because they KNOW very well that it causes the 'embarrassment' of vigorous and passionate disagreement among Christian believers.

If they 'open their mouths' and their words are available for scrutiny by others, usually a dispute breaks out (not necessarily locally but across the internet certainly). After all, around half of protestant pastors who expressed a view are NOT Bible ideologues who seemingly hate science (or have been indoctrinated against it ie by being persuaded that they must reject 'historical science' as mere 'man's opinion' which 'suppresses the truth'). Ken Ham thinks it is utterly appalling that some pastors do not share his strident opinions about the planet's history.

But why does a god of 'truth' set up such a cause of embarrassment in the first place?

That is something the YECs and the Christian anti-YECs never seem to want to publicly discuss.

It would be even more shameful - as it would suggest that either God is a deceiver or that the Bible is NOT 'the word of God' but 'a word of men'.

And God would be very annoyed.

I no longer care about 'never annoying God' if I feel strongly about something as I do about this - so I am going to ask him a Question. If you have really created a hell but you really don't want people to go there, why have you created a universe that cannot possibly be just 6,000 years old unless you are deceiving us - if acceptance of a 14 bn year old universe an ancient Earth will stop some people from believing the Bible at all thus leading to a common sense rejection of the gospel message as well?

Anybody would think you do not exist.

Now questioning whether god exists (or showing that he must be an evil deceiver who wants people in hell if he does) is probably more embarrassing for the church than the ongoing Robertson-Ham debate about the age of the Earth!

A dispute God HIMSELF has DELIBERATELY set up (if he exists). Which arises because SOME Christians trust the Bible AND reality, and others ONLY trust the Bible and use it to 'explain reality' (whilst in reality - oops - explaining AWAY reality).

Some people in the US, perhaps many people, might only become Christians if you inoculate them AGAINST scientific realities whilst they are young. So they may only critically examine both sides of the age of the Earth dispute AFTER they have made a commitment (if at all). That's the Ham approach. Indoctrinate, Indoctrinate. Other Christians accept science but remain Christians but sincerely holding a 'low' view of the opening chapters of Genesis in consequence. Whereas the Wildhern approach seems to be 'DON'T MENTION THE AGE!' We can see why ... it's kinda embarrassing and shameful, and it's 'non-essential'.


PS When I was an evangelical Christian I steered well clear of scientific issues, even if I heard them being raised by non-Christians or 'liberal' Christians. Now I sort of understand why ...

[Minor editing of this post is now complete.]
Last edited by a_haworthroberts on Sat May 17, 2014 9:24 pm, edited 7 times in total.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: It is shameful for Christians to embarrass the church!

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sat May 17, 2014 9:10 pm

My kind of faith was such that if I had known in 1979 what I know today (not only about the total disagreement between the 'creation' and the Genesis account but about the continuing betrayal by god in my life when it mattered most) I would probably NEVER ever have embraced Christianity - even though I was sincerely searching for hope and for meaning.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Sun May 18, 2014 1:18 am

Though the topic is slightly different to the above (which link I have flagged to some Christian friends as a part explanation of why I have never gone to church on a Sunday since 2007 though saying they do not have to read it), this blog and the comments below it may be of interest to some:
http://brucegerencser.net/2014/05/bapti ... ment-17701

It's largely about how some evangelical Christians, who were sincere or certainly they claimed to be, can end up losing their faith (in my case following a possible autism, a serious breakdown 10 years ago, and then the discovery that some fundamentalist Christians actively lie about science and then rationalise doing so).

The 'Once Saved Always Saved' thing mentioned by Gerencser was to the fore when I was at Westminster Chapel (as was one of my friends) prior to 1995. I accepted the teaching. Yet I was aware of other Bible verses casting doubt upon it - implying that salvation is by grace and faith but a lack of subsequent and permanent 'works' would reveal the faith to have been 'spurious' rather than 'saving'.

Incredibly there are Bible verses - as the well-informed blogger cited by Sarfati highlights (see my message to CMI about Sarfati dodging an evolution question) - which justify statements such as "Jesus Himself said that many will come to His judgment seat and be completely surprised to hear Him say, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (Matthew 7:23)".

Completely SURPRISED? Never guessing that their faith was in fact 'spurious'? On what basis does Jesus decide this (lack of faith or lack of works or besetting sin or failure to preach - or something else entirely).

What sort of god would carry on like that? One wishing to instil fear.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re:

Postby a_haworthroberts » Tue May 20, 2014 1:41 am

Message as sent to CMI:

http://creation.com/responses-to-apostate (comments underneath)
"It should also be noted, that when they ask us, "what limits micro evolution?" remember the burden of proof is upon them, so to counter, you must always ask, "how have you proven adaptation to be limitless in scope?"
Micheal S in his comment under this article is talking utter and rather pompous nonsense. Sarfati accepts natural selection and speciation. They have been observed, they are real - thus he could hardly deny them.
Thus the burden of proof is upon young earth creationists. It is for them to show or to argue in specific scientific detail that there are ('biblical' or other) limits to speciation - ones that would falsify evolutionary theory as proposed not some strawman version.
It is for creationists like those at CMI to offer a "creationist explanation or some sort of mechanism that would prevent small scale ‘microevolution’ becoming large scale ‘macroevolution’ given enough time". But they cannot do so. Thus Sarfati neatly dodged that question. As I highlighted in my recent comment that CMI censored (email sent to their UK address because you have imposed quotas against people who comment too often on your misleading anti-scientific pronouncements). Both comments can however be read at the BCSE community forum.
a_haworthroberts
 
Posts: 8537
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 1:49 am
Location: United Kingdom


Return to Free For All

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests

cron