From an Orthodox Churchpoint of view

Ken:

Might I make a plea for a bit of civility in the language to be used in this debate? Don’s posting uses the same sort of language which can be found in other creationist writings, and it gives the impression, perhaps unintended, of belligerence towards anyone who disagrees. In particular, the adjective “apostate” which Don used both of the highly respected historian Ronald Numbers, and of Chris Ho-Stuart who is greatly respected by the regulars on a.r.c, is unnecesary, and adds nothing to the content of the post. Don:

Ken, for someone who throws so much mud you are incredibly imaginative at finding incivility in what I have written. Just about everything you write against creationists in that christophobic rag, ‘The Skeptic’, is dripping with ridicule (not to mention on the JMM website). It’s unfortunately typical to find in anticreationists the tactics of the schoolyard bully-happy to dish it out, but not the converse. You yourself are happy to cite Ho-Stuart to call my colleague Dr Sarfati “a liar and an idiot” -leaving aside the incongruity of an atheist lecturing a Christian on whether evolution and Christianity are compatible! And when your atheistic compatriot Plimer was happy to label a leading US creationist a pederast, you and the other Skeptics refused to repudiate it. But then you complain when a creationist shows the tiniest imagined sign of aggression. But then, you deny biblical inerrancy, so perhaps you regard the commands against hypocrisy to be one of the alleged errors in the Bible?

Orthodox friend:

It appears obvious from the first post that there are underlying personal issues regarding the persons of Dr’s Sarfati, Chris Ho-Stuart, Ken and Don. It is most unfotunate that this influences this discussion. perhaps Don is not aware that Chris no longer posts on this forum so perhaps his defenses can be lowered a little.

The personal angst that exists in this issue is very telling. Obviously Chris has been a thorn in the side of the AIG for some time. In any case perhaps the personal references to all others not involved in this discussion could be kept at bay. I must admit Don your initial post and its reference to Chris took me by surprise and I believed you set the stage for this aspect of the discussion by introducing it therein. However, perhaps you mistakenly believed (because of some words from Rowland maybe???) that Chris was here watching and lurking and waiting to pouince. I believe he is not. So we can all settle down.

I wish to state that I must register a very large objection to all of the supposed ideas forwarded that supposedly support a reduced canon, however, I agree with Don that this issue is irrelevant to the issue of creation as the Genesis account is the same and -most- of the Church fathers agreed to a young earth God as Creator scenario and some even in the 24 hr six day matter as well.Though not all.

I also object to the belief that God destroyed the original scripts so that they would not be worshipped,on the contrary anti-Christian Jewish rabbis and pagan Romans destroyed them for quite other reasons. Constant use also destroyed any that were not seized.

I am noticing something though. That is the Protestant mindset to -selectively- quote Church Fathers and others. perhaps this is needed in such discussions but it tends to poiont to an attitude, one which it is hoped is not applied to the area of sciences. I have read many times from the many CSF/AIG books and magazines I have owned over the years that there has been constant allegatons that evolutionists only present evidences that suppor6t their theories but dismiss any evidence which appears to support creation (of which I agree it appears to happen) however, I am now noticing that the selective quoting is not all one sided. 🙂

One other issue, The Christian Church produced the Nicene Creed which declared God as the creator5 of the worl (“maker of heaven and the earth”) but the creed does not stipulate literal 24 hr days times six. This fact is not lost on my weakness. Don’s system of faith naturally (whilst seeming to uphold and protect the faith and God0 also can be the cause of the loss of some souls to the kingdom by asking them to commit further on a matter than the universal Christian Church does. Ken declaring a belief in God as Creator of the heavens and the earth would place him safely within the fold of the church but Don’s syst5em would not. I posit that the Church’s way is the better way.

Having said that, the teachers and clergymen of the church are -bound- to teach Creation and not evolution. imho. Any who do otherwise in our communion would (and have been) be removed from all ministerial duties.

It is so hard to walk the fine line in this discussion, there are traps set at every step. Forgive me if in this post I have erred or offended. It was not my intention.