###### Don Galaway, 6/22/99 18:23 CST ######
Todd wrote:
The practical fact of the matter is that every single bit of my
discussion thus far has already been put forth by members of the Church
of Christ who believe in a strong concept of biblical inspiration (i.e.,
the infallibility of God's Word), as well as by many, many other
evangelical Christians who believe in a strong concept of biblical
inspiration.
Don here:
Todd, just what do you mean by the term, "other evangelical Christians"?
If you mean what I think you mean, we need to be studying something
other than old vs. new earth creationism.
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/23/99 21:34 EST ######
I must point out that here you are using a rhetorical method in order to
try to mischaracterize the point I was making. To mischaracterize my
comment like this seems like a totally unfair technique to me. You know
exactly what I meant: It is wrong in fact and it is wrong as a
prejudicial terminology for young earth advocates to try to portray or
insinuate that the old earth position is some kind of "atheistic"
argument. The term "evangelical Christian" is used as a generic term to
refer to those who consider themselves as Christians and who believe in
a strong concept of biblical inspiration - as I have been careful to
state explicitly the majority of the times that I have used the term -
so who are, thus, obviously not atheists nor defenders of atheism. I
have also been careful to distinguish between those who are members of
the Church of Christ and those who are not. You know what the term
means, and I know what the term means. Don't pretend otherwise.
###### Don Galaway, 6/22/99 18:23 CST ######
I have been watching with interest your exchanges with the learned men
on this list, and I must say that I, for one, take exception to a term
you have claimed to yourself numerous times; that of "truth-seeker". It
is as if to imply that you are a "truth-seeker" to the exclusion of
everyone who does not see old earth creationism as a veritable
explanation.
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/23/99 21:34 EST ######
Don, I certainly take exception to your mischaracterization of my
statements. In the context of the discussion of old earth creationism
here on the LURlist in the past several days, I have made all of the
following comments regarding truth-seeking:
[Quoting Dr. Bert Thompson in my very first post on this topic]
"As those whose lives and teachings revolve around the
importance of truth, we, of all people, should do all we
can to avoid the dissemination of erroneous material,
regardless of how 'good' it may sound, or the 'evidential
value' it may appear to have. Yes, we should defend God's
Word. But no, we should not use error to do it.
'Faithfully teaching the Faith' is not merely an awesome
privilege, but an awesome responsibility as well."
|
-- Bert Thompson (Reason & Revelation, 2/99)
|
|
[from my second post]
|
The thrust of what Thompson is getting at is that there is truth,
and then there is our human apprehension of truth - which is
fallible. This is just as true of our human interpretations of the
Bible is it is of our human examinations of the world and
interpretations of the information we acquire.
|
[also from my second post]
|
To purposely deny, reject, ignore, or misrepresent God's handiwork
is to challenge God. It is the duty of truth-seekers to address the
facts and not "skip over" the ones they dislike.
|
[from my third post]
|
...because of the direct empirical observations and of the related
evidence that is consistent with these, it is perfectly reasonable
for truth-seeking people to accept the idea that the universe and
the earth are billions of old.
|
[also from my third post]
|
Therefore, a truth-seeker can reasonably and legitimately take the
view that the universe and the earth are quite ancient, and it is
the HUMAN INTERPRETATION of the Bible as proclaiming a young earth
that is in error.
|
[Gil Yoder responds]
|
I agree that human judgment is capable of error both in interpreting
scripture and in interpreting other information....
|
[in response to Gil Yoder]
|
...a great many Christians feel obligated by their adherence to
truth-seeking to accept the facts that the universe and the earth
are billions of years old (and they must modify their human
interpretation of the Bible accordingly)....
|
[in a response to Andy Boshers]
|
...it was truth-seeking that led me away from young earth
creationism, and it is truth-seeking that I continue to follow to
this day.
|
[in a response to Kyle Cowden]
|
...you must consider that truth-seekers who approach the issue from
the concept that truth does not contradict truth realize what the
astronomical information is, realize the direct empirical
information that it is, and therefore modify their own human
interpretations accordingly. You cannot discount this by trying to
paint the approach with an "ad hominem" brush. A truth-seeker must
deal with the specific facts of the direct empirical information.
|
[in a response to Brian Galloway]
|
Truth-seeking demands that we accept the truth when we learn what
it is....
|
[also to Kyle Cowden]
|
I agree with you that the consideration of ideas that are different
from the personal beliefs we already hold can be disconcerting. But
so what? Are we supposed to reject the methods of truth-seeking
simply because they make us uncomfortable? I think you would agree
with me that psychological discomfort is not a legitimate measure of
the validity of the ideas that we encounter on a genuine search for
truth.
|
[also to Kyle Cowden]
|
I am someone...who learned the information, examined it thoroughly,
and realized that to remain intellectually honest I had to accept
the ancient age of the universe.
|
Now, what is it about the nature of truth-seeking that you disagree
with? Do you believe that truth, and thus truth-seeking, is somehow
unimportant or holds little value? If you do, then own up to it. If you
do not, then stop trying to mischaracterize my discussion.
Since you are a member of the Church of Christ, I know that this
concept, this attitude, is not unfamiliar to you, because it is the
approach that people in the Church of Christ take with members of other
churches all the time. You should not try to pretend that you somehow
don't understand what I'm referring to.
The only people in this discussion who have been condescending in their
remarks have been some (but not, of course, all) of the young earth
respondents making comments to me. I am certainly not using the term
"truth-seeking" as some kind of implicit, rhetorical condescension
toward those who believe in a young earth. I use it in an entirely
sincere way with any person who tries to pretend that their personal
(human) beliefs are somehow superior to everyone else's, ESPECIALLY when
that person tries to proclaim such things as that it doesn't matter what
the evidence is because evidence doesn't matter. That kind of attitude
is anti-truth, and thus anti-truth-seeking, and no one should try to
pretend otherwise.
###### Don Galaway, 6/22/99 18:23 CST ######
I envision you as a young man, not long out of some college or
university, though I'll not venture a guess as to which one. The simple
fact is there is no plausible explanation other than the creation of
which we read in God's Word (seven literal days). If you are looking
for ignorant responses to place in your web site, you have my permission
to use this one, for I am truly an ignorant man compared with the
manifold wisdom of God.
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/23/99 21:34 EST ######
First...
Professionally, I am a computer programmer. I work in C++, SQL, Visual
Basic, Windows NT, Unix, etc., and have worked with mainframes and COBOL
in the past. <grin>If you're offering a well-paid job in Phoenix,
Arizona, I would like to send you my resume.</grin> I have been out of
college since the spring of 1986. If 13 years is "not long," then so be
it. Personally, I'm married and have four wonderful children. Do
not try to characterize me as some naive, "wet behind the ears,"
"doesn't really know what he's talking about," "youngster sowing his
oats" kind of guy. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don't
wish to make substantive comments regarding the points I am raising in
this discussion, but instead choose to use implicit *ad hominem*
comments like this, rest assured that I shall continue to point out
their irrelevancy to the substance of the discussion.
Second...
"Day," "yom," is not necessarily literal. Read Genesis 2.4. Please don't
pretend that I did not already point this out, because I did (twice
before, so this is now the third time).
Third...
I already commented to Andy Boshers that this discussion is what it is,
and not part of some "larger, hidden agenda." Why do you now try to
characterize it otherwise?
Fourth...
We are all ignorant compared with "the manifold wisdom of God."
<grin>But last time I checked God had not personally posted any emails
on the LURlist in the context of this discussion.</grin> If you wish to
promote yourself as being one of those "divinely inspired, infallible
interpreters" of God's Word, then join the ranks of the Catholic Pope,
or Joseph Smith, or Ellen G. White, or one of the myriad of other
"infallible" interpreters. Otherwise, I invite you to join in the
discussion on the even level, human to human, considering and discussing
the actual evidence, comparing human interpretation with human
interpretation in order to determine what is reasonable and what is not.
To refuse to do this implies that you consider yourself to be divinely
inspired (i.e., without even considering any evidence at all, you
already KNOW that there is absolutely no possibility that any of your
personal beliefs could be mistaken). If your "seven literal days" is so
obviously the only plausible explanation with respect to all of the
relevant data, then surely it would be an easy task for an infallible
interpreter to lay the relevant data out and demonstrate clearly how it
all fits so well together. Please note that you did not even *begin* to
discuss any substantive information whatsoever.
###### Don Galaway, 6/22/99 18:23 CST ######
My prayer is that you will open your heart to the truths presented to
you, instead of trying to convince the world, and possibly Todd that
"old earth creationism" is viable.
In Him,
Don Galaway
###### Todd S. Greene, 6/23/99 21:34 EST ######
Don, God is not writing on the LURlist, and you are not God nor one of
his divinely-appointed messengers. PEOPLE, other fallible human beings,
are presenting their fallible human ideas, fallible human
interpretations, and fallible human opinions. I am certainly open to the
substantive information that is presented by these PEOPLE. But, please
note, that in your post to me (the entirety of which is copied in this
post), just an an example, you personally have not presented one single
substantive point. All you have done is present your entirely fallible
human opinions. No evidence, no logical points, nothing.
I AM convinced that the universe and the earth are quite ancient, but
not because I have the attitude that I know I can't be wrong. After all,
I believed differently on this issue in the past. But I knew enough to
understand that if I was truly dedicated to truth, to seeking the truth,
then it was my responsibility to consider the evidence, give it a fair
hearing, to understand it, and to reason things out accordingly. To the
genuine truth-seeker, your responsibility, your duty, is to be willing
to modify a personal belief if you discover, by the evidence, that your
personal belief is incorrect.
I don't care whether anyone here accepts the idea that the universe and
the earth are ancient or not. You think I am trying to convince YOU? All
I am doing is demonstrating, piece by piece, that the old universe/old
earth position is, by the evidence, reasonable and justifiable, and thus
those Christians who have accepted this idea are indeed intellectually
honest, contrary to the characterizations of the "young earth
exclusivists," who are unable to demonstrate otherwise. The end result
of my participation in this discussion is not to convince you, a young
earth proponent, that you must accept an old earth or be displeasing to
God. (Of course, if someone did modify their personal beliefs based on
reasoned considerations of evidence and information they were not
previously aware of, that would be well and good.) Don't you get my
point? I am simply showing, step by step, in correspondence with the
evidence, that the exclusivist attitude that many young earth advocates
espouse is unjustified and wrong, because it is reasonable and honest to
believe otherwise.
Though in the middle of the trees it may seem to be otherwise, the
forest of my entire discussion is really about what I see as a wrong
attitude.
The Bible says that we should love God with all our heart, all our soul,
and all our MIND. I close by referring you to the quotes after my
"signature."
Take care,
Todd S. Greene
The heart of the discerning acquires knowledge;
the ears of the wise seek it out. (Proverbs 18.15)
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. (2 Corinthians 3.17)
Love...comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. (1 Timothy 1.5-7)
We serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. (Romans 7.6b)
If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. (Galatians 5.15)
But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless. Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. (Titus 3.9-10)
Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice. But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace raise a harvest of righteousness. (James 3.13-18)
...whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable -- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy -- think about such things. (Philippians 4.8)
Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. (Romans 14.4,12-13a)
| |
|