Part 1 of this 2-part series is here.
Interesting... I was attacked three times in three days by OECs (Old Earth Creationists). I should not be surprised, I suppose. People love their pet doctrines, and get very passionate, even unchristian, in promoting them. The OEC in the previous post was banned for being obstreperous, illogical and judgmental, and had to continue fussing at me in e-mail correspondence. Also, there was another OEC who pulled similar nonsense and was extremely condescending. He met Mr. Banhammer as well.
As I discussed in the previous linked post, OECs essentially use current trends in science and science philosophy to tell God what he meant in his Word. Although this kind of compromise (that's right, I said it) does not guarantee that the person disbelieves the Bible or is not really a Christian, their lower view of Scripture causes a domino effect on theology, with further compromise and excuses as a result. Liberal theology has a slight resemblance to Biblical Christianity. The rampant compromise and intellectualis (which I believe has a basis in wanting to look clever to the world instead of pleasing God), emotional man-pleasing teachings, New Age ideas (2 Timothy 4.3-5) make OEC beliefs very much at home.Unfortunately, compromisers do not seem to care that Genesis is the foundation of Christian doctrine.
Take a look at this screenshot:
The above is from the third one who attacked me. This one had a dim view of the Bible. For claiming that the Bible is the Word of God, I also learned:
What time line are you talking about in Genesis. We know that the exodus did not happen as described in the bible, we know the conquest of Canaan was not on the scale or the time period in the bible and so forth...do this mean it is telling lies? (if you're taking it as literal yes) if you're seeing it for what it is...then NO!Actually, no, it is not "very plain to see this". This person was ignorant of history, archaeology, theology and a proper understanding of the Bible. I was also told, " I am here answering some questions that I have seen atheists put forth, I am not here to tell them what to believe or how to believe."
I did not state the bible is unreliable, I said the opening of Genesis is not a historical account of creation. Much of the history in the early books in Genesis is not history as we would know it. It's very plain to see this.
Further, I was chided for taking the Bible "literally". That is a loaded term, and I declined to answer. For an excellent article on "Should Genesis Be Taken Literally?", click here.
I keep maintaining that the whole question is Biblical authority. If the Bible is not our foundation, then what do we have? Why are we here?
|Image credit: Answers in Genesis|