Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
Posted on 06/10/2005 9:40:20 PM PDT by orionblamblam
Revelation 4:11
See my profile for info
I think this thread has been fairly calm as this topic goes! What I've read was person after person informing you that the 2 choices you listed were insufficient. There are numerous camps on this deep issue. So I'm afraid your attempt to secure "votes" on your two choices is not going to be fruitful.
Thanks for starting this thread. After months of pointless threads of people talking past each other trying to cram people into 2 over-simplified polarized positions, it's refreshing to see a thoughtful thread listing the various possible positions on such a deep subject. I know this has been done before but it was needed again.
I certainly agree that God reveals Himself in several ways - including Scriptures and nature (Psalms 19 and Romans 1). Our task is basically to pay attention. LOL!
I've been putting together an article with some of the points raised here and a bunch of others - with sources - as a Freeper research project. When I get it posted, I'll ping you for your insights!
> What I've read was person after person informing you that the 2 choices you listed were insufficient.
Well, a line must be drawn somewhere. Else, we'll get peopel calling themselves "Creationist" because they believe that God (frat name: Bluto) will create the universe sometime in the future as a fraternity prank.
In any event: as with any choice, this one can be boiled down to a binmary system, so long as we can all agree with this: "A 'Creationist' is someone who believes that (a) God created mankind." Where it becomes binary is "...created mankind much as it is now/created mankind through an evolutionary process." Anyone who self-defines as a Creationist but believes neither of those things is in a distinct minority group, IMO.
NIV 1 Corinthians 2:11-16
11. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.
12. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us.
13. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.
14. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:
16. "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.NIV Romans 15:21
Rather, as it is written: "Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand."NIV 2 Corinthians 1:13-14
13. For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that,
14. as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.NIV Colossians 2:2-4
2. My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ,
3. in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
4. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.NIV 2 Peter 3:15-16
15. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
16. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.NIV 1 John 5:20
We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true--even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.
No. Choices are not always binary.
I'll stick with my definition of creationist as one who denies Darwin's theory of evolution (and inevitably all other science as well). If the term also includes theistic evolutionists, then it loses all meaning, and allows the creationists to be closeted, or at least to claim that they're really not so odd, because most scientists would then fall within such a definition. Then we'd have to resort to using a new term like "full-blown creationist" or "creation science cultist" in order to specify the science-denial group.
"Creationist" should mean simply one who accepts a doctrine of creation: That God created the world, and also possibly continues to create or sustain it, and has a relation of whatever sort with it. But antievolutionists themselves (at least the vast majority of religiously motivated antievoltutionists, excepting maybe the odd Hari Krishna devotee) have attempted to expropriate the term "creationist" for themselves, and implicitly deny it to those who accept both Creation and mainstream science.
Most modifiers to the term "creationist" in current usage (e.g. "progressive," young-earth," "old-earth") merely specify some variant of antievolutionary creationism, rather than distinguishing antievolutionary creationism as a whole from other sorts not hostile to evolution. I suppose the adjective that comes closest to doing so is "special," but it's not used much these days.
A "special creationist" is one who asserts that the creaturely potentials of nature, and/or God's providential governance thereof, are insufficient and that "special" acts of creation (i.e. Divine interventions into the order of creation, or "miracles") must have occurred; or one who believes that statements in the Bible or other religious documents demand an acceptance of such "special" acts.
Even "special creationist" is not perfect, however, as one might logically believe (and many do) in certain acts of "special creation" -- as for instance the creation of souls, or the initial creation of life in a primitive form -- while still fully accepting scientific versions of evolutionary theory.
So I still prefer the terms "antievolutionist" or "antievolutionary creationist," but often simply use the term "creationist" in the context of a CREVO debate where the restricted denotation is generally understood.
Yeah. It's them women. They should be beaten, forced to wear a burkah, and kept in the back of the house.
> Choices are not always binary.
Arguable. Take any example you want. Say... choose Door Number 1, 2 or 3. That's *three* choices overall. But it still comes down to a series of binaries: "Do I choose #1, or not? If not, then do I choose # 2 or #3?" A series of 2 binary decisions gives you an answer to a non-binary question.
Yeah right. You've drifted into ALM.
> Yeah right.
Show where my logic is in error.
> Is that clear enough for you?
No. You *still* didn't answer the question. You answered the unasked and irrelevant question "are you a Creationist," but you *DIDN'T* answer the question that was actually asked: "Does your definition of 'Creationist' include those who believe God used evolution."
The current totals (remember: this was intended to be a poll of what the word "Creationist" *means* in the terms of FR debates, not whether any particular view of it is correct or accurate)
* Those in favor of the "broad" definition of "Creationism" (God did it, maybe evolution, maybe not)
Posts: 9 (USAFJeeper), 12 (AndrewC), 16 (Triggerhippie), 18 (spinestein), 47 (chronic_loser), 108 (mdmathis6), 119 (TXnMA) and of course my friend
* Those in favor of the "narrow" definition of "Creationism" (God did it via "poof")
Posts: 15 (MitchellC), 19 (thomaswest), 20 (Bonaparte), 22 (taxesareforever), 43 (Alamo-Girl), 48 (Fester Chugabrew), 54 (PatrickHenry), 58 (VadeRetro), 75 (Manic_Episode), 78 (ohioWfan), 100 (dread78645), 102 (Elsie), 115 (Varda), 128 (Stultis) and of course me.
what logic? And what's your point? I have better things to do.
First of all, the Creationists get to define what they are, not the evolutionists! A Creationist is not defined by what they are against but rather what they are for. A Creationist believes life and the universe was created by God. As was explained by others on this thread, there are many secondary beliefs and varieties of Creationist "camps" based on differing beliefs in how and when things were created. Most Creationists do believe that man was instantly created but may not all agree on exactly when and may not agree on the age of the earth. Most Creationists have no problem with science itself but just do not accept the philosopy of macro-evolution.
There are 3 terms to keep straight, Creationist which is what you described, Evolutionist which is the opposite and Theistic evolutionist which is a combination of the two.
> Creationists get to define what they are, not the evolutionists!
Do evolutionists get to define what they are?
sure
There is a vast chasm between the Protestant belief in the "priesthood of the believer" (1 Peter 2:5), and the view that differs from Catholicism that the only mediator between God and man is Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2: 5), and your gross mischaraterization that we each come up with our own personal 'truth.'
Each of us is personally accountable to God for our actions, and each of us has the responsibility to study the Scriptures prayerfully to try to understand it, but that is not the same thing as saying we come up with our own 'truth.'
There is only one Author of truth, and it is our obligation and opportunity to learn to know Him through study of His word.
And to understand that our finite minds cannot successfully accomplish the task, and that we will often get it wrong.
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.