RE: Pejudice? Cowardice? Re: A Peace Proposal

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wallyshoes [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 4:05 PM

> Let me again apologize to Glenn. This time, for not acknowledging
> that he often
> did specify who he is talking about. It was wrong for me ever to give the
> opposite impression.
>
> I humbly grovel, apologize and confess my error to all who read
> this post. I am
> being sincere -- not sarcastic!

Thanks, accepted, forgiven, forgotten.

>
> That, however, does not alleviate my concern about using the
> general term "YEC"
> when really meaning *other* than the general group of YEC
> believers. To say that
> YECs are being deluded by people at ICR ot AiG, etc. is not a
> problem (IMO)
> However to make a general statement like "The modern YEC is knowingly
> avoiding problems and data. That isn't integrity, Walter." is a
> general YEC
> criticism. It should have been restricted to whomever is at
> fault. It is the
> generalizations to ALL YECs that is harmful IMO.

I think I agree with George Murphy. You have lost perspective. Both views
can not be true at the same time. Thus one is true; the other false. To
give moral equivalence to Truth and Falsehood (which ever the case is with
regard to the age of the earth) is simply a flawed activity. All of us have
a moral obligation to do our best to ascertain the truth in all matters.
Given the mutual exclusivity of the two positions, one side or the other is
simply not doing what they should to ascertain the truth. So, I find your
approach entirely flawed. To claim that the individual lay follower of
either position is excempt from blame is like saying the German citizens who
lived through the holocaust but did and said nothing were blameless. They
weren't. The laity on one side or the other isn't entirely blameless. To
act as if they are sheep denies them their humanity and ability to think for
themselves. They choose not to think.
>
>
>
Received on Sun Feb 1 19:05:26 2004