Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

BY THE WAY.

The bouncer is IN.

ANY personal attacks on people will be dealt with.

Ideas, people!

Carry on.

:-)
 

"If there were no perfect creation, then there could be no Fall; if no Fall, then no need for a savior; if no need for a savior, then the Gospel is a joke and Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic."

Whose words are these? I've never heard someone defending creation use these words--or any like them!

These are the words of the Right, Reverend Erudite Redneck.

One who defends the evolution myth.

BTW, does your warning pertain to you, as well?


I must ask: Just what exactly is your faith based upon?

We know that your faith in evolution is based on human intellect.

You herald, regularly, your reliance on human-intellect pertaining to your faith in the portions of scripture you choose to believe.

So...what exactly is your "faith" based upon?
 

Those words are mine.

And my faith is based on nothing less than Jesus's love and righteousness.

D.dad. if you were my only encounter with a Christian, I would be hell-bound. Your witness is one of hate and derision and I'm tired of it -- and the damage you do to our shared faith.

And I will kick you out of here if you call me "Reverend" one more time.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

With one long-winded, mean-spirited rant, D.dad has put the lie to any liberal's dream of getting along with those on the Christian Right with whom we disagree.

And every conservative Christian here who fails to call him on his anger and hatred shares in his guilt.

If there's no hope in this post, I mean in the stuff from The Phoenix Affirmations, then there is no hope at all.

Zwingli-Luther-Rome all over again?
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

ER,
The problem in the assumptions being made are just that, assumptions. Evolution is a theory based upon bad assumptions. Just the age of the world arguments themselves are based upon bad science. For instance, the earth is supposed to be 400 million years old... and we can tell this by dating of rocks, etc... except that the dating processes are flawed. Did you know that the rocks on the newly formed dome on Mount St. Helens date to millions of years old... yet we know for a fact that they are no older than 20 years old?

The entire premise of evolution is based upon faith itself, not science. In fact, true scientific work points to the young age of the earth, thereby no need for evolution.

Also, why can't the God who made great wine in a moment, a process that takes time, not also make the world in a moment?
 

Mouse,

It's not 400 million, it's over 4 billion.

Also, there are many dating techniques out there, but they agree very well.

I seriously doubt the claim about Mt. St. Helen's, and if such a thing were confirmed it would be huge news in the geology community.

Another example of how we know it's more than a few thousand years is that we see starlight from stars billions of light years away. Or that we can compare soil development on volcanoes that erupted 1,000 years ago with the same on volcanoes that erupted 1,000,000 years ago, and the differences are consistent with the radiometric dating. Or even what kind of plants and animals have evolved on islands (like Hawaii) of different ages. You can come at this from any scientific discipline, and the results are consistent.

And no "true scientific work" points to a young earth.


ER, thanks for a fine discussion. This is something sorely needed right now. It's a more metaphysical discussion, and beyond my expertise. So I'll only comment here and there when my background can help. But I'll read along avidly.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Wow, mouse 2 sounds pretty unhinged. Almost... like... Daddio.

Hard to have a dialogue when one side just shouts all the time and resists rational arguments.

"They (preachers) dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight." -Thomas Jefferson
 

Note personal attacks against me also will result in a good ol' country bouncing.
 

Oh, Solomon, it *is* a theological discussion -- or metaphysical. Teleological, too, for that matter. Political, as well.

But as is made evident by the vitril I've had to wipe up here already, some people's professed faith is too rigid, their God too small and their fears too great to let even the hint of evil science come into the discussion!
 

You know, what utterly amazes me is that some of the commenters I've bounced -- because they have insisted on attacking me, or others, despite my insistence that *that* post at least stay on a higher plane -- what FLOORS me is it sounds like some of them have never heard the ideas in this post. It sounds like they think I've just come up with this stuff all on my own.

Take the following for example:

"Obviously you see yourself as the final arbiter of truth. How do you get to the point of being so arrogant that you appoint yourself as the only one who knows the "real" truths of the Bible?"

WTH? Helloooooo! Read a book! Get out of your small circle some. It's not me saying it. It's me echoing it.

And this, from the same Mouse:

"Here's a epiphany for you. Just because something in the Bible conflicts with what you personally want to believe, so that you have an excuse to live as you wish, guilt-free, it doesn't mean the Bible is wrong."

I don't know where this is coming from. At all. If I were looking for a way to live "guilt-free" and do what I want, there are a lot less complicated ways to do so! This is the same sort of "thinking" that thinks gays are gay because it's FUN to be abused at every turn. It's ludicrous. It's not thinking at all.

And this:

"It just could be that YOU are the one that's wrong. And if you are, an eternity in Hell might change your mind, but at this point, even that is doubtful considering your arrogance."

Of course, I am wrong about a lot of things. But I humbly declare, before God and everybody here, that I embrace the undeserved love He has for me and the rest of created humanity; I profess my faith in Jesus; I demand that fellow believer, while they are free in the liberty of Christ to disagree with me on doctine, that they accept me as a fellow believer.

And if they don't, then, well, it's THEM who will answer to God for THEIR arrogance, and for daring to stand between God's grace and a fellow himan and believer.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

D.dad asked: "You're just deleting all dissent ...?"

No. I'm spraying for maniacs.

That Mouse wants to try again, without making it personal, he or she is welcome.

You, however, are silenced.
 

As for the age of those rocks, that is my entire point. No one in the geological community wants to accept the dating of the rocks on the mountaing because it works against the belief system of evolution. That is the point... both systems of how we came to be are belief systems... one based on Scripture, the other based on bad science. The reason I say this is that the science mags will not print any of this because it goes against their preconceived ideas.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

" St. Helens Anon said...

As for the age of those rocks, that is my entire point. No one in the geological community wants to accept the dating of the rocks on the mountaing because it works against the belief system of evolution. That is the point... both systems of how we came to be are belief systems... one based on Scripture, the other based on bad science. The reason I say this is that the science mags will not print any of this because it goes against their preconceived ideas."

3:12 PM

They pick and choose their science the same way they pick and choose their scripture, Anon!

There is a pattern to their delusion
 

St Helens Anon,

I understand why you would feel that way about the age of rocks and the geological community. But it's not like that.

Most scientists don't really care about whether or not their research supports a particular religious view. And good scientists are well-trained at critical thinking, self doubt, and challenging paradigms.

Many scientists are religious. Most grew up going to church. And if there was any credible evidence turned up for a young earth or for a creation event, there would be a land rush to investigate it. What could be more exciting?
 

I don't understand the following:

"Did you know that the rocks on the newly formed dome on Mount St. Helens date to millions of years old... yet we know for a fact that they are no older than 20 years old?"

What do you mean the rocks are "no older than 20 years old"? God made some new rocks 20 years ago?

I'm not trying to be difficult. But wouldn't the material that emerged from the volcano have been created at the same time as the rest of the planet, but just deep underground, in a molerten form, perhaps? After the lava solidified, it's not "new" rock any more than the hydrogen and water in an ice cube is "new" hydrogen and oxygen.

Or am I missing something?
 

BTW, until y'all are ready to take unruly children to the edge of town and stone them to death, until you're ready to have all homosexuals killed, until you're ready to sell all you own and give to the poor and take off walking with no place to lie your head, living off the generosity of strangers, keep the claims of "picking and choosing Scripture" to yourself.

We differ on how to accept the Bible, how to interpret it -- NOT whether it is sacred Scripture.
 

"Erudite Redneck said...

BTW, until y'all are ready to take unruly children to the edge of town and stone them to death, until you're ready to have all homosexuals killed, until you're ready to sell all you own and give to the poor and take off walking with no place to lie your head, living off the generosity of strangers, keep the claims of "picking and choosing Scripture" to yourself."

For someone who claims to understand the difference between living under grace and living under law, you don't seem to get what the significance of the law is under grace.

The law, and it's penalties are a guide as to how harmful sin is.

Equate the penalty from the law with a level of harmfulness it results in.

You can't follow Jesus Christ without understanding the importance of God's Law.
 

"Many scientists are religious. Most grew up going to church. And if there was any credible evidence turned up for a young earth or for a creation event, there would be a land rush to investigate it. What could be more exciting?"

Many creationists are so after having been evolutionists, as well, Solomon.

How does one explain that?
 

ER,

A geologist friend explained this to me when we backpacked in the Grand Canyon.

It went something like this: when lava or magma is cooling, crystals form. When they are forming, certain types of crystals incorporate some elements (like uranium) while rejecting others (like lead). Once the rock has cooled, (in this example with uranium in the crystal and no lead present), the process is frozen.

Then, clock starts. The uranium starts to decay, turning to lead at a known rate. By looking at how much lead there is vs. how much original uranium is left, we can tell how long it's been since the rock was at a certain temperature.

Here's more on the uranium-lead method (and links to other techniques).
 

Then that last line means that Jesus himself was being misleading when he said the thief on the cross next to him that he would be with him that day in Paradise.

That Jesus misled Nicodemus.

That Jesus misled virtually everyone when he said, "Follow me."

He didn't say, "Learn this doctrine, *then* follow me."

He said, "Follow me." Those who do, do, those who don't don't.
 

Oh, here's one fundamentalist response to the reality of stars in distant galaxies, the speed of light and the perspective of the stars as seen from earth. Actually, I have no problem with that as a plank of one's belief system.

Honestly. I don't have a problem with it. Because I don't think it anything to do with one's relationship with God through Christ. At all.


Here it is, from someone named Josh at http://searchwarp.com
/swa45787.htm


Probably one of the most dishonest and unrealistic arguments I've heard in support of our universe being billions of years old was by a scientist trying to refute the belief that the world came into existence approximately 6,000 years ago according to the Bible's account of Creation. He argued: There are stars which are billions of light-years away. This means that it took the light rays of these stars billions of years to travel to earth. Doesn't this make the universe at least billions of years old? And if the universe is only approximately 6,000 years old, wouldn't that make God a bit dishonest in trying to deceive us?

This kind of reasoning is so twisted that if this guy had the power of telekinesis he could start his own pretzel factory. What he perceives as "dishonest" is little more than his own dishonest evaluation and perhaps a lack of reasoning abilities.

According to the Bible's account of Creation, God did not create man and woman as infants and wait for them to grow up. God did not create the first plants and animals in early stages and wait for them to mature. Why should cosmic rays have been any different? For God to have waited billions of years for cosmic rays to reach their intended destinations would have been inconsistent with the rest of Creation. Thus, for cosmic rays to have been created in a "state of arrival" should not seem that far-fetched.
 

Thanks for the links, Solomon.
 

I just find it dumbfounding that anyoine would have the cojones to say the following:

"You can't follow Jesus Christ without understanding the importance of God's Law."

I can't imagine even starting that sentence, ever, under any circumstances bar none. Amazing, amzing hubris.

Might as well say: Jesus saves.*

Guess what? There is no asterisk.
 

You know, when I was coming up, the Pentecostals and Free Will Baptists in my neck of the woods used to give us "liberal" Southern Baptists hell -- this was before the SBC sold its soule to fundamentalism.

But the old jokes about "fire insuance" -- what detractors called the old Baptist doctrine of "one saved, always saved" -- well, it's closer to the truth than even I ever thought it was.

NOTHING a believer can do can earn God's grace. NOTHING a believer can do can cause him or her to fall outside God's grace.
 

One can turn to Jesus. But to follow his teachings one must KNOW his teachings.

Remember--Jesus did come to fulfill the law.

If you're to follow him...after you have turned to him, you must have some knowledge of his Law.

After all, he did come to fulfill that law!
 

I think that is a total misreading of Scripture and of grace. Paul himself said he wouldn't have known lust if the law hadn't, well, made such a big deal out of it.

I will never understand how the most radically INCLUSIVE person -- Son of Man, as well as Son of God -- Jesus himself, who sought FOLLOWERS, spawned the erection of an EXCLUSIVE ORGANIZATION, some branches of which have as many rules and regulations as the very Pharisees Jesus condemned.

You know, heaven is going to filled to the rafters with sinners. Looks like people would start trying to get used to the idea -- and the truth that we are all screwed on our own -- on *this* side of Jordan.
 

Becxause, really,m where does it stop. Gotta know the law.Tnen you gotta know about Jewish sacrifices, without which the concept of sacrificial atonement doesn't maske any sense. Gotta know about the paschal lamb, or the Lamb of God references don't make any sense. Gotta know, what all of Leviticus, so you can understand, say, Matthew 5.

No way. That's great stuff for the seminaries -- and for blogs. :-)

It means nothing to a lost soul desperate for God's grace. Nothing. To insist othersise is to "add to" the Gospel in a much more real way that I stood accused of entertaining the other day when I used took nominations for additions to the Canon as an exercise in spiritual thought and medititation.

All sin adds to the agony of Christ on the Cross. I count among it puny insistences that rules and regs and the jots and tittles of doctrine be accepted as a condition of receiving God's grace and being enabled to accept Jesus and advance the kingdom by following him.
 

BTW, this kind of language betrays you, "firefromheaven":

"For someone who claims to understand the difference between living under grace and living under law ..."

"Claims" is the verb one uses to cast aspersions on assertions made by an enemy. In Vietnam new coverage, for example, most newspeople wrote that the U.S. government "said" such and such, and that the enemy "claimed" such and such. The same kind of thing happens in news today.

Draw in your dang claws. If I am your enemy, it's you who are the hostile, not me.
 

As you say, this is a theological argument and can only be conducted inside the tent. Creationism presents no reason for scientific dialogue, aside from the political need to prune it back out of a few public schools in the more primitive sections of the United States. Doesn't seem to be much of an issue in any other developed nation.
 

"the focus must shift from basic science to basic theology."

uh....

KEvron
 

" ... uh ... " what mi amigo?

For six-day creationists and evolution-accepting Christian believers, it *is* a theological debate.

I have no problem with evolution. Yet I am a Christian. Other Chrstians would condemn me to hell. Some others would believe me merely misled.

Science says what it says. The Bible says what it says. Christianity says what it says. Jesus says what He says.

It's a theological condundrum -- what to do with the facts of science and the facts of Christianity -- as well as the theories of both.
 

I do have history on my side.

The Church's position fell against Copernicus.

It fell against Indians seen as nonhuman.

It fell against the immorality of slavery.

It has fallen far, yet not all the way, against women as second-class citizens.

It is beginning to fall against homosexuality as a natural occurrence within the human species -- and will not fall finally in our lifetime.

The Church is one thing. The Body of Christ, the holy metaphor, is another.

And Jesus is a quite other! And He is the one I follow!
 

Thanks, Nick.

I will humbly add one thing: God's word *is* true! And God's Word can be found *in* the Bible.

I LOVE the bible. I respect the Bible. I thank God almighty for giving man the ability to think, and to write, and to print and to bind and to market and distribute.

I thank my mama for taking me to church until I developed the habit on my own! I thank God that I never, ever lost the habit of study and meditation of Scripture and God's love even when I lost the habit of attending church regularly for so many years -- which I have corrected for almost a year now!

But God is still speaking! And to trap him in a box called "The Bible," when Jesus himself said the Holy Spirit would bring all truth to those who sought it -- as much as they could handle it -- is ... well ... wrong.

So, I don't.
 

And I do not ask that D.daddio be condemned. Only ignored. Because he is wrong to so viciously, and regularly, attack a fellow believer -- a brother! What a witness for the Gospel!
 

Glad to see ya, TStock.

I *did* set this up as a family fight. Problem is, most of the family acts like white-Indian half-breeds at the turn of the 20th century, trying to distance themselves from kin who embarrass them and make waves.

And I STILL have the balls, TStock, to ask you to consider Jesus -- and to toally blow off this BS! Or not.
 

"...God did not create man and woman as infants and wait for them to grow up. God did not create the first plants and animals in early stages and wait for them to mature. Why should cosmic rays have been any different?"

You mean we actually AGREE on something?

As to the Law. Without the Law, and the conviction it brings, the evangelist runs the risk of gaining only "Stony Ground" converts, which means, not-genuine. It is through the Law that the sinner understands they will one day stand before a Holy God and answer for all the laws they've broken. God's message is clear... the sinner must either accept Christ's payment of all outstanding fines for the sins committed in their lives, or be judged according to the Law. And if God is truly Holy, and Loving, he must punish sin... He must keep His word.

And wonder of wonders, ER and I agree on yet another issue... "Once saved, Always saved"-- I deal with this very topic here.

"...heaven is going to filled to the rafters with sinners"

Well... not quite. Heaven will be filled to the rafters with Saints of God, who in their earthly life were sinners, then sinners saved by grace. But heaven is home, and will be home to not a single sinner... but I know what you meant.

As I stated at my place, I don't have enough info at my fingertips, or at the tip of my tongue to mount a defense of my personal position on the issue of evolution. But let me point to a book I'm fond of... a little off topic.

[to be continued]
 

[continuing on...]

My father gave me Immanuel Velikovsky's "Worlds in Collision" some twenty years ago, to dissuade me from my belief in God. The book, much maligned in its day, and still, deals with our solar system as a less than harmonious system of orbiting bodies about the sun. Velikovsky has been proven right in many of his assumptions, but that's not where I'm going with this.

Velikovsky asked the question: If the Sun and the Moon stood still in the sky for the span of a day, while Joshua and the Israelites avenged themselves on their enemies, then there had to be a corresponding period of darkness on the other side of the world.
So he went looking. And found evidence in legends of native peoples on the other side of the world who remember a time when the sun seemed to have hidden himself from the people... the end of the world was indeed nigh.

My father thought this was enough evidence that God did not work a miracle for Joshua. But what my father-- as brilliant as he was --failed to grasp, was [assuming one takes the story at face value, which I do] How could Joshua have possibly expected the Sun and Moon to stand still in the heavens at that precise moment? He couldn't have, unless someone-- like God --started everything in motion at some distant time at the very beginning of all things. All things set in motion at a time when millions of years later a guy named Joshua would ask God for a favor.

There is much I don't understand about science, and God. But I do understand this: God and science are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of things we still do not fully understand... Plenty of things we still cannot fully explain. Just as two parallel lines intersect at some point in the distance, so too do God and Science agree. We are obviously yet not there.
 

ER -

Well, that was the kindliest way an invitation to Jesus has ever been extended to me, and I appreciate that you would be unwilling to assume that a equally kind declining of the invitation will have any necessry consequences for me in the hypothetical afterlife.

Ask me again if you ever set up a schismatic Church of the Holy Barbeque. I'm broadminded enough to bridge the cataclysmic split between the Wet and Dry sects, as long as we're not roasting the people on the other side.
 

ELash, re:

"God and science are not mutually exclusive. There are plenty of things we still do not fully understand ... "

Amen.


TStock, :-) I'm am a Hardshell Dry-Rubbist, myself. But I gladly share the table -- the Communion table as well as the patio table --with ALL who care to break bread (and meat!) :-)
 

Nick,

"(Coulter's) point is, Christians don't need creation to be true to prove God, but that atheists think if evolution is true that disproves God."

As an atheist, I can honestly say I do not believe this is true. It amazes me that anyone's religious faith would be shaken by evolution. I have never thought that evolution and Christianity were incompatible at all.
 

... my point being, that I argue about evolution because it is important for people to understand, and the study of evolution is important for society- in medicine, conservation, forestry, agriculture, biotech...

But I do not argue about evolution to try to sway anyone from their faith.
 

And, late, late at night, the not-ever-theists rejoin the oldest battle.
I was having a debate with myself a couple years ago about which aspect of both organized religion AND individual faith had had worse effects on the human race and its history; Evangelism or Belief.

At the time, I was saying that it was Evangelism, but I shortly started to see that perhaps I'd let Belief off the hook a little too early.

Belief being what it is, one can only debate it to a certain extent. It is like a cosmic version of Opinion, which really really can't be debated. The difference is that Belief instills a sacred-ness to Opinion that makes it even harder.

There's plenty of people I know (this includes feminists, environmentalists, trade unionists, et al) who Know In Their Heart that something is either Right or Wrong, without doing (I feel) enough to examine whether or not the central premise from which all the rest of their belief system spawned is rational, or merely emotional.

This pisses folks like me off because we are so often asked to accept something that is clearly dearly held Belief as Fact, and just smile smile smile since we know it's bad taste to make fun of people's faith, but even more so because...

We know we're guilty of it, too.

Forgive me if I don't get back quick enough. I'm working a lot these days.
 

RB -

Hate to argue with such a cogent comment, but I think calling ANY of those things - feminism, environmentalism, trade unionism - examples of "individual belief" carves the joint in the wrong place. I mean, in that context consider the oxymoron of an "individual union."

Whether one wants to use "group-think" or "hermetic self-referential discourse communities," to describe the phenomenon, intersubjectivity is required to produce and sustain truly reality-independent uncritical thinking. The kind of people who have the incredible independence of mind to develop impervious individual beliefs - outside the out-and-out nutters - are both very rare, and generally without effect until that belief acquires enough fans to become emphatically non-individual.
 

"And I do not ask that D.daddio be condemned. Only ignored. Because he is wrong to so viciously, and regularly, attack a fellow believer -- a brother! What a witness for the Gospel!"--Redneck


I only attack you for the ungodly positions you hold, ER.

You provide my ammunition.

None here can honestly say that you are even close to innocent concerning "attacking" others of the faith.

You're more unfair than most atheists I've encountered on the web.

And your heart--as gleaned from your own words--is as hard as Pharoah's!

You attempt to ignore me because you tend to ignore truth.
 

I haven't read the comments yet, so this might be off-topic in this particular space, but it ttok me a while to read your post! My dad was a devout Christian AND a geologist. I picked up his philosophy that "just because you can explain it doesn't mean its NOT a miracle." The double negative works well inthat statement.
 

If no one finds cause to defend me from D.dad's assertions above, I will seriously consider that they might be true. I'm not asking for false defense. I'm asking whether anyone else here sees me the way D.dad does.

In the heat of argument, I am very capable of too-hot rhetoric. D.dad will call me a liar again, but the above comment of his is one of the very very few -- I think it's the third, over many weeks -- in which he does not just berate me.

So, it's up to y'all. Am I as hard-hearted and unfair as D.dad say?

I own't address his assertions that I am "ungodly" or that I "ignore the truth" -- because I sincerely, honestly believe the same about him.

Ungodly is his insistence that his way is the only way, ignoring the truth that truth is so big no one, or no group of people, can corner the market on it -- not even Christians, and I say that as a Christian. So that's a nonstarter. Undebatable.

But what about the other? Am I that hard-hearted and unfair?

D.dad, I ask that you let the people speak. My young'un is coming to today and I won't be on here much today. If you berate me, or attack me, I will bleep you again. Just let it rest, OK?
 

Oh, and Nick, knowing you were a crazy charismatic, :-), I've been waiting to hear you weigh in on "God is still speaking." :-)

You mention the fundamental difference in how we view the Bible.

I see it as inspired writing of fallible human beings trying to explain their encounters and their relationship with God, in the Old Testament, and Jesus and the new covenant, in the New Testament. It is sufficient unto salvation. I am not alone in this view.

You, and many, many others, seem to see it as almost dictated by God to people especially assigned to take it all down without error and without omission.

I do not see Scripture that way. I cannot see it that way for the internal contradictions, let alone the textual knowledge amassed in the past couple of centuries -- and anyone who sees that as an attempt on them, well, don't.
 

Damn, it's awfully early to be defending you, ER. I shall address these individually:

"I only attack you for the ungodly positions you hold, ER." Who the hell are you to attack anyone? Is it godly to attack those who do not share your beliefs? I think not. Disagree with someone, fine. Attack, uncalled for.

"You provide my ammunition." Because you are so godly, you are seeking ammunition to load? Nice. May God continue to be with you.

"None here can honestly say that you are even close to innocent concerning 'attacking' others of the faith." Not sure I've seen that, but I know ER, and I understand his intent better than you, obviously. Sometimes we read into the text what we WANT to read in the text. It's a very human experience. But you are so godly, maybe you see things better than me.

"You're more unfair than most atheists I've encountered on the web." ER can be unfair in his written word. So can I. So can you. So can every human on this earth. It goes back to intent.

"And your heart--as gleaned from your own words--is as hard as Pharoah's!" Confoundedly untrue, but that's because you know not the blog administrator, sir. And I don't expect you to, because all you are witness to is ER's written word. And, it seems, you only read excerpts of blogs that picque your interest -- topics on religion or whereever you believe you are an elitist. Go through and check out some of ER's other stuff, D.Daddio. You might get an idea of his heart. You can't rightfully say what's in someone's heart without knowing more about that person.

I defend ER because he is my friend, but moreover, because even though he and I disagree in many issues, I know he is a good man. I know he's a God-fearing man. I know he is a loving man. I know he's a man of many interests. I know he'll be with me should I need him. That's all I can ask.

You attempt to ignore me because you tend to ignore truth.
 

ER - Honestly and strictly from my perspective, you're the opposite of hard-hearted. You're a sentimentalist who leaves a fairly broad range of your social conditioning and emotional reactions unexamined in favor of the heart.

Not that I say that's a GOOD thing. But you will consider the source. :-D
 

ER, you should not be the least concerned with Dad's accusations. I hate censorship, but he's given you every cause to bounce him here. And his charges are hypocritical- he is ruthless with anyone who disagrees with him on his site.

D. Dad doesn't understand the value of patient, principled debate, and can't even follow basic rules of courtesy.

He's very threatened by you for some reason, and he also can't stand to be ignored. That's why when you bounce him from your site he turns into a vandal, posting more bile under pseudonyms. Long after he's made is point over and over again, he's got to come back and make it yet another time, crapping all over your blog and EL's. He even changes the subject over at EL's so he can slip in an insult about you! I think he's obsessed with you.

I can have long debates with people who hold views identical to D.Dad's without getting the least bit frustrated- and then go have a beer with them. Maybe they even change my mind a bit. That's because they don't resort to the infantile tactics and insults that he does.

But Dad, any casual visitor would be driven away from Christ by you. You will win no hearts.

BTW ER, I don't really agree with Nick. I don't see you as supremely confident. You are secure in your beliefs, but I see a lot of thoughtfulness, open mindedness and self doubt too. Who else would have put it up to a vote whether D.Dad's accusations were fair or not?

Only Dad has the supreme confidence in his beliefs to threaten anyone who disagrees with hellfire.

So D.Dad, how about a little humility for a change?

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
-Mark Twain
 

And ER, you've had the humility to admit when your comments were unfair, retract them, and/or apologize for them on several occasions.

Try getting D.Dad to do that (unless EL calls him on something, then his tail will go right between his legs).
 

Anathema!

Liars--haters, all!


Decievers of men and self!

Repent, people, of your unbelief!
 

"Anathema!"

gesundheit!

"Liars--haters, all!"

don't hate the playah....

"Decievers of men and self!"

and that's not the only sin i commit upon myself!

"Repent, people, of your unbelief!"

disingenuous hyperbole, or is he quoting wise blood? is that you, asa hawks?

KEvron
 

D. Dad, your mouth is foaming....
 

Have the rest of you taken a look at Daddio's blogs?
 

I'm back now, for a moment.
TStock, I agree, I think.
The Daddio is a damned fool, the likes of which you are entirely within your bounds to bar from this, yer virtual house. I have yet to see a document that suggests otherwise.
And besides, aside from merely disagreeing, the guy's a child, and as any decent child psychologist will tell you, Don't Reward A Tantrum.
 

Thanks, y'all. TStock, I think you nailed me perfectly. I do tend to listen to my heart, enlivened by the example of Jesus and the infusion of the Holy Spirit. Any bile I ever leave here, or anywherem is MY OWN. I would never blame God for it -- nor would I ever blame God for D.Dad's judgmentalism, anger and condemnation.

D.Dad, for all his bluster, is what some call a "baby Christian" -- he should stick to milk, or maybe even formula, until he can digest the meat of the Gospel, which is love, and grace, and tolerance. As it is, he chokes on it and bellows. The blood in his teeth and runnind down his chin is not the blood of Christ. Somebody would wipe his mouth, but he bites at any hand that comes his way in kindness.

Miss C., I suggest that neither you, nor anyone with any sense of fairness about them, ever leave a comment at D.Dad's place. It's a kind of hell, and he's the gatekeeper.

Here's what set him off. Based on something he said, I left it in a comment and told him that I thought he could stand to read it. I still think so, but it's why he calls me "Reverend" and refers to my place of worship as a "church" -- with the snide quote marks.

It's the statement of openness and affirmation. Just today, I watched a woman weep in gratitude for this church; she said she believed that it is the only reason her son is alive today; he came out in ninth grade.

D.Dad can't stand it -- but Jesus
loves him, and every other homosexual. He loves them, as he loves me, and as he loves D.Dad: "Without. One. Plea."

I could be wrong. But given the two stark choices, of being stingy with the Gospel, with the love with which God loves me, and wth Jesus's example of radical acceptance and outlandish, wasteful love and hospitality, I believe I will take the chance of erring on the side of generosity!


This is an invitation:

We know, with Jesus, that we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, and that those neigbors include all human beings - encompassing our families, our Church, all other churches and faiths, and the world at large.

We also know that both society and the larger community of faith have often scorned, excluded, attempted "cures", and condemned lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people in the name of Jesus, in the name of the Bible, and in the name of religious doctrine.

We know that Mayflower Church has been very public in its determination to be a reconciling force between gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people as they are and the church, welcoming all people whatever their sexual orientation - not as doing something new, but as doing something very old, harkening back to the early church's radical hospitality.

We know, like the Ethiopian Eunuch of Acts 8:26, that the answer to the eternal question "What is to prevent me from being baptized?" - an answer learned steadily over the centuries from one outcast group to the next: first Gentiles, then women, then blacks, then the poor, the deformed, and now lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people - is the luminous center of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: "Nothing prevents it."

We know, like the Syrophoenician Woman of Mark 7:24, that there is a wideness in God's Mercy that - merely by asking for it - brings God's love to all people, not hust to those who think they are in God's good graces, but to all of us, which must include his gay, lesbian, bisexual and trangendered children just the same.

We know that across the land, in every church, large and small, and in every denomincation, people of good will are struggling with the gospel's revolutionary inclusiveness as it relates to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people. We recognize that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people can be just as loving, just as faithful, just as disciplined, just as holy as all other people can be, and that they equally share with all other human beings the worth that comes from being unique individuals. We seek to encourage all people and churches to welcome lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people into their full measure and allow them to take their place at the table.

So it is that we publicly, reverently, and happily issue a Welcome to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people as they are, to join our congregation in the same spirit of neighborly love as we welcome and accept all new members. We covenant not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. We seek to include those who find themselves in exile from the community of faith because of their orientation. We actively encourage churches and secular government bodies to adopt and implement policies of non-discrimination. And we join together to celbrate and share our common communion and the reassurance that we are indeed all created by God, reconciled by Christ, and empowered by the Grace of the Holy Spirit.
 

Oh, and I fully expect the preceding comment to cause D.dad to blow his top. So what? He's always, always blowing, at least around here. It doesn't matter what I say to him, kind or not, he spews. So, eh? If he does, I'll clean it up.
 

I agree. The church should welcome anyone to worship God. God loves them and wants them to choose Him over that other fellow.

But don't think for a minute that when the Holy Spirit takes up residence in the body of one caught up in the homosexual lifestyle, that the Spirit of God won't work to correct the sin of homosexuality in that persons life.
 

Maybe, EL. I say "maybe."

Why has the Holy Spirit not so convicted every FAT Baptist preacher until he repents and slims down?? I am not kidding. The sin is gluttony -- and he may very well be geneticially predisposed to obesity.

By your assertion, that means that every fat preacher is spurning the Holy Spirit, perhaps even deserving to lose his flock and maybe even be drummed out of his congregation. Bull. Bull on those who would raise homosexuality to the Sin of All Sins.

Why has the Holy Spirit not so convicted every chauvinistic, wife-abusing, power-hungry pastor, father and husband until he repents and actually starts loving his wife, and children, like Christ loves the Church? I don't see it happening. No large-scale revival going on in straight families.

I could go on.

That is precisely why all homosexuals, and fat slobs, and wife beaters and child abusers belong in church. Because there is none without sin. No. Not. One.

And nobody knows what works the Holy Spirit is doing in anyone's heart -- or any congregation's.
 

Again, I do NOT think I know it all, dpesite false accusations to the contrary.

Heck fire, I do not even *know* what I thought I KNEW. And that's where I am in my own journey!

I repent. I repent every day! Of arrogance. Of judgmentalism. Of thinking I have the market on the truth. I do not.

But neither does any one else. We ALL see through a glass darkly. And of our glasses are darker than others! Now, what a glorious day *that* will be!

Christians will be FLOORED to see nonChristians in heaven, dude. That's what I believe. Jesus is the way -- but He's bigger than any "missionary effort," any church organization, and He's bigger than the Bible itself.

I'm no universalist. But the Creation cries out in witness to God, and any honest heart seeks some connection to God. God provides it in Jesus, I believe, whether or not that person has ever heard the name of Jesus, or knows any of the details of the story -- let along all this seminary talk about "the law."

REJECTING the gospel once understood, REJECTING grace after it's proffered -- now *that's* another thing.
 

Wikipedia's article on htis pretty good:

http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/Creation-
evolution_controversy
 

Been four days in Arkansas just South of D. Dadio's place. And yes, thank you, I have gotten all the ticks and chiggers of me and only the infections and pain are left.
D. Dadio said:
"You attempt to ignore me because you tend to ignore truth."

Mr. Dadio he ignores you because you have a mean mouth and really bad manners, at least on the web you do.

The words missing so far in this discussion are "allegory", "metaphor", and "parable".
If you don't understand what those are and how they are used even in the Bible then you can not understand what it says (or anything else for that matter).

As for evolution, all you have to do to understand it in a practical way is substitute the utility of "natural selection" with "selective breeding". Go to any dog show or County fair cow barn to see evolution in action as structured by man.
As for Death and Sin.
Death is one of the prerequsites for evolution, sex is another, and environmental change, and DNA.
As for God making the world, my God made the World, the Universe, The Cosmos and all other Comoses that maybe out there, have been out there, or will be out there. He is is there and here making every glue-on of every quark function as His law determines so that every sub atomic particle within every atom, of every molecule, of any all material and energy that make us me and thee and the Chiggers that bit me function. Even with that view, my God is visulized by me as smaller than he is.

He is the God narrowly percieved by man as the Lord God Jehovah, as the Amun, as the Brahmin, as the great Mystery, as the Over Soul. And I , as you, are the product of his actions, and one of his children, and I don't quite get that.
 

He lives! Welcome back, Drlobo. You missed a doozy here.
 

As usual, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.
 

Change Brahmin to Brahman.