| An interesting debate if it happens... | |
| Posted by JimC on 15 May 2014 at 9:03PM | |
| “Creation Museum founder Ken Ham [Young Earth Creationist] is once again furious that Pat Robertson [televangelist] has mocked proponents of Young Earth Creationism, and now wants to debate the televangelist.” | |
| I'd like to see this debate. Ham makes a strong theological argument for a Young Earth (i.e. less than 10,000 years old). | |
| "Now if the world were millions of years old as suggested by evolutionists, blood was shed and death occurred before Adam's original sin. This would destroy the foundation of the atonement brought by the death of Christ on the cross. According to 1 Corinthians 15:54, sin and death have been swallowed up in victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the enormity of compromise is revealed. To believe in evolution undermines the entire gospel message of Jesus Christ. All Christians believe that Jesus Christ suffered physical death and shed His blood because death was the penalty for sin. Therefore, teaching millions of years of death, disease and suffering before Adam sinned, is a direct attack on the foundation and message of the Cross." | This does seem like a strong theological argument. It's no wonder Young Earth Creationists feel they have a good case. |
| http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ken-ham-challenges-pat-robertson-debate-young-earth-creationism | |
Re: An interesting debate if it happens...
|
|
Posted by A Creationist on 15 May 2014 at 9:52PM
|
|
It would be boring.
|
Well I suppose it might be boring. But it does seem like a sturdy argument. |
| Re: An interesting debate if it happens... | |
| Posted by JimC on 15 May 2014 at 10:11PM | |
| Admittedly my first reaction was the analogy of two bald men fighting over a comb, but the theological argument that blood could not be shed, and death could not have occurred before Adam's original sin, has some merit (if one accepts the concept original sin), does it not? | |
Re: An interesting debate if it happens...
|
|
Posted by A Creationist on 16 May 2014 at 6:46AM
|
|
Ken ham and pat Robertson. A sleeper.
|
|
Re: An interesting debate if it happens...
|
|
Posted by A New Zealander on 16 May 2014 at 7:39AM
|
|
Why?
|
|
Re: An interesting debate if it happens...
|
|
Posted by A Creationist on 16 May 2014 at 11:34PM
|
|
why do you ask why?
|
Odd... is A Creationist sulking? |
Re: An interesting debate if it happens...
|
|
Posted by A New Zealander on 17 May 2014 at 10:02AM
|
|
Why do you state it is a sleeper?
|
|
Re: An interesting debate if it happens...
|
|
Posted by A Creationist on 17 May 2014 at 6:13PM
|
|
I love these questions. What difference does it make?
|
Hmmm. It's as if A Creationist doesn't want to engage in the debate, feels he has to say something. I wonder what's up? |
Re: An interesting debate if it happens...
|
|
Posted by An Agnostic on 17 May 2014 at 6:19PM
|
|
It's a discussion board. Maybe he wants to discuss it.
|
Fair point. |
Re: An interesting debate if it happens...
|
|
Posted by A Creationist on 17 May 2014 at 6:29PM
|
|
If he really wanted to discuss it, then he'd discuss it. All that has been said so far is it would be an "interesting debate." There was no mention as to why this would be so. I say it will be boring (between those two). I've heard interesting debates recently between young earth, old earth and between creation in general vs materialism (matter is all there is etc). With the right people, yes, it's interesting. Pat Robertson? Ken Ham? I'd rather listen to frogs farting than those two. Why? Well I haven't heard any reasons given for why those two would present an interesting debate. So I'm well within the parameters set by the OP.
|
Actually I thought I had given a reason – the young earth creationist argument to do with original sin. Seems a sturdy argument. Anyway... it really seems A Creationist does want to engage, but also doesn't. Strange. |
Re: An interesting debate if it happens...
|
|
Posted by A Pantheist on 17 May 2014 at 6:57PM
|
|
I have no idea who they are and can't make head nor tail of the YEC argument either, so can't say I would find any interest in it either (plus I believe them both to be wrong)
|
Haha yes good point! |
| Re: An interesting debate if it happens... | |
| Posted by JimC on 17 May 2014 at 6:31PM | |
| We could potentially debate both sides on this db. We have at least one contributor who is a young earth creationist and one or two who are old earth creationists, plus one contributor who used to be a young earth creationist and is now an old earth creationist. | I'm wondering if other people might like to join in? |
Re: An interesting debate if it happens...
|
|
Posted by A Creationist on 17 May 2014 at 6:33PM
|
|
You can give it a try. But that is a different thread. Start your new thread and see if there is any interest.
|
OK – A Creationist wants me to start a new thread. So I will. |
| NEW THREAD | |
| An interesting debate if it happens | |
| Posted by JimC on 17 May 2014 at 6:50PM | |
| As suggested by A Creationist | |
| According to a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), if the Old Earth Creationist belief that the world is billions of years old is true, then blood was shed and death occurred before Adam's original sin. This would destroy the foundation of the atonement brought by the death of Christ on the cross. To quote the YEC... | |
| "According to 1 Corinthians 15:54, sin and death have been swallowed up in victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the enormity of compromise is revealed. To believe in evolution undermines the entire gospel message of Jesus Christ. All Christians believe that Jesus Christ suffered physical death and shed His blood because death was the penalty for sin. Therefore, teaching millions of years of death, disease and suffering before Adam sinned, is a direct attack on the foundation and message of the Cross." | |
| This argument seems theologically sound if one believes in original sin. I wonder if any Old Earth Creationists here have a counter-argument? | |
Re: An interesting debate if it happens
|
|
Posted by A Creationist on 17 May 2014 at 10:37PM
|
|
Well I didn't make the suggestion for this discussion Jim. You did. I simply said that if you are interested in such a discussion, start a new thread (because you were once again going off topic). But thanks for giving me credit for the idea even though it was totally your idea.
|
I don't think I was off topic, but I was happy to start a new thread as suggested by A Creationist. |
As for the discussion here that you seem to have an interest in (I don't) you might find these links "interesting." BTW, these links ARE my suggestions since I'm the one suggesting these links. You seem to be confused about what the word "suggest" means - I hope this clarifies for you. I didn't suggest this thread, but I DID suggest these links. (well, it will be "did" after I did it but at the moment it's a "do." )
|
I think I do know what suggest means! Anyway – some interesting links here. This is a very good Christian website, magazine and podcast resource. |
and for those interested in a full listing of shows and topics: http://ondemand.premier.org.uk/unbelievable/AudioFeed.aspx
|
|
I do highly recommend this podcast for the simple reason that the guest are usually top notch in their field (or at least very knowledgeable) and that the host of the show (a Christian) allows his guests to actually talk and interact. Both sides of an issue are given a voice with point counterpoint in sometimes an aggressive manner (yet respectful - it is after all a debate). I've listened to nearly all the shows in the archive (I'm working on catching up with all the shows in 2014 and have listened to all shows prior to 2014). It's by far the best podcast I've ever listened to (IMHO) because you truly get both sides of any give issue. I think that you will find this podcast a fair-minded and evenly balanced debating format. You will likely learn new things, and appreciate voices that oppose your own views (this has been my experience - some of the atheist guests have put forth excellent challenges which make for a lively debate).
|
I'm not sure why A Creationist would listen to podcasts of a discussion he's not interested in, but never mind, this is good stuff. |
Do you get the idea that I highly recommend this podcast? (I mean the show and not necessarily the links above. ) (yes JimC - you can quote me on that one)
|
Er... yes! |
And just to be PERFECTLY clear: it WAS Jim's suggestion after all. And what was mine? “Start your new thread and see if there is any interest.” See? I ADVISED Jim to start HIS new thread.
|
Yes the discussion was my suggestion, And the new thread was A Creationist's suggestion which I acted on. But what's this about “advised”? A Creationist refers to my suggestion and then he says “what was mine?” This means... “what was my suggestion”. I don't understand the significance of the word “advised” all of a sudden. Anyway... never mind! |
I really would appreciate it if Jim would try harder to present honestly what's posted on this DB. I'm tired of his twisting and manipulating of what others say. It may seem like a small thing to some of you, but it's a big deal to me. I see it as Jim dishonestly USING the words of others (in a distorted way) to further his points. See his blog for this tactic at work. I think the ubiquitous use of this tactic is a sign of the weakness. Which is why I refuse to engage him any longer. I'll speak to anyone on the board as long as what I say is dealt with honestly. So as for the current topic Jim has started, the sharing of these links is all I be contributing.
|
Oh dear… here comes the anger. And we're back to the dishonesty thing again! “Twisting and manipulating”? Using words to further my points? Bizarre. |
| Re: An interesting debate if it happens | |
| Posted by JimC on 17 May 2014 at 11:31PM | |
| Oh dear… I certainly didn't mean to imply that you suggested the topic. I meant that you'd suggested a new thread. I will re-start the thread again, including a clarification that it was not your suggestion. I hope that's acceptable. | |
| ANOTHER NEW THREAD | |
| An Interesting Debate if it happens | |
| Posted by JimC on 17 May 2014 at 11:03PM | |
| Third time lucky... | Let's try again!! |
| A new thread which I have started as advised by A Creationist who did not make the suggestion for the discussion. | |
| According to a Young Earth Creationist (YEC), if the Old Earth Creationist belief that the world is billions of years old is true, then blood was shed and death occurred before Adam's original sin. This would destroy the foundation of the atonement brought by the death of Christ on the cross. To quote the YEC... | |
| "According to 1 Corinthians 15:54, sin and death have been swallowed up in victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus the enormity of compromise is revealed. To believe in evolution undermines the entire gospel message of Jesus Christ. All Christians believe that Jesus Christ suffered physical death and shed His blood because death was the penalty for sin. Therefore, teaching millions of years of death, disease and suffering before Adam sinned, is a direct attack on the foundation and message of the Cross." | |
| This argument seems theologically sound if one believes in original sin. I wonder if any Old Earth Creationists here have a counter-argument? | |
Re: An Interesting Debate if it happens
|
|
Posted by A Creationist on 18 May 2014 at 12:04AM
|
|
Probably best if you simply keep other people's name out of it unless there is a useful purpose. But it is an improvement over the previous misleading line.
|
Phew! |
| Re: An Interesting Debate if it happens | |
| Posted by JimC on 18 May 2014 at 12:30AM | |
| <Thumbs up> |
Sunday, 18 May 2014
Angry Christians Part 4
This begins when I mention a potential debate between Ken Ham and Pat Robertson - Young Earth vs Old Earth. A Creationist suggests this would be a boring debate. (He could be right but he seems reluctant to explain why). So I suggest that the subscribers of the discussion board could debate the same topic. A Creationist suggests that I should start a new thread for that, so I do. And then…
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment