Amen to that! Well said.

I also think you expressed yourself lucidly and carefully in your preceding statements. Very eloquent and a pleasure to read, although I detect a hint of sarcasm when I read, <for God gave us His only Son to protect us from Himself>, and this caused me to view the rest of your post with suspicion. Perhaps this is just a character flaw of mine.

Regarding evangelizing:

Mark 16:15 <He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.>

Matthew 24:14 says <And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come>

The key word that I detect in these two verses is "preach".

In Psalms 96:3 we read, <Declare His glory among the nations, His wonders among all peoples.>

I see the word "Declare" and it is similar to "preach".

In Matthew 28:19-20 we read, <Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.>

I see the word "teaching" and it reminds me of "preach" and "declare".

However, your point about living in the Spirit and living as God would want you to live, being an example of and showing godly love is very important indeed.

But reading further, into Luke, we come across this verse, <This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”> Luke 24:47-49.

I think this verse, which Jesus Himself spoke, is very important. He wants His followers to preach about repentance to everyone in the world. Repentance means to try to change the way the other person thinks and does things, in accordance with what God wants. This cannot be done simply by living as close to a blameless life as one can.

Therefore I think we are supposed to do as you said, <luftforlife> and live right, Christian lives, but I also think that is not nearly enough at all. We are to preach the gospel and teach others about repentance and what is expected of God, as we learn from reading about Jesus, His word and his life.

Many people are not comfortable evangelizing. It's quite easy to shift to the pejorative "proselytize" and then rationalize our way out of having to be so "aggressive, pushy and nettlesome."

We learn how to evangelize in 1 Peter 3:15

<But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect> 1 Peter 3:15.

So we should always be ready to talk and give our good reasons for the hope that lies within, and with gentleness and respect.

I noticed, <luftforlife>, that you said you didn't feel that Jesus wanted you to do that. I would say that you should never, ever trust your feelings, for your feelings are what deceive the intellect, the mind and the spirit. Feelings are what whisper, "kill yourself" to the person that is suicidal. Feelings are what whisper, "have sex with this man's wife, for she is beautiful, life is short, and she's all yours".

Let us not live by feelings but by the Word.

<What would you say if a biblical fundamentalist insisted to an atheist that to accept the Good News of Jesus Christ he would have to believe in the literal account of Creation, Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, The Flood, etc?>

I would say what I said already, that the Good News is in the Gospels, not in Genesis. The Gospel is where we should focus with unbelievers.

A person who believe the literal account of Genesis is not saying that you must believe Genesis that way in order to be saved. So I think this point is a non issue really.

<If some Christians are running around claiming that the biblical account of Noah's Ark actually happened, then it behoves their brethren to tap them on the shoulder and say, "Umm, excuse me, but that's not quite right!">

I would like to refer you to this wise piece of insight and advice:

<optimal play: I would much prefer that Christians concentrate on Jesus Christ and His message of salvation>

You say that <It's not so much scientific education that is any part of our obligation, but biblical education! > but I see it as scientific, non-theological edification.

There is no obligation from Christ or by Christ through the apostles to correct scientific disagreements whatsoever.

<Fundamentalism creates disunity, whether Christian or otherwise. >

If everyone were a fundamentalist that wouldn't be true. Perhaps it's the non-fundamentalists that cause disunity? But I would like to say here that the "fundamentals" of Christian belief is the atonement for salvation.

I do not accept the pejorative connotation of the word fundamentalism. I think that word has been injected with a pejorative meaning by non believers to cast Christians as nuts and I reject it out of hand.

The bottom line is that the focus is on the gospels. Everything else is for in-house debate, yet I don't see it as productive at all, and I think it undermines people's faith.

We need to stop following good Christians around with science books and microscopes, telling them that they need to be all about science. Science changes. I refer you back to my example about how educated scientific Christians of 100 years ago would tell fundamentalists that the universe always existed - all scientists agree, so conform to science lest you inhibit other educated people from believing.

I think that is a very strong point.

<Our dedication to Christ makes us look like fools, but you claim to be so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are so powerful! You are honored, but we are ridiculed.>

Often times our dedication to Christ will appear as foolishness to the world.

<For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"> 1 Corinthians 3:19.

It is often the case that we will look foolish to the world and be ridiculed and persecuted, but we should rejoice, <Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you> Matthew 5:12.

<big bang, pgp>

I see that, and you've seen me argue for theism using big bang theory, so please keep that in mind when I point out that you may notice that I never make a point of contention over those issues. Ever. If we are having a scientific discussion, sure, let's talk. If I'm appealing to unbelievers, sure let's talk. If I'm talking to fundamentalists, I leave them be.

To end my response, I would say that science is not contrary to Christian belief at all, and in fact, the modern scientific revolution was cradled in Christian belief - just read The Principia.

However, one should be comfortable being counted a fool by the wisest people the world has to offer, if one follows Christ with all his mind and spirit.

I think the urge to correct the literal reader should be done exegetically, that is, from the texts, and not as a spokesman for the scientific community looking to save the fundamentalist from scientific ignorance.

Many of our greatest apostles and prophets were, perhaps, scientifically ignorant, <optimal>, but they did God's work maximally and to the Lord's satisfaction.

I stumbled upon a most interesting article about spiritual gifts, in this case the gift of prophecy. Reference link is provided at the end of this article. I encourage readers to visit the link and read more.

"Through the motivational gifts, <God makes believers aware of needs that He wants to meet through them,> for His glory. Then, believers can minister to others through the ministry and manifestation gifts of the Spirit, in ways beyond mere human capability and ingenuity, with maximum effectiveness and minimum weariness.

Each person’s behavior will vary according to factors such as temperament, background, age, gender, culture, and circumstances. However, it is not unusual for individuals who share the same motivational gift to demonstrate common characteristics. Below are some <general characteristics that are typically exhibited> by those who have the motivational gift of prophecy. General Characteristics

A prophet’s <basic motivational drive is to apply the Word of God to a situation so that sin is exposed> and relationships are restored. Prophets might be considered the “trumpets” of the Body of Christ who sound the alarm in the face of sin and compromise.

A prophet <calls attention to sin and wrong attitudes.> The prophet is passionate about exposing sin, but not primarily so that sinners can be punished. Rather, he is passionate about exposing sin so that truth can be revealed and fellowship with God can be restored. A prophet has a <God-given ability to sense when compromises are being made>, and his nature demands that action be taken—something must be done. This action may take the form of an overt protest or confrontation, or it may take the form of a conversation or correspondence.

For a prophet, any solution that involves compromise is unacceptable. For the prophet, <to observe or discern sin and say nothing is, of itself, sin.> Naturally, knowing that a prophet has this perspective tends to make some of us feel intimidated or uncomfortable around them—even when we are guiltless! The prophet’s abhorrence of sin can easily be viewed as a judgmental spirit, and no one wants to be the object of that judgment. The prophet often displays the spiritual gift of discerning of spirits; he is able to discern true motives as the Holy Spirit gives him divine insights. As a general rule, the prophet is more interested in whether or not the heart is pure than whether or not the activity in question is acceptable. Prophets are usually <outspoken, sometimes brash>; they tell it like it is. They tend to see issues as “black or white,” not “gray.”

A Prophet’s Strengths

A prophet is <confident in his use of Scripture>, because he regards Scripture as the only source of truth. A mature prophet easily discerns hypocrisy, because God has gifted him to discern Truth. He is <usually more teachable than others>, especially when discipline or correction is required. When a wise prophet is confronted with his sin, he sees it as God sees it and consequently is crushed (if he is walking in the Spirit and not in the flesh). The prophet accepts absolutes easily. The rest of us try to explain them away; prophets simply take God at His Word. He is <not easily swayed by emotions>. A prophet has a <deep capacity to trust God>, based on what God has promised. This is the prophet’s attitude: “If it’s right, do it. Trust God for the outcome—it’s His responsibility.”

A Prophet’s Weaknesses

A prophet’s need to be “painfully truthful” may result in <insensitivity or harshness>. Prophets often have <little sympathy and patience with people> who do not respond objectively. A prophet’s sense of conviction may tempt him or her to become <intolerant or prideful>. Because of the prophet’s deep consciousness of sin, he sometimes seems to have a <negative, “gloomy” approach to life.>"

Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’

Yes, the Good News is in the Gospels, but how could it be properly understood apart from God's plan of salvation for the Israelites as described throughout the Old Testament beginning with Genesis?

The New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament, unless you're a modern day Marcionite?

<A person who believe the literal account of Genesis is not saying that you must believe Genesis that way in order to be saved. So I think this point is a non issue really.>

Are you sure no-one says that?

In any event, I don't see how a proper understanding of Genesis can be relegated to a "non issue"?

<There is no obligation from Christ or by Christ through the apostles to correct scientific disagreements whatsoever.>

Exactly right!

Please tell that to the biblical fundamentalists!

They're the ones who are always insisting that the Big Bang, Evolution, etc are false simply because they contradict a literal reading of the Bible.

<... the "fundamentals" of Christian belief is the atonement for salvation.> Agreed.

<I do not accept the pejorative connotation of the word fundamentalism. I think that word has been injected with a pejorative meaning by non believers to cast Christians as nuts and I reject it out of hand.>

The word "fundamentalism" is a term which conservative biblical-literalists apply to themselves!

<The bottom line is that the focus is on the gospels. Everything else is for in-house debate, yet I don't see it as productive at all, and I think it undermines people's faith.>

Science cannot undermine a genuine faith.

<We need to stop following good Christians around with science books and microscopes, telling them that they need to be all about science.>

It's the fundamentalists who do that!

Whenever there's a new scientific breakthrough that is not strictly in accordance with a literal view of the Bible, the fundamentalists immediately denounce it and use their pseudo-science bag of tricks to try and discredit it.

Whether it's the Big Bang theory, Darwinian evolution, Neanderthal man, Gravitational waves, whatever...

They immediately zero in on any scientific discovery to try and portray it as some kind of atheist conspiracy against the Bible!

<Science changes. I refer you back to my example about how educated scientific Christians of 100 years ago would tell fundamentalists that the universe always existed - all scientists agree, so conform to science lest you inhibit other educated people from believing. I think that is a very strong point.>

It's not a matter of conforming to science, but being open to new scientific discoveries regardless of whether or not they contradict religious prejudices.

<Often times our dedication to Christ will appear as foolishness to the world.>

The quote from 1 Corinthians is out of context.

Adhering to a strictly literal view of every part of the Bible does not reflect a dedication to Christ, it reflects a dedication to delusion!

<It is often the case that we will look foolish to the world and be ridiculed and persecuted, but we should rejoice>

More biblical quotations out of context!

Paul is referring to belief in a crucified messiah, not in an antiquated scientific worldview, and nothing in the Sermon on the Mount commends looking silly in the face of overwhelming scientific and historical evidence.

<I see that, and you've seen me argue for theism using big bang theory, so please keep that in mind when I point out that you may notice that I never make a point of contention over those issues. Ever. If we are having a scientific discussion, sure, let's talk. If I'm appealing to unbelievers, sure let's talk. If I'm talking to fundamentalists, I leave them be.>

Why are fundamentalists a special case?

Why do you leave them be?

If it's because you don't like talking to a brick wall then you may have a point!

Nevertheless, as a fellow Christian, I try to educate them on biblical literacy, even though the result is just like "Solomon" lamented;

"They rejected my advice and paid no attention when I corrected them."

<However, one should be comfortable being counted a fool by the wisest people the world has to offer, if one follows Christ with all his mind and spirit.> Agree 100%

<I think the urge to correct the literal reader should be done exegetically, that is, from the texts, and not as a spokesman for the scientific community looking to save the fundamentalist from scientific ignorance.>

I think correction can be done both exegetically and scientifically.

<Many of our greatest apostles and prophets were, perhaps, scientifically ignorant, but they did God's work maximally and to the Lord's satisfaction.>

Yes, because they focused on proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ, not trying to explain how Noah squeezed all those animals onto his ark!

<With all this in mind, I choose to not harp on the fundamentalist about his literal reading of Genesis. It does neither any good.>

I concur that harping on about anything does no good, but when they start blathering on about how scientists are all involved in some Darwinian conspiracy and whatnot, I feel that it's important to point out that they don't speak for all Christians.

Anyway, there is nothing to fear from having an open and frank discussion about these things.

Treating fundamentalists with "kid gloves" is demeaning to them, especially since it seems most of them actually relish doing battle over these matters.

Yes, the Good News is in the Gospels, but how could it be properly understood apart from God's plan of salvation for the Israelites as described throughout the Old Testament beginning with Genesis?>

I never heard Jesus or the apostles talk about the story of the creation in order for the Jews or Gentiles to properly understand the atonement.

<<There is no obligation from Christ or by Christ through the apostles to correct scientific disagreements whatsoever.>

Exactly right!

Please tell that to the biblical fundamentalists>

I am telling them that now, I hope. This is just an open letter, if you will, from me to any Christian that happens to stop by, one and all. Fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist alike. Even between us, I am not advocating for or against YEC or otherwise, but rather the approach we should take or not take, and I think there is absolutely zero reason for other Christians to badger one another over these contentious scientific topics.

These are the quarrels we were warned about, among believers, in my view.

<But reject foolish and ignorant speculation, for you know that it breeds quarreling.> 2 Timothy 2:14.

<But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, arguments, and quarrels about the Law, because these things are pointless and worthless.> Titus 3:9

<he is conceited and understands nothing. Instead, he has an unhealthy interest in controversies and semantics, out of which come envy, strife, abusive talk, evil suspicions,> 1 Timothy 6:4

The word "fundamentalism" is a term which conservative biblical-literalists apply to themselves!>

Yes, but the pejorative connotation is what I was talking about, and I reject it out of hand. Completely.

<Whenever there's a new scientific breakthrough that is not strictly in accordance with a literal view of the Bible, the fundamentalists immediately denounce it and use their pseudo-science bag of tricks to try and discredit it.

Whether it's the Big Bang theory, Darwinian evolution, Neanderthal man, Gravitational waves, whatever...

They immediately zero in on any scientific discovery to try and portray it as some kind of atheist conspiracy against the Bible!>

I understand your frustration with them, but it's not theological or spiritual. It's prideful and it's not going to help - in my humble opinion.

<<Often times our dedication to Christ will appear as foolishness to the world.>

The quote from 1 Corinthians is out of context.

Adhering to a strictly literal view of every part of the Bible does not reflect a dedication to Christ, it reflects a dedication to delusion!>

I did not say a strictly literal view. I said that often times our zeal for Christ will leave us looking like fools in the eyes of the world - and we need character and integrity to get over that.

<<It is often the case that we will look foolish to the world and be ridiculed and persecuted, but we should rejoice>

More biblical quotations out of context!

Paul is referring to belief in a crucified messiah, not in an antiquated scientific worldview,>

Paul was not referring to that. "The World" doesn't believe in any kind of messiah at all. The world believes in worldly stuff.

<Treating fundamentalists with "kid gloves" is demeaning to them, >

Kids gloves is not what I am talking about. Do you ever see me use kids gloves? What I'm saying is that non literalists should stop trying to make fundamentalists conform to their way of thinking when it's outside of the core aspect of Christianity - the atonement.

It causes harm to be sure, and this I am 100% sure of, which is why I am saying all this.

Yes, the YEC's relish these fights too, but that's why I am speaking to them right now, through our conversation. I hope you see that.

<I think correction can be done both exegetically and scientifically.>

I think that is pride.

<Yes, because they focused on proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ, not trying to explain how Noah squeezed all those animals onto his ark!>

Or vice versa. I agree.

<Why are fundamentalists a special case?

Why do you leave them be? >

Because I'm sure, 100%, that is causes harm.

Great discussion, <optimal>, we help each other a lot I think and I'm grateful to have someone I can hold these kinds of dialogues with!

Paul was not referring to that. "The World" doesn't believe in any kind of messiah at all. The world believes in worldly stuff. >

Oh, I see what you mean. My point was that we should not worry about our brothers looking foolish *to the world* in their belief.

I think it could best be solved by young-earth creationists not referencing the Bible in their arguments for a 6,000 year old universe.

If they would just stick to the science and leave religion out of it then we wouldn't have this problem.

Unfortunately, we get announcements like this...

<The Bible says the world is about six thousand years old.>

http://www.missiontoamerica.org/gen...

<How do we arrive at that number?>

<The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything.>

Well, this is bad news for <OhioChessFan>!

It looks like <OCF>'s 10,000 to 11,000 year hypothesis is blown out of the water!

Bad luck mate!

It seems that anything over 6,000 years and you're dumped into the same heretics bin with the rest of us!

<The Bible says the world is about six thousand years old.>>

Yeah, I see that all the time, counting up the generations and so on.

The fact is, the bible doesn't say how old the earth or universe is.

That's even if you read it literally.

<In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.>

For how long was it in this state?

<2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters> Genesis 1:1-2

For how long was it like this?

A literal reading of Genesis does not support, at this point, a 6,000 year old universe in my view.

Allow the Bible to speak God's Word, don't try to turn it into a history book or science manual.

We agree on many things, especially the truth!

It's quite amazing that we can find so much truth to agree on. Just think, you are Catholic and I was raised Protestant. You describe yourself as liberal and I am conservative. Yet, we find many areas of truth to recognize and agree on, strengthening each other's faith with our valuable (for us) discussions.

If we were unwise we could find so many things to argue bitterly about, like many Catholics and Protestants do, but instead I humbly submit that wisdom prevails between us.

"Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all."

- Ephesians 4:3-6

<Has Science Buried God? John Lennox at Rice University>

Very interesting!

John Lennox is quite brilliant!

"Far from being a hindrance to science, belief in God was the motor that drove it"

"Atheism is a fairy story for people afraid of the light"

"Law & Mechanism on one hand and Agency on the other hand"

"Christianity deals with the end at the very beginning"

Great stuff!

The YEC's at "Answers In Genesis"!

<John Lennox and a Sad Divide>

https://answersingenesis.org/review...

<Dr. Lennox’s recent book challenges biblical creation with a series of arguments that the staff members at Answers in Genesis have answered many times over.>

What do you think about AiG's criticisms of Dr. Lennox?

I think AiG are being disingenuous, for example they say, "It seems to us that many Christian leaders and academics are prepared to be scoffed at for believing in the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth, but they do not want to be called “anti-intellectual,” “anti-science,” or “anti-academic” (even though such claims are false) for believing in six literal days, a young earth, a global Flood, and a literal Adam and Eve."

This is precisely where the YEC's get all confused!

Science can show substantial evidence for the Big Bang and Evolution which therefore disproves a young earth creation.

Science can reference geological and archeaological proof against a world-wide flood and Noah's ark.

Science can point to conclusive verification that dead people do not rise to life after 36 hours, BUT they cannot disprove that one particular person did just that 2,000 years ago.

Science can disprove Adam & Eve as humanity's first parents 6,000 years ago but can never disprove Christ rose from the dead.

YEC's like AiG try to link a six day creation with the Resurrection and that's why they must be refuted.

That's why it's naive of you to say, <non literalists should stop trying to make fundamentalists conform to their way of thinking when it's outside of the core aspect of Christianity - the atonement.>

It's obviously not outside the YEC's core aspect of Christianity, otherwise they wouldn't try to refute Christians like Dr. Lennox.

Anyway, the co-author of that article, Ken Ham, just happens to be the subject of a TV program this evening...

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/w...

<In an interview to air on Channel 7’s Sunday Night tomorrow, Mr Ham says he believes the Earth is only 6000 years old and Noah took dinosaurs on the Ark.>

Allow me to have a good look at the points you raised, the commentary at AIG, the Ken Ham dialogue and get back to you when I've formed an informed opinion.