I don't think I went on the attack, but if it felt that way I apologise. What I read you saying is that those who believe differently about origins are not 'earnest learners at the feet of Jesus'. Re-reading what you wrote, I still think that is the most obvious interpretation. Did you mean something else?

Anyway, no attacks from me, but I *will* pop up and make a comment every time this slander is perpetrated... or even to question whether it has been, I guess.

PS I'm all about and/and or both/and approaches to understanding rather than either/or... which is why I object so strongly to the 'with us or with the terrorists' thinking that underlies '7 day creation in 4004 BC or Satanic' comments that get passed.

I think the Bible is relatively clear about what it teaches in regards to origins. I think the fact that it is the very first subject the Bible deals with also tells us of the importance God places on the issue.

I use the word "relatively" because there are a few minor discrepancies and a few passages open to interpretation. In general, life on earth, according to the Bible is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. That is relatively the same in comparison to other beliefs out there. Some passages, like the one that describes the creation of the stars, is open to interpretation.

As for me, if the evidence convinced me that life on Earth was millions of years old, I would look for truth in religion outside of Christianity. That is just me. If someone else wants to reinterpret the Bible so that it teaches something other than what its authors intended it to teach, they can certainly do that. If I am wrong, I will apologize on the way to heaven's glory, God willing we all go together.

I know that those are your beliefs, and that you hold them passionately. I respect your beliefs and the grounds on which you've developed them. What I'm objecting to, and all I'm objecting to, is anyone saying 'those who do not share my beliefs are not {true/real/sincere} believers or Christians'. That kind of calling into question the Christianity of others is something that people here have generally agreed is unacceptable in debate... a 'nuclear option' if you like. I don't do it to anyone, and I appreciate the fact that Shane doesn't either. Anyone who does will hear from me... that's all.

Bravus,

I'm with you that the idea of is not appropriate for christians to be saying or insinuateing, period. We will all be surprised to learn so many things in heavan that we will shake our heads in disbelief, to think that we knew so much on earth. The age of the earth is no longer of prime or possibly mediocure importance to me. I do have many questions about its history, but since the Bible is not a science book, I will just continue to have questions! I reckon some would label me a 'liberal' for saying my Bible has only one equirement for salvation, belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. Oh....yes...I know, another matter all together.

I came back to reread what was previously written to find if assumptions about insinuations and slander were correct.
Since the language did not specify particular individuals, the assumptions would have to have been made as a result of denying what one's own mind felt to be the intent, a common practice for someone who would feel disagreement with their personal opinions was tantamount to slander.

Slander: the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation.

Just as I do not take charges against me seriously because I knew I was not insinuating anything about anyone, so I would assume anyone not agreeing with what was stated, would find the statement only a point of consideration. And if a person doesn't believe there are those who find no logic in any scriptural reasoning, then it would seem this scripture makes no sense to them either.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14 KJV
Regards!

I wasn't taking offense on my own behalf, but on behalf of those to whom the statement applies. I do, as you say, take it simply as a point of consideration as it applies to myself. But the goal is to make Club Adventist safe for everyone, and I continue to maintain that maligning others' faith does not make CA safe.

I know and acknowledge that text, but am aware that it can be used to defend the assertion that right triangles are happy. In other words, the fact that some of the things of God are nonsense to those who are natural does not mean that everything that is nonsense is of God.

malign: to speak evil of, to utter false reports about.

This, of course was what some sometimes thought Jesus to be about when He spoke the truth. Only the individual who found Jesus' statements to be true about themselves were deeply offended.




I'm not quite sure how this is meant.
Regards!
P.S. I appreciate your effort to keep anyone from feeling offended. I'm not sure that is a reasonable expectation when there is truth involved. After all, it was heaven where war began.

I would agree with the thought that disparaging remarks about someone else's faith, religion or ministry is quite tacky and wrong..

I loved EGW statement that we should point out what is right, not what is wrong..

thank you, bravus. i really appreciate your defense of everyones' equal rights in these types of matters, (for lack of a apt noun).