RE: I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG

> -----Original Message-----
> From: wallyshoes [mailto:wallyshoes@mindspring.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 3:47 PM
> To: Glenn Morton
> Cc: asa@calvin.edu
> Subject: Re: I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG
>
>
> Hey Glenn,
>
> I really am not trying to provoke you, even though that seems
> easy.

I am not even sure why you think I was provoked. Those who have seen me
provoked would know the difference. I am merely trying to have a discussion
with you but you never really respond to what I say. If by saying I think
your approach is flawed, you think you have provoked me you are very wrong.

I agree that
> that debates herein are often just a means of exchanging views. I
> feel the same
> way myself. However, since the world has access to these posts,
> maybe some would
> be better conducted offline. And I am glad that you have swayed
> some people to
> agree with you -- although your previous posts said that nobody
> ever listens.

It is not a very fruitful area. But some of the satisfaction I get comes
from stories like the scientist who had actually left the faith, found my
web pages and then he come back. He left the faith because he thought the
only way to explain Genesis was via YEC or other approaches he couldn't
accept.. You haven't actually answered the question I asked you. How many
YECs have you actually converted to OEC? You say your method is effective,
but you give no evidence. (note-I am not provoked when I ask this question.)

>
> I am still taking about the plain vanilla Christian in the pew
> (not the nutcakes
> that you like to bring up) and how to address THEM.

One tries to be gentle with them, but when they behave as the leaders do, by
immediately calling one a heretic when one suggests alternative
interpretations, it is hard, as Michael Roberts pointed out, not to realize
that they are as culpable. Quite often, leadership means being what the
followers want. The followers and leaders are almost always in a symbiotic
relationship. You can't entirely act is if the leaders think up nonsense and
spoon feed it to the masses. That is only part of ths story. The masses
also tell the leaders what they wish to have spoon fed to them. You
couldn't put George Bush at the top of the Democratic ticket and have the
present democratic supporters follow him. Leaders

> I repeat from my first post the quote from Jack Haas' letter:
>

I got involved in this not because of Jack's letter but because of your
implication that we should act as if wrong ideas have merit in order to
convince people otherwise. I got involved because you seem to indicate that
we shouldn't tell people their ideas are wrong. I disagree with that
approach. One should be truthful in everything. I asked you where you
would draw the line in taking a stand and calling something wrong. You
didn't answer, other than to call them nutcakes, which seems to be an
IARAYAW statement as well. I don't understand why you wouldn't call
Christian geocentricity wrong rather than calling the advocates nutcakes.
Why is geocentricity so much more nutcakish than belief that all the rates
of radioactive decay and the speed of light were faster in the past, so fast
as to make the earth only 6000 years old? The consequences of such a belief
are simply not observed in nature. Why is it less nutcakish to believe that
all the world's 10 million species were either on an ark or were able to
evolve in a few thousand years after the flood, while they at the same time
decry evolution? Why is it less nutcakish to believe that God encoded images
of exploding stars in the light as it travels to earth?

I simply see no standard in what you are actually doing
Received on Sat Dec 27 21:42:34 2003