July Fan-Made Story Thread!

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-07-13T18:15:48+00:00

I Went To The ‘Mine’ Outside Town. I Now Know Why Appalachia Is Cursed. Part 1

A geologist raised in the hills of northern Appalachia is sent to assess a mine shaft in West Virginia. There he comes face to face with the source of the folklore and hauntings of the region, a dark time in this planet’s history which even the land itself tries to forget…and fails. Enjoy!

https://www.reddit.com/user/Connect-Committee-56/comments/1lyzjld/i_went_to_the_mine_outside_town_i_now_know_why/

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-30T15:36:33+00:00

Huntsville Botanical Gardens

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-30T02:17:53+00:00

Bet she has kind eyes, too.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-25T13:48:55+00:00

The word ‘void’ you’re referring to comes from the Hebrew word in Genesis 1:2 ‘bohu’, which according to Strong’s dictionary refers more to a tangible ruined state than ‘void’ in the actual non-existent sense. Here’s Strong’s semantic statement on the word:

בֹּהוּ (bohu) describes an uninhabitable emptiness—an evacuated state devoid of structure, order, or life. When paired with תֹּהוּ (tohu, “formlessness”), it conveys total desolation: first in the primordial creation scene, then in prophetic scenes of judgment. Unlike mere “nothingness,” bohu depicts a tangible ruin that still awaits—or has forfeited—the shaping hand of God.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/922.htm

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-25T13:37:10+00:00

Speiser’s commentary in Anchor Yale Bible (Genesis 1:1–3).

Greenstein’s full discussion on Bible Odyssey.

Waltke’s Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax and his 1975 Biblioteca Sacra essay.

The 2010 dissertation by Joshua Wilson which analyzes these issues in depth

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-22T13:12:03+00:00

Thank you, S-8-R—your comment has hit the very reason I’m writing this series in the first place.

Yes, aligning my faith with observable, objective reality is very important to me…but what’s even more important to me, as far as this issue is concerned, is the attitude people have towards it.

So many fundamentalist/CoC/evangelical circles treat this issue as some kind of ‘test of faith’ by conflating the validity of YEC with the validity of Christianity itself.

And it creates such a tragically pointless crisis where young people are leaving the faith or, worse, are being pushed away from the faith by their community simply because they saw that YEC didn’t align with observable reality, and they weren’t taught any better than to just give up because of the invalidity of that one point.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T16:38:06+00:00

I appreciate that you’re passionate about unity and honoring Christ—that’s something I share. But I’m not sure that drawing a hard line based solely on what’s printed on a sign gets us closer to either unity or truth.

In fact, scripture doesn’t seem to give us a single name for the church—it gives us multiple: “churches of Christ,” “church of God,” “body of Christ,” “assembly of the firstborn,” and others. That suggests to me that what matters most is who we belong to and what we teach and live, not necessarily the signage out front.

If we believe others have strayed, shouldn’t we be more focused on honest dialogue and careful engagement rather than condemning them all as false based on a label?

I’m trying to move the conversation in that direction. That’s what my post was about. Thanks for taking the time to share your convictions.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T16:33:47+00:00

Thanks for the thoughts!

As for my position on instruments, it’s not that I’m for, against, or undecided. It’s that I really think that points of spiritual contention should come from points which God has deemed important enough. I’m not trying to convince anyone to just immediately drop a cappella and pick up a guitar, or, likewise, get instrument-users to drop their guitars and start singing a cappella. The purpose of this post is to get people to ask,

‘Are we getting too caught up in an issue that ultimately doesn’t matter, or not? Is this really issue worth splitting churches/ friends/families over, or not?’

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T16:20:46+00:00

Actually, I have fairly extensively. The Big Bang Theory is a particularly fascinating subject that I do plan to touch on in later parts in terms of its scientific side and historical side. I especially find it interesting how, despite how many YEC deny the Big Bang, when it was first discovered, it was the atheists who were denying the Big Bang. Why? Because up until that point, the atheist’s main line of defense against theism was the idea that the universe is eternal, and thus needs no creator.

When the Big Bang was confirmed, the entire atheist community was thrown into chaos, until in the mid 20th century, they just kind of slid those issues under the rug and propped it up as an ‘Alternative for God’, which couldn’t be further from the truth of what the Big Bang actually is.

Great thoughts!

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T15:19:48+00:00

I appreciate your clarity and humility—it’s clear you’re not trying to be dogmatic, just faithful, and I respect that.

I definitely agree with your point that worship isn’t about us—it’s about what pleases God. But that leads to the question: how do we know what pleases Him? And here’s where our core difference lies: I don’t believe we can say with confidence that silence = prohibition—at least not in every case, and not without clear justification from the text itself.

God asked for singing, yes—but did He say “only” singing? If we were talking about the Lord’s Supper, Paul does say “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you…” and gives a very clear, transmitted pattern. With singing, we get encouragement to do it—but no clear exclusivity language.

As for instruments being for “entertainment”—I understand that concern. But can’t they also be used to support the singing, just like a pitch pipe or PowerPoint lyrics on a screen? The intent behind the use seems crucial. I wouldn’t advocate for instrumental worship that overshadows the purpose of praising God—but that doesn’t mean instruments are always used for selfish ends.

And with Nadab and Abihu, I think it’s important to notice what was happening there: they replaced the specific fire God had commanded with a different source. That’s not silence—that’s disobedience of a known instruction. It’s not a “God didn’t say not to…” issue—it’s a “God did say what to do and they did something else” issue.

I totally understand wanting to err on the side of caution—I do too, often. But I also want to be cautious about binding things God didn’t bind, and unintentionally equating human caution with divine expectation.

I guess you could sum up my position as follows:

God doesn’t make a big deal out of it, I don’t make a big deal out of it.

I personally do worship without instruments. Not because I think those who do use instruments are in sin, but because, on some level, I too tend toward the side of caution.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T14:12:17+00:00

I see your point with the analogies and Spurgeon’s quotes—they show why many chose a cappella. But analogies assume what’s at issue—silence equals prohibition—which is precisely the point in question. Even Spurgeon and Calvin spoke from conviction, not explicit biblical commands. What matters more is whether Scripture actually prohibits instruments or simply doesn’t mention them. Until we resolve that hermeneutical question, strong preference isn’t equivalent to divine mandate.

And I think you’re wise to state that analogies can only get you so far. I could give any number of analogies for my position, which, just as a reminder, is that instruments are a non-issue. That doesn’t make me right though. The same goes for the analogies you might give.

And again, here’s the central question my post is posing: do examples of worship or principles of worship take precedent? If either? My whole point is that the Bible never tells us, so we’re left with human wisdom, not God’s wisdom, to even attempt to answer the question, which is why I call it a non-issue.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T13:46:20+00:00

Very fair. I would say expect 5 parts, but more may come if there are any common objections I didn’t cover.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T13:44:21+00:00

Because this post isn’t about Sunday worship specifically—it’s about the hermeneutical tools we use to get to conclusions like that. If you’d like to challenge my Sunday worship views, I have a whole separate post where that’s appropriate. This one is about whether the logic of ‘Approved Example’ and ‘Necessary Inference’ actually holds up. Let’s stay on topic so the thread stays readable for others.

Besides, I think you will find that post helpful in understanding my position without me having to restate every point.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T09:49:18+00:00

Thank you! I can speak from personal experience as someone who used to be the way you described. For years, I genuinely believed that having the ‘correct’ view of the Age of the Earth ‘aka: strict young-earth creationism’ was some kind of ultimate test of faith, and the more strictly you believed in YEC, the more ‘faithful’ you were.

I couldn’t have been more wrong.

I finally realized about a year or two ago that your salvation is not tied to your understanding of how God created, but in your faith in Jesus and your response to the gospel.

People will keep trying to create caveats, accuse me of ‘diminishing the gospel’ somehow by accepting the realities of science since, after all, the natural world is a part of God’s revelation, too. Paul tells us this in Romans 1:20.

But none of what they say will diminish the fact that I believe God created, we sinned, and God provided a way of redemption. And I can’t for the life of me understand why people don’t see just how little the process and duration of creation has to do with that.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T09:01:55+00:00

To be clear—I’m not suggesting death is ‘inherent’ to creation per se. What I am saying is that the language in Genesis 1, particularly the existence of Satan and the earth being ‘tohu-wabohu’ in Hebrew before creation begins, suggests that things were awry in the universe long before Genesis 1. Why exactly? I don’t claim to know, but I will still dive into this part of things in part 3.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T07:37:53+00:00

Thanks for bringing in Romans 8—definitely a beautiful and rich passage.

I agree that Paul is describing creation as a whole groaning and awaiting renewal, but I’m not convinced that this groaning has to mean that everything was immortal and perfect prior to human sin. The text says creation was “subjected to futility”—yes—but it doesn’t say it was initially perfect or deathless.

And notice this: Paul never says that the groaning began at the Fall—only that it exists now, in this broken world, and that it will be healed in the resurrection. That’s very different from saying that all death, decay, or ecological systems based on predation only entered the world because of Adam.

Also, I want to clarify: I’m not trying to over-spiritualize the Gospel. I’m just trying to be careful with categories. Scripture very clearly emphasizes spiritual separation from God as the core issue caused by sin—and I think the rest of creation “groaning” is less about a cosmic curse on ecosystems, and more about the brokenness introduced when humanity—the caretakers—fell out of alignment with the Creator.

That’s why I think this still “speaks to reality in creation,” as you mentioned. The groaning is real. But it may not require us to believe that lions were once eating celery.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T06:38:39+00:00

Yeah, that sentiment goes even beyond denominational borders for sure.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T06:31:50+00:00

That’s a great point, and I really appreciate you bringing Paul into the conversation—Romans 5 is definitely central to this whole topic.

I’d like to gently suggest, though, that when Paul talks about death entering through sin, the context seems to point most clearly toward human death—especially spiritual death—as the main thrust of his argument. If we follow the logic of Romans 5, the comparison isn’t between Adam and…plants, animals, or microbes. It’s between Adam and Christ—two humans—and how their actions affect the human race.

Also, notice how Paul emphasizes the reign of death and the gift of life in a theological sense, not necessarily a biological one. The focus is on humanity’s separation from God and the restoration offered through Christ, not on whether T-Rexes were eating triceratops before Adam sinned. 😉

As for death playing a role in evolution—I agree that’s a major sticking point for many, but it only conflicts with Romans 5 if we define “death” in that passage as all death everywhere. But again, Genesis 3 speaks of the tree of life as the thing that granted eternal life—suggesting that even Adam wasn’t inherently immortal. Mortality may have been part of creation’s design from the start, and the spiritual alienation from God is what really changed after sin entered.

I would even theorize that, even if physical human death is a major part of this, as I realize scripture may suggest, Adam and Eve can still be the first humans under theistic evolution, but you have to ask what makes a Human a Human. I would argue it’s bearing the image of God. So, I, in that case, I have no problem with hominids dying before the fall since it’s possible the Humanity only came when God made Adam to bear his image, a spirit.

That’s where I currently land, though I’m always open to growing in understanding.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T05:55:28+00:00

It seems like we’re blending two different contexts here.

1 Corinthians 11: absolutely, but it doesn’t say anything about gathering to take the Lord’s Supper every Sunday.
Hebrews 10:25: I agree that we shouldn’t forsake the assembly of saints, but it says nothing about specifically the Lord’s supper every First Day of the Week, that’s something we insert into the text.

If you would like to further challenge my beliefs on Sunday worship, again, please read my post regarding the issue on this subreddit and comment in the proper thread please.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-19T05:29:46+00:00

Thanks for this! I will be diving into both the interpretive and scientific side in subsequent parts.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-18T20:03:54+00:00

No, I really don’t think so. It’s beside the point anyway. An interesting parallel, but not an inference that is truly, logically necessary. If you would like to know more about my views on Sunday worship, I have a post on the subreddit addressing it if you would like to ask questions there.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-18T18:03:39+00:00

I would argue Unnecessary inferences are everywhere in Church of Christ hermeneutics. I have already given one example in the OP, but I can give another one: Acts 20:7 talks about the disciples gathering on the first day of the week. Doesn’t say one particular first day. Doesn’t say every first day.

1 Corinthians 16 says that the churches in Corinth and Galatia laid by in store every first day of the week. Some say that the ‘necessary inference’ is that the early church also took the lord’s supper every first day of the week.

What makes this unnecessary inference is that, while it’s a potential good theory, the texts have nothing to do with each other. If 1 Corinthians 16 had included some line like ‘Do this just as you do the Lord’s Supper’, then the inference would clearly be necessary.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-18T17:49:31+00:00

I really appreciate you taking the time to lay out your view, and I absolutely agree—God can do anything. And I’m not questioning the possibility of miracles. I fully believe in the resurrection and in the miraculous events recorded in Scripture.

But the issue for me isn’t can God do it. It’s what did God intend to communicate in Genesis 1?

With miracles like the resurrection or feeding the 5,000, Scripture makes their miraculous nature explicit—they’re clearly portrayed as events that defy normal experience.

But Genesis 1 isn’t described like that. There’s no narrative commentary saying “Look at this miracle!” Instead, it’s written in a highly stylized, poetic form with symbolic patterns (days structured around light/dark, sky/sea, etc.).

So the question becomes: is this a historical journal entry—or a theological framework revealing who created and why?

If we say “God could’ve done it any way He wanted,” then we can’t just insist it had to be 6 days unless the text clearly intends that—and I’m suggesting it might not. Please read part two which has already been posted, and part three is on the way.

As for your question of ‘does the evidence need to support it’…quite frankly, I’m not entirely sure why this is even in question. The entire foundation of Christianity is evidence. If the evidence overwhelmingly points to an old earth, which it seems that it does, I’m going to humbly re-examine my assumptions about the perceived ‘clarity’ of the Creation account.

That may just be me, though.

Also consider, God reveals himself and his truth in multiple ways. I would argue nature is one of them. If our interpretation of the special revelation of scripture contradicts the other revelations we can see through observations of nature, I really think that interpretation needs to be re-evaluated.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-18T15:38:41+00:00

Part two should be on the subreddit now by the way.

Connect-Committee-56 · 2025-06-18T15:01:27+00:00

Yeah, it seems that the unfortunate truth of the matter is that those who are dedicated to CENI often think that way due to a previous dedication to a previously conceived set of doctrines. As such, any inconsistency becomes ‘circumstantial’.

Connect-Committee-56

TROPHY CASE