> Ed wrote:
>
> >What a bizarre question. Are non-Christians not allowed to speak?
>
> >> Let me rephrase that. Why do you choose to be a non-Christian?
>
> >Sorry, Dick, this is not about my religious beliefs, it is about your
> unwarranted
> >and viscious attack on the integrity of Art Chadwick. Opinion seems to be
> pretty
> >unanimous that the only one in this situation who is showing a lack of
> integrity
> >here is you. Perhaps you should give some thought to "thou shalt not bear
> false
> >witness".
>
> You see, this is typical of a sloppy conclusion. "Opinion ...unanimous
> that I am
> showing a lack of integrity"? Who, besides you, said that? Or are you
> exhibiting
> a lack of integrity so we can recognize a lack of integrity when we see one?
So far, not a single person who has entered this thread has agreed with you.
Every post has said what I am saying, that your attack on Art is unjustified and
reprehensible, and that includes those, like me and Glenn Morton, who agree with
you on the falsity of flood geology.
> Frivolity aside, almost anyone on this list can witness to you about making a
> commitment to Christ based not upon faith alone, but on data and evidence.
> Unfortunately, there are those who distort and deny scientific evidence
> because of
> their religious beliefs. Many choose not to become Christians on the
> mistaken
> idea that since the science is dreadful their religious beliefs must be
> too, and so
> they never become followers of Christ. And if they die in that condition,
> well, you
> know the rest - fire and brimstone, and all that. I'm not saying this to
> scare you,
> brother, I'm just laying it on the table. There is a war for the hearts
> and souls of us
> all waged by the forces of evil against God. You are in it whether you
> choose to
> be or not.
<snipping the rest of your irrelevant subject changing and issue dodging
material>
I will repeat once more, with emphasis. MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS ARE NOT AT ISSUE
HERE, DICK. YOUR BEHAVIOR IS. DEAL WITH IT.
> But since you apparently read the Bible yourself (you did quote from it),
> look at
> II Peter. Notice that the apostle declares that "we have not followed
> cunningly
> devised fables ..." (II Peter 1:16). Flood geology, Ed, is exactly that.
> An
> argument to discredit an historical flood we can substantiate, and substitute
> something that cannot be believed, making the Bible look foolish in the
> process.
>
> Frankly, YEC and flood geology is a deceit. A satanically-inspired deception
> using duped human instigators to discredit the creation God did make, for a
> "fable"
> that cannot be believed. Net result - we lose lives.
Yes, Dick, flood geology is false. Yes, it probably results in scientifically
literate people like myself rejecting Christianity. But this does NOT, in any
way, justify a personal attack on Art as lacking honor and integrity. Glenn takes
the same position on flood geology that you take, Dick, but he is reasonable
enough to confront the arguments and not demonize those who take a contrary
position. Flood geology can be false without making all flood geologists
dishonorable, dishonest and deceptive. If you have a specific example of Art
being dishonorable, then bring it up. So far your only defense of your
accusations amount to "flood geology is wrong" and "you're going to burn in hell
if you don't believe like I do". Neither is a rational defense of your behavior.
> And what else does the Apostle Peter say? "But there were false prophets
> also
> among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who
> privily
> shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and
> bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their
> pernicious
> ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of" (II Peter
> 2:1-2).
Blah, blah, blah. And the YECs say that YOU are a "false prophet among the
people". As a non-Christian, I'll leave these litttle intra-faith squabbles to
those who care about such things. It is totally irrelevant to my position.
> In my estimation, Peter singled out for condemnation the very behavior
> demonstrated by the one you defend. Not that he is alone. But he is a
> teacher of
> this philosophy, which places him among the instigators.
None of which makes him dishonest or dishonorable as an individual. It simply
does not follow that because he advocates a position with which you disagree that
he must therefore lack integrity. Intelligent, well educated people disagree on
things, Dick. If you cannot deal with that without demonizing your opponents, I
would suggest you check out of this debate and perhaps take up competitive
cross-stitching.
> Still, if I have been guilty of being judgmental, Glenn, let him clarify
> himself on this
> issue so that I can properly apologize if he is not as he appears to be.
First, this is Ed, not Glenn. Second, you are guilty of being far more than
judgmental. You are guilty of accusing a decent, honorable man of being indecent
and dishonorable. You are also guilty of frantic hand-waving to justify this
personal attack, changing the subject to whether I'm going to burn in hell to
divert attention from the real issue. And frankly, you are guilty of the very
thing that you wrongly accuse Art Chadwick of - lack of honor. The fact that you
demonstrate this lack of honor under the guise of righteousness and use the
example of Christ (who was far more honorable than you, by the way) to justify it
only makes it all the more pathetic to watch. And on that note, I think I'll
leave you to wallow in your dishonor. Good day.
Ed Brayton