Hypocrisy / Apathy --

"A salty pagan, full of the juices of life, is a hundred times dearer to God, and also far more attractive to men, than a scribe who knows his Bible...in whom none of this results in repentance, action, and above all, death of the self. A terrible curse hangs over the know-it-all who does nothing."

Helmut Thielicke
From: 1001 Quotes...

'A man of words and not of deeds
Is like a garden full of weeds.'

Greetings,
Abishag <><

I think hypocrisy is considered loathsome by everyone who makes an effort to be honest. If you observe closely, you will find that hypocrites and liars have a strong affinity for each other.

Apathy is a little different. Everyone is somewhat apathetic, and must be due to time constraints. If I am apathetic about some things, I am less likely to condemn apathy in others, lest I become guilty of hypocrisy.

Apathy is frustrating to any advocate. As an example I think folks may relate to, I am not pleased with the way creationism is so often dismissed as unimportant.

I understand that people have different gifts; I'm not blind. But the attitude some have about creation makes no sense whatsoever. They adopt the very attitude and arguments advocated by evolutionists: "You can still be a Christian and believe in evolution, so it isn't important" they say.

Ha! So escaping punishment is the only important thing? Being fruitful, living for Christ, loving God with all your heart and mind and soul - these aren't important? What ever happened to seeking truth? Does it stop at salvation? One might as well advocate another kind of baptism that makes them dead to the world and dead to God as well!

People need to evaluate ideas. Bad ideas come to me all the time. I attribute a good deal of them to Satan & his crew. It is arrogance to even propose that because one is smart or wise or righteous one is immune to dumb ideas. All ideas must be evaluated (unless time does not permit) before they should be accepted.

The idea that the doctrine of creation is optional is a bad idea. You might as well say prayer and obedience are optional (and quite a few seem to reach that point).

I'm not saying everyone should be expected to become a creationist the instant God forgives their sins. That'd be somewhat akin to saying one should instantaneously be perfected.

A.E. Wilder-Smith took a couple of years to abandon evolutionary teachings. He was concerned about finding the truth the whole time. He didn't have access to much in the way of creation science literature. But after he discovered the truth, he sure made an impact on that problem!

I have little patience with apathy when it comes to creationism. It is the very poison dispensed by God's enemies. I don't expect everyone to get involved, but I do think everyone should obtain understanding.

I think we have somewhat of a solution to the practical apathy problem (the fact that we don't have time to pursue everything we "should"): prayer. Even matters we cannot make time for can be included in our prayers.

Hello CTD,

I sincerely like your observation. Thank you for taking the time to 'enlighten' all of us.

I am reminded of what our Lord said in Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom of heaven; but he that DOETH the will of my Father which is in heaven." Matthew 7:21 (emphasis mine)

It was quite a surprise to me to learn, about 6 years ago, that Noah Webster wrote the first 'American Dictionary of the English Language' 1828. He was a devout Christian.

We have a copy of this- from Foundation for American Christian Education Fascimile First Edition. We purchased this from CBD (Christian Book Distributors). How amazing to see the words, then the definitions followed by Scripture Verses! Astounding, indeed!

Back to the subject of Creation....from the WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY of the American Language/ Second College Edition:

creation= the universe and everything in it; all the world / anything created;....
THE CREATION/ Theol. God's creating of the world.

creationism= The doctrine that God creates a new soul for every human being born; opposed to traducianism 2.) the doctrine that ascribes the origin of matter, species, etc. to acts of creation by God.

Your comment about some people believe, "you can still be a Christian and believe in evolution, so it isn't important they say.".....sounds like an oxymoron to me.

AS our Pastor tells us, "Either you are a Christian and believe in the inerrancy of (all) Holy Scripture, or you are NOT a Christian and are on your way to the bottomless pit, Hell." No two ways about it....

Hopefully it has been clarified that this Forum Creation/Evolution, is for both parties to base their opinions or information, without arguing. I would like to post some well documented devotionals from the 'Institute for CREATION Research'. This speaks to both, the Creationist and the Evolutionist. We shall see if this is acceptable to you, Russ, and the other moderators.

Thank you again for your stand for , TRUTH ! And I agree 100% that prayer is a must for all believers to approach the Throne Room of our heavenly maker, GOD!

Sincerely, Blessings, Abishag <><

Greetings,

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show it by his good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, you do not boast about it or deny the truth . This wisdom descends not from above, but is earthly, sensual, and of the evil one.

True wisdom is "from above" and is "pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without HYPOCRISY" . False wisdom, on the other hand, may come from the world outside us ("earthly"), the flesh within us ("sensual"), or the powers of darkness tempting us ("the evil one"). All such wisdom leads to "envying and strife...confusion and every evil work."


Creationist/Evolutionist= there are [some] people on here that profess to be Christian Evolutionists. This may speak to them.

Thank you, Abishag

The Christians and "christians" who attempt to reconcile faith in God with faith in Darwin may seem difficult to understand. II Pet. 3 is helpful to the Christian evolutionologist.

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=46689#Post46689

Those who deny the flood, especially those who've been exposed to evidence, seem to me to classify themselves as heretics or scoffers. That they fulfill some of the very prophecy they deny simply adds humour to the situation. Now sure, they could claim "we accept what Peter said", but why then do they not heed the warning? Hypocrisy, if I'm not mistaken.

Many have accepted the evolutionary system of "ages geology," and this is tragic and dangerous. Instead of compromising with evolutionary naturalists and religious liberals, as many evangelicals today are inclined to do, Paul warns: "From such turn away!" (2 Timothy 3:5)

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." (2 Timothy 3:5)

Thank you, CTD
Blessings, Abishag <><

I notice, Abishag, that you are very keen to tell us all to accept creationism -- apparently because that is the correct and godly thing to do.

What I'm wondering is whether you feel this also requires us to ignore or deny reality. If there was a worldwide Biblical flood, for example, then we should see evidence of that in the geological record, and none has been discovered. What is more, creationism does not account for the layering of fossils -- trilobites near the bottom, dinosaurs in between, humans near the top. Why is this, if all these creatures existed at the same time? Are you asking us to believe that scientists are simply lying to us?

I note that scientists have never been unanimous in supporting evolutionism. This fact is no secret, yet we continue to encounter arguments which assume it is untrue. Apparently the worldwide evidence for the flood isn't the only thing evogoggles prevent one from seeing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that the very few scientists who are creationists are of the correct opinion, even though you'd be hard pressed to find creationists in fields which are directly related to evolution (such as genetics or biology) and the age of the earth (geology).

You also seem to be saying that these evolutionist scientists -- the vast majority of the scientific population -- are ignoring or lying about evidence for a worldwide flood which does actually exist but has not been made public (the term "evogoggles" is apparently a pejorative one suggesting that people are blind to, or wilfully ignoring, the truth).

I notice that you have not actually answered my questions in the above post about what we are supposed to do about existing evidence if we are to become creationists. You seem to be implying that we should accept your word for it that there really is evidence for a worldwide flood but it's being concealed. I can't say I'd easily be swayed by this, I don't like to take someone's word for it and prefer to see the evidence on which their words are based. Maybe you can go to an appropriate thread here and present your evidence for the worldwide flood. If I've been fooled by the establishment then I and everyone else reading this ought to know. I suggest you avoid the Grand Canyon because that has already been discussed and I am not satisfied that you have proved anything about it being carved by one catastrophic flood.

I also note the absence of a reply to my question about the sorting of fossils in the geological record. I can't see how this fits into all life being created simultaneously, or a worldwide flood in which many of these simultaneously created creatures died. I'd have a lot of trouble sweeping this under the carpet if I were to become a creationist. What should I do? Maybe you could also discuss this in an appropriate thread.

I need to reconcile spirituality with the world around me. I personally can't lie to myself about one in order to believe what I want about the other, a sentiment which ties in well with the title of this thread. I don't have a problem with this, but I would if I decided I had to believe in the simultaneous creation of all living things on earth and a universe that is 6000 years old.

Your question was not addressed to me. Since I have already provided answers, I don't see any reason to repeat myself. Couldn't the answers be forgotten once again just as easily as they have been, time after time after time? And then forgotten the next time, and the time after that, and the time after that, and so on? (Or overlooked entirely? From my perspective, I confess I cannot distinguish between that which you overlook and that which you forget. Neither can I conclusively prove to the doubtful that such forgetfulness is not genuine, although I don't think a being who was plagued thereby would be capable of functioning at all.)

I haven't read direct answers to the questions above. If you choose not to link me to where you think they were given or tell me which threads they are in, that's your choice, though one would perhaps wonder why an easy answer could not be patiently repeated. There is the danger that one could (erroneously of course) end up assuming that the issues were evaded in the past, and now in the present it can be claimed that they were definitively addressed and the current addressee must be suffering from amnesia.

Since I was originally addressing Abishag, maybe we should give her a chance to reply, if she wishes.

Apparently this will not be considered a "bogus tactic".

It appears that CTD is unwilling or unable to answer the questions I posted here, which were honest questions that I would ask if Abishag continued to tell me and other readers to become creationists. I can't see how I could reconcile the sorting of the fossil record and the geological column with a 6,000 year old earth, instantaneous creation and a worldwide flood. If someone asked me questions about evolution then I would not have a problem with repeating information -- I do it year after year in my own job.

Be that as it may, I've expressed my own difficulties with the comments here, as presumably I am free to do on this forum. They may be addressed, evaded or ignored by anyone else here as they choose. Maybe the only comments here will continue to be that creationism has all the answers and is the right and godly thing to believe. I doubt if this will produce any converts though unless the belief can withstand some legitimate questioning.

I seem to recall the subject of the worldwide flood has cropped up a number of times on this forum and been discussed often and in some detail. Here is one such example:

THE HISTORY RULES THREAD

There is much to be said for the arguments in favour of a worldwide flood if one is willing and interested enough to read/view what has already been given.

I suggest that perhaps one may wish to re-read the thread again if they have forgotten what has already been discussed/addressed. Additions/concerns regarding the information given could perhaps go from there. It will help if people stick to the subjects on each thread as much as possible.

Thanks Bex, I will have a browse there.

By the way, what is the subject of this thread, if not to have a general bash at evolutionists for being godless unbelievers who will be sent to hell? I thought ad hominem remarks were going to be discouraged here? What would be the response if an evolutionist started a thread devoted to negatively stereotyping creationists (i.e. as hypocritical and apathetic)?

One can discover the topic of this thread, like most others, by reading the title and the O.P.

Have you considered the possibility that some people don't equate hypocrisy with evolutionism as you have chosen to do? And if hypocrisy be part of the religion, how can attacking this doctrine be classified as ad hominem?

If hypocrisy or apathy have a positive side, you're free to present your case.

You're welcome.

I have re-read this thread. No such statements were made. I suggest looking at it again. Self examination is no bad thing, the bible encourages it. It speaks to everybody, but perhaps especially those of us holding to contradictory/conflicting belief systems and/or behaviours.

I will explain my point of view. This thread titled "Hypocrisy/apathy" appeared in the creation/evolution forum, not the Bible forum where it was once moved, because presumably it is meant to address people reading and posting here. It was written by creationists. Here is something Abishag said:



As I see it, believing in the inerrancy of the Bible is the same as being a Biblical literalist, which means a creationist. Which means we are being told in this thread that non-Biblical literalists (most of whom are evolutionists) will go to hell.

A charming thought I'm sure, but I'm not sure what substance it adds to conversation here.

There are few areas of this forum complex where hypocrisy and apathy are off-topic. These evils impact many issues.
Abishag said a lot more than that. I don't see how picking out this sentence and carrying on so is going to lead to the type of discussion you'd advocate; and it's not likely to help anyone forget their eventual destination either, for that matter. You seem to be working in the wrong direction.

If you think people claiming to follow Christ while cherry-picking and deliberately misinterpreting scripture are not hypocrites, well it'll take more than an assertion to convince most folks, even the most atheistic atheists. If they are hypocrites, how is it off-topic to discuss their situation?

Oh, I get it now. You are quoting Abishag out-of-context in order to try to support your "evolutionist-bashing" fantasy.


You need to work on your illusions a little more, and it wouldn't hurt to find another place to practice. Mischaracterizing the words of another member isn't recommended, and the stupidity defense may not be available for long either. And all to create the false impression that Bex was mistaken? For shame!

Is the purpose of this thread, then, to tell Christians like LinearAQ that they are hypocrites -- in other word, the ad hominem remarks being geared to a particular kind of evolutionist? In a discussion or debate, drawing attention away from the topic by attacking the character of one of the participants is the definition of ad hominem. Linear has already made the point that it's immaterial what someone's personal beliefs are, when the focus is on evidence being presented.

I believe my previous questions are still relevant then, though they can be discussed more thoroughly in other threads. If I will be condemned to hell if I don't become a creationist, I wonder how I can reconcile this with certain things about the world around me. Don't you believe God gave us brains to think about things and ask questions?

As an aside, I think Bex actually did the correct thing by moving this thread to the Bible forum. Someone obviously overruled her and moved it back here. She was also correct in saying that no literal statements were made about evolutionists going to hell (just people who don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible -- you did not tell me if you think this means the same thing as a Biblical literalist). It would be illogical to deny, however, that the gist of this thread is very much geared toward criticising the character of the opposition. Who else are the liars and hypocrites referred to, and why is it so important that these remarks be made in this forum, if that is not the case?

Apparently someone thinks the purpose of this thread is to continually suggest new purposes for this thread.

One can't help supposing a thread about the straw man fallacy would draw fire for being an ad hom attack on those who employ it regularly...

We've had this conversation so many times before, where it is claimed that I am misinterpreting words. Let's look at this again.



Let's take this logically step by step.

Abishag is saying in her first cut-and-pasted comment that you are not a Christian if you accept evolution. An oxymoron is a contradiction in terms, for those who are unclear about the phraseology being used.

We then are given a black-and-white dichotomy: unless you accept the inerrancy of the Bible, you are not actually Christian and will go to hell. We'll overlook the fact for now that this condemns the vast majority of the human population and establishes a narrowly-defined elite.

I have asked twice now whether anyone here equates belief in the inerrancy of the Bible with Biblical literalism, which seems a reasonable conclusion to me. Why is this such a difficult question to answer? I have also asked why someone thought this thread discussing hypocrites and liars is so pertinent to this particular forum that they overruled Bex's decision to move it to the Bible forum. Why is this such a difficult question to answer?

False. You have not even asked once. You misrepresent yourself (a violation of current rules) in order to paint a picture of the creationists here as unwilling or unable to answer(a bogus tactic).

Another question which is not to be found in this thread.

I have a question: What are the chances we'll see evolutionists engaging honestly in discussion around here? If we do not implement and enforce a good set of rules, I believe the chances are quite slim. Whenever I think of odds so long, I can't help associating them with the evogoddess of luck.

Consider the matter-of-fact attitude displayed by the bolded portion of this paragraph
So we're just naturally to expect evolutionists to quote out-of-context and make bogus attempts to smear creationists - it's what they do, right?

A self-respecting, sincere individual might apologize. But then again, who wants an insincere apology, offered only for show, from someone who thinks such tactics are just routine business-as-usual?

That's a problem one is likely to encounter when dealing with an individual trained at a pro-evolution forum. Misrepresentation of creationists and their positions is business-as-usual. It's practically the only business they know. And the minute a creationist calls them on it, "Oh no! That's a violation of forum rules!" If we're to have civil discussions with evolutionists, the best candidates are those which have not already been conditioned to employ bogus tactics exclusively. Those which are so conditioned are incapable of standing on a level playing field because their sense of balance has been tuned to operate on an almost vertical incline.

I said:


CTD claimed:


post 48067


post 48055


I wrote "As I see it" because I was willing to be corrected by anyone who chose to tell me that they thought this statement was false. I guess it doesn't meet the strict criteria of "asking" but the intention was certainly to confirm the statement in the eyes of creationists talking here.

I also said:


CTD said:


post 48067


I'm sorry if the questioning nature of the statement was lost on you because of the lack of a question mark. I'll try to be more literal in future.

The rest of your post is nothing but a mass of ad hominem that seems rather immoderate for a moderator. If I'd gone on a tirade like this about creationists here I'd be banned.

Why don't you stop sniping and simply answer my questions? Can you do that, or at least attempt to? Or if not, just leave it for Abishag to reply if she wants. Further evasions of my questions and ad hominem remarks will be ignored.

I don't intend to play your games. You have already seen my doctrine of interpretation. It hasn't changed.

http://herballure.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=33922#Post33922

You're not here to engage in discussion. You don't pay attention. You have a straw creationist you believe you can defeat, and you simply attempt to convince third parties that we actually are your straw creationist. (Which necessitates continually trying to put its words in everyone's mouth.) If it were possible, I would like to see you debate your straw creationist. But you will not succeed in misportraying real people if I can help it.

I suggest you take an old sock, put it on your hand, and have your own little debate. If you lose, you can probably find a somewhat satisfactory way to punish the sock. Shoot, take a video in case you win. The you-tube atheists seem very enthusiastic about such shows. You might easily become a celebrity.

I believe if we were to get this thread on a more productive topic, we might consider thinking about something like this:



I know that all people on this thread are interested in truth, but in this search for truth, it's important to keep up with the latest research and to understand that previous conclusions drawn by science are often completely wrong.

In this case, science is complete wrong about conclusions related to traditional layering and strata. Science now knows that deeper layers are not older.

We also have strong evidence for a world-wide flood.

I believe this video does an excellent job of explaining this:

http://urlbam.com/ha/M002C

I just watched this a couple of days ago and talked about it in the "History Rules" thread. I specifically addressed its scientific claims and concluded my post by saying that while there is no fault in its science, it leaves out a great deal of information and then implies that scientists don't know, ignore, or see as a "problem" what it does present, which is not true. I backed this up with some links that clearly demonstrate this.

If you can tell me why there are trilobites at the bottom of the geological record, dinosaurs in between, and humans near the top, please do so. I think it would be more appropriate to carry on the conversation in a more suitable thread though. There are some old ones about the flood that can be resurrected, if that's the angle you want to take, or we could talk about geology.

Instead of making this thread more productive, my opinion is that it was never productive and I would be happy to see it erased. I don't feel it has contributed anything to the discussions in this forum and my hopes that CTD would do anything other than throw insults eroded a long time ago.

Locking the thread, at least for a while. The discussion does not promise to stay on-topic. There are alternative threads in which to discuss the things people indicate they may intend to discuss.