Why we should not expect many if any Creationists

You may refuse to mix the Bible and science if you like, it's your website, but isn't there something in the rules about respecting the sincerely held beliefs of others? Most of us here who call ourselves Christians sincerely regard the Bible as historical truth, not as mythological -- though some of us may regard all of it as the truth and others only some as truth. Nevertheless it is not regarded as entirely mythological except by unbelievers, and to affirm the belief of the unbelievers over the believers is disrespecting the views of the believers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your stated "position" carries the weight of official policy here, and to take sides on such a basic point of view is definitely disrespectful.Go soak your head is the appropriate response to a similar disrespectful assertion of a point of view, and all the more appropriate when the disrespectful assertion carries the weight of authority, such as for instance by declaring Steno's principle of original horizontality out of bounds at this site on the basis of a highly questionable experiment. Go soak your head means You don't know what you are talking about. And I am not in a position to determine official policy here, you are.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I could of course assert the traditional position of historical Christianity with as much dogmatic certainty as you have asserted your false dogma but what would be the point?

I disagree with you about both points. It is disrespectful to call my belief a myth when it is regarded by its adherents as historical reality, and you are wrong about the Roman church. The RCC is not historical Christianity and never was. Historically it was a deviation from the true Church that took on its apostate form starting in the seventh century, invented its whole history out of thin air and has bamboozled its members and most of the rest of the world into thinking it's the true Church. You can stop now, jar, why take over this thread with all this anyway?abe: The RCC is really a continuation of the pagan religions of Rome. The fancy garb is from Rome, the mitre resembles that worn by the priests of the pagan god Dagon, the title Pontifex Maximus is the title of the leader of the pagan religions. Practices that have nothing to do with Christianity but derive from paganism include the rosary, lighting candles, the sign of the cross, the monstrance, parading a wooden effigy/idol of a god as the RCC does with the "virgin Mary," praying to the saints, which are nothing but renamed pagan gods and many other things. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I knew when I wrote it that I was setting up that very response. Interesting that the same logic applies whether the belief system is true or false. I have no problem being disrespectful to a false religion that sends people to Hell in the pretense of saving them.And now I expect to get back a similar response, that just as I have no problem disrespecting the RCC, you all have no problem disrespecting my beliefs either. Always a false moral equivalence.As for evidence, I listed some things that the RCC has in common with the pagan religions of Rome, far more things that are recognized to be specifically Catholic than the Bible is, although they also incorporate parts of the Bible into their system. It's possible for a Catholic to be saved by focusing on the Biblical truth to the exclusion of the superstitions, but how many have such a pure focus is hard to know, and unfortunately a great many Catholics rely on the superstitions to save them -- leaving their salvation to the priests for instance, who have no power to save them; praying to "Mary" for instance, who also has no power to save them, and of course isn't the Mary of the Bible anyway; or counting the beads of the rosary as they repeat a formulaic prayer, a prayer that may even derive from the Bible but has no value when repeated over and over, only when prayed from the heart; and in general performing all kinds of mechanical actions as if they could save them.
\
All that should be evidence that Catholicism is not based on the Bible and therefore not Christian. What the Reformation did was restore the Bible to its rightful position as the Authority for believers, while condemning all the pagan superstitions as antichristian. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

YOu are right, I didn't make that distinction and didn't think I could make it in a way anyone would accept anyway. I recognized the principle of course, silly to think otherwise. But that's okay, I reviewed Admin's post and see we're off topic.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes I guess you can disrespect my beliefs too then because I'm not going to call the RCC Christian when its "sincerely held beliefs" are predominantly pagan. Being respectful, however, shouldn't require a person to lie and call a pagan belief system Christian. I just feel sorry for Catholics and the reason I constantly bring up this subject is in the hope that some who are trusting in that false religion might wake up and be saved.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hello Dawn,
I'm not clear what your argument is except that you are claiming that the deck is stacked against creationists, and I have to agree with that. I stay here because there isn't any other place where these issues are on the table at all, even though my experience here is about as frustrating as it gets. In general I agree that the reason there are not many creationists here any more has something to do with that kind of experience of being treated like an idi-ot and having to play against unfair rules. And there's no point in even trying to make the case in the end, because this subject gets brought up only to "prove" creationists are idi-ots and the subject is closed.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.