So What Exactly Did I say that was Idiocy?
I would really like to know
In an earlier post, I discussed the question of evolution and noted that I don't know any Christian who disbelieves in micro-evolution--it is macro-evolution, aka Darwinism, that causes problems. In doing so, I responded to the question that was raised by anonymous (apparently Steven Carr) about viruses that are malignant or not helpful. Anonymous seemed to think that God must have purposed the genome of various diseases to be malignant and therefore God was not good. I pointed out that in some circles of Christian theology (including mine), the fall did not have an effect only on humanity, but on nature as well. Thus, it was my position, that the viruses that are harmful in nature were the result of the fall.
Well, apparently this didn't sit very well with Anonymous who linked it to the Talk.Origins website saying "This really is bizarre, but standard Christian idiocy." Well, not wanting to be an idiot, I looked over the discussion about it to see exactly where I come across being an idiot. Not surprisingly, no one said what was idiotic about it--it was just understood by all parties involved that my position was idiotic. Look at what was said:
EjP went on a side tangent about incest (which is not what I was talking about).
John Vreeland questioned whether Adam wrote Genesis (he didn't, but again that is not what I was talking about).
EjP then leaped to the conclusion that nothing was a sin until it was written down in the Bible (a completely wrong conclusion, but again, not what I was talking about).
Uncle Davey talked about incest, too.
Ernest Major talked about the evolution of bacterial sex.
ErikW made the most interesting points which were closest to addressing what I wrote, but never really addressed whether the micro-evolution could have caused the malignant viruses to appear.
Uncle Davey then reappears and makes the most on-point statement which was "The Bible doesn't mention sin on the part of animals and plants." But, as I pointed out in my original post:
So, I respectfully disagree with Uncle Davey.
My favorite comments are from "Skitter the Cat" who says:
All well and good, but exactly what did I say that you would classify me as an idiot? Near as I can tell, this whole line of discussion is simply argumentum ad baculum. Seriously, if you think that what I said is idiocy, then tell me why. As it is, I think the entire discussion can be marked down to anti-Christian bigotry.
I would really like to know
In an earlier post, I discussed the question of evolution and noted that I don't know any Christian who disbelieves in micro-evolution--it is macro-evolution, aka Darwinism, that causes problems. In doing so, I responded to the question that was raised by anonymous (apparently Steven Carr) about viruses that are malignant or not helpful. Anonymous seemed to think that God must have purposed the genome of various diseases to be malignant and therefore God was not good. I pointed out that in some circles of Christian theology (including mine), the fall did not have an effect only on humanity, but on nature as well. Thus, it was my position, that the viruses that are harmful in nature were the result of the fall.
Well, apparently this didn't sit very well with Anonymous who linked it to the Talk.Origins website saying "This really is bizarre, but standard Christian idiocy." Well, not wanting to be an idiot, I looked over the discussion about it to see exactly where I come across being an idiot. Not surprisingly, no one said what was idiotic about it--it was just understood by all parties involved that my position was idiotic. Look at what was said:
EjP went on a side tangent about incest (which is not what I was talking about).
John Vreeland questioned whether Adam wrote Genesis (he didn't, but again that is not what I was talking about).
EjP then leaped to the conclusion that nothing was a sin until it was written down in the Bible (a completely wrong conclusion, but again, not what I was talking about).
Uncle Davey talked about incest, too.
Ernest Major talked about the evolution of bacterial sex.
ErikW made the most interesting points which were closest to addressing what I wrote, but never really addressed whether the micro-evolution could have caused the malignant viruses to appear.
Uncle Davey then reappears and makes the most on-point statement which was "The Bible doesn't mention sin on the part of animals and plants." But, as I pointed out in my original post:
Adam's sin had a tremendous effect on the entire world. We can see this clearly stated in Genesis 3:17,18 and Romans 8:19-21. The Genesis passage states that all creation was cursed by God for man's sake. * * * The passage in Romans 8:19-21 confirms the thought of Genesis. In fact, these verses are Paul's commentary on Genesis 3:17, 18. Here Paul tells us that the whole of creation has been subjected to 'vanity' by God because of man's sin."
So, I respectfully disagree with Uncle Davey.
My favorite comments are from "Skitter the Cat" who says:
Obviously, the writer of the article/blog (whatever it is supposed to be referred to as) wrote, in part, a number of things that are goofy, wrong and nonsensical. I personally wouldn't go so far as to classify the writer as an idiot, but I also concluded after about 30 seconds that the thing wasn't really worth reading and so stopped, so I'm not going to try to counter the claim that it was idiotic.
But the majority of Christians aren't idiots-in fact, the only group I can think of that has as a majority of its members classifiable as idiots is, well, idiots (and synonymous classes).
All well and good, but exactly what did I say that you would classify me as an idiot? Near as I can tell, this whole line of discussion is simply argumentum ad baculum. Seriously, if you think that what I said is idiocy, then tell me why. As it is, I think the entire discussion can be marked down to anti-Christian bigotry.
Comments