Pejudice? Cowardice? Re: A Peace Proposal

From: wallyshoes <>
Date: Sun Feb 01 2004 - 13:17:05 EST

The problem as I see it is that everyone is "thinking of" specific individuals
and then condemns an entire group of believers by using the word "YEC". Someone
recently noted that nearly 50% of all Christians are YECs. Do you guys really
want to slam the entire group?

Someone recently referred to my church as "the Unitarian Church of Christians"
in this area. The reason is that all manner of Christians coexist at this church
and we do NOT fight with each other. There is no need to do so. We focus on
Jesus Christ, not the theology of the other person wrt the OT.

When I found some books by Morris and his band of pseudo scientists in the
library, I complained to the hierarchy of the church and have made progress in
elimination of books that are scientifically bogus. That is not the same thing
as attacking an entire group of Christians for their theology.

What amazes and dismays me is the lack of identification of the specific group
of individuals about whom you are all talking. Are you *afraid* to identify
them? Is it a universal *prejudice*? How would you all feel if others attacked
Arabs in general because of the actions of groups of terrorists?

If you are angry because of YECs , then let me say that I am angry because of
your attacks on them without identifying the small minority of scientific
charlatans that you really mean.

And I do NOT believe that Glenn is justified in slamming YECs just because of
his experience with a select group. How about identifying the people of whom you
speak and criticize them BY NAME instead of by a category that includes a lot
of sensible people. If afraid to identify the person, at least say the ICR or
the AiG instead of the general term of YECs.

Have I said this often enough? I think not because all the unjust and unfair
comments still continue. So I will continue to complain about this unChristian
(IMHO) behavior.

 AND HEAR THIS WELL: Nobody on this list has any good scientific (non
philosophical) answer to those Christians who think that the earth was created
less than 10,000 years ago with the history intact. There is absolutely no way
to scientifically refute this (IMO) ---- but hostile criticism still spews


Michael Roberts wrote:

> A interesting three responses from Wally George and Glenn.
> Yes George I Was thinking of hard core YEC writers - all your standard ones
> from US, UK and Oz who seem pathologically incapable of being upright and
> fair and honest. I do not envy them on the Day of Judgement.
> I think many YEC followers are because they do not know of any better
> arguments and think Wise and Austin a just a few of many YEC geologists and
> that because they have put a poster up at a geophysics conference they must
> be good. They are like some students I taught at Wheaton, whom another
> student said they and she were brainwashed. As Glenn says they are not
> without blame
> Glenn is to the point but Wally needs to consider their whole approach of
> distortion and character assassination. If that is in any way Christian then
> I am an atheist and proud of it. (and Socrates will remember that ands use
> it against me!)
> Michael
> Original Message -----
> From: "wallyshoes" <>
> To: "Michael Roberts" <>
> Cc: "John W Burgeson" <>; <>
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 1:41 AM
> Subject: Re: A Peace Proposal
> >
> >
> > Michael Roberts wrote:
> >
> > > In a way I agree with Burgy's peace proposal but sadly one or two things
> are
> > > needed first.
> > >
> > > 1) One should always take someone else's faith commitment at face value
> and
> > > not charge them with being liberal or fundamentalist with out very good
> > > reason.
> > > Thr worst offenders are those who refer to others as "supposed
> evangelicals"
> > > or some similar phrase. On the theology web Socrates rubbishes Hugh Ross
> and
> > > his fellow AIGer Mortenson is obnoxious about Dave Young "who has
> mislead
> > > many".
> > > There is also a difference between rubbishing and disagreeing. I
> disagree
> > > with A on homosexuality and B on the person of Christ and am prepared to
> > > argue with them but not rubbish them. (But I cant resist humour which
> > > doesn't always go down!)
> > > 2) A rigorous honesty in representing the case of someone else. I fear
> that
> > > in some cases winning the argument is more important than being honest.
> > > By being honest I do not mean being 100% accurate as we all make
> mistakes or
> > > are in error, but not distorting either wilfully or negligently.
> > > I have read posts on this listserve which I consider to be seriously in
> > > error, but the person made them in absolute honesty and integrity.
> > > Unfortunately I cannot say that about most YEC writing. That means that
> even
> > > a truce is well nigh impossible-
> > >
> > > Surely no Christian could object to this
> >
> > I am one who does!
> >
> >
> > I think that many of them have every bit as much integrity as you do,
> Michael.
> >
> > Walt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ===================================
> > Walt Hicks <>
> >
> > In any consistent theory, there must
> > exist true but not provable statements.
> > (Godel's Theorem)
> >
> > You can only find the truth with logic
> > If you have already found the truth
> > without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
> > ===================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

Walt Hicks <>
In any consistent theory, there must
exist true but not provable statements.
(Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic
If you have already found the truth
without it. (G.K. Chesterton)
Received on Sun Feb 1 13:17:39 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 13:17:40 EST