Dr. Hugh Ross

[Canuckster1127]

It seems to me the YEC position fails to differentiate between "moral" evil and "natural" evil. Much of what I see in looking at the rise of YEC is a response to the atheist type contentions tied to Hume and Darwin that an omnipotent God would not allow "evil" (by their definition) and the pointing to natural disasters and tragedies with a corresponding finger of accusation pointed at God. The YEC position, as best I can see, responds by accepting the underlying premise that anything that negatively impacts man which is not the direct consequence of moral evil, must then be attributable to God. The YEC position of a perfect world in which man sinned and is the sole cause of all evil, moral and natural leads however, in my mind, to a possible similar indictment of God's not being omniscient in that He then was unable to anticipate or know that man would fall and thus impact His creation. That's some of the difficulty that arises when one creates dualistic constructs that require all or nothing assessments of what is "good" and what is "evil" or what is "perfect" or what is "imperfect." These are concepts and constructs which are not really assumed or even implicitly addressed within the Hebraic mindframe. This is one of those areas where I think Greek neoplatonism has been absorbed into theological consructs which yields conclusions, consistent with the framework assumed and not necessarily present within the text itself.

[Gman]

It seems to me the YEC position fails to differentiate between "moral" evil and "natural" evil. Much of what I see in looking at the rise of YEC is a response to the atheist type contentions tied to Hume and Darwin that an omnipotent God would not allow "evil" (by their definition) and the pointing to natural disasters and tragedies with a corresponding finger of accusation pointed at God.

Good point Bart..

What worries me about it is that they in fact could be calling God evil for ever instituting it.. Not too smart IMO. I really think the YEC interpretation is not only a "candy land" understanding of the Bible but also fearful one in another way. Fearful in a sense that the OEC interpretation is considered a deviation from scripture (which it clearly isn't)..

I thought that Rich had a good article on it too..

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... P3B8QLqWDi

[Jac3510]

Too much to reply to. I want to comment on Danny's points now, and get the others later.

Jac, to clarify: I can rationalise away death by pointing to the afterlife. I'm not saying death is good. To be honest, death by desease such as cancer is pure evil. But death- the natural act of dying after living a life is not evil in my opinion. God gave me life. Why should I protest that he limits this life and requests of me that I spend eternity with Him? He might not have created me. I should be thankful for (hopefully) 70/80 years as opposed to no creation and nothing. I do agree with you about the evil perceived by a mother whose daughter is dying from cancer.

But what really is a natural death? You do know that cancer in and of itself doesn't kil you. It makes it so that the body can't operate anymore, and eventually, loss of blood or the brain's ability to function properly, etc. is what actually kills you. There is really no such thing as a "natural" death. What kills a 120 year old person? Their heart just gives out? That's called a heart attack. They die in their sleep? That's called an aneurysm (for example).

Some death may be more painful than others, but death is never "natural." Thus, it is evil.

Jac, if I'm shown to be wrong I'll concede that I am wrong. The reason I have not jumped in too often is because you have been defending yourself while debating 2 or 3 people at a time. I know you're good, but I thought it would be a little too much to jump in with the crowd on my side. If you understand the sentiment ...

I appreciate the patience. Feel free to comment as much as you like. I may be convinced I am right--we all are, it is why we take our positions--but that doens't mean I am. And if I am wrong, even if I don't see it, others reading this may be able to see where my thinking is off. And the same goes, I think, for your position is well. So while I may have a LOT to respond to, eventually, I will, even if I am a bit slow to get to it. So, again, thanks for your patience and understanding on the matter. For all the depth of the arguments going on here, I do believe we are making progress, if only to clarify what the real issues are so that people can see all the evidence for themselves.

Actually, YOU have changed my mind before. Very early in my membership, regarding Numbers, I think. Anyway, all I really see from you nowadays, Jac is you defending YEC. I understand the urge to counter any mockery, but I remember you telling me you specifically like to avoid these debates. I've enjoyed reading much of your take on YEC as you're (usually) very persuasive, and certainly, for me, easy and good to read. Do you think I just want to sit here, being unchallenged, creating my own little illusion of a rosy garden in OEC world? Nah, not at all. I can understand I may have a predisposition blinding me to certain "facts" that you might be presenting, but would certainly not swerve a vital piece of information if I thought I saw it.

You are too kind. I didn't change your mind on Numbers (and I remember that conversation, btw. Another very productive one, I think). Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs, but I just offered my own thoughts on the matter that, apparently, when you looked at them, you decided were more consistent with what you already knew to be true on a broader scale then what you had believed up to that moment. People don't change our minds. We change our own. Sometimes against our wills, but we change our own.

As far as me defending YEC, yes, I am doing a lot of that right now. The board goes through phases. As I have said before, I have broadly avoided this issue, for 1) I didn't know where I stood until recently, and 2) I didn't want to get into an issue that went against the board's fundamental position. The motivation to break with old policy was the repeated attacks I have seen over and over again on YEC as what I perceive to be deeply unfair. I've come to the conclusion that YEC needs a real defense here, not necessarily to change anyone's mind, but to counter the trite, dismissive, and disrespectful treatment I see it get on a regular basis. Again, I want people to make informed decisions. If someone wants to be OEC, then fine, I don't have a problem with that in the world. But I don't want it to be because any idiot obviously can see that Romans 5:12 HAS to refer to mankind, that YECs are heretics that should be excluded from the church when they promote the appearance of age, that YEC is only based on two verses read through a preexisting theology, etc.

Just trying for a bit of fairness. We'll see how it goes.

God bless

[DannyM]

But what really is a natural death? You do know that cancer in and of itself doesn't kil you. It makes it so that the body can't operate anymore, and eventually, loss of blood or the brain's ability to function properly, etc. is what actually kills you. There is really no such thing as a "natural" death. What kills a 120 year old person? Their heart just gives out? That's called a heart attack. They die in their sleep? That's called an aneurysm (for example).

Some death may be more painful than others, but death is never "natural." Thus, it is evil.

Jac, I said "death by cancer" is evil. Still, cancer can be described as natural (I say this reluctantly as I consider cancer to be an evil) as it does not necessarily strike via an external cause. Heart disease can also count as natural cause for death. A stroke. I guess we need to look at external vs internal cause when defining "natural" death. Death, the "natural" act of dying, is only unnatural if we expect to live forever. We do not expect to live forever, so it is "natural" that someday we will die.

You are too kind. I didn't change your mind on Numbers (and I remember that conversation, btw. Another very productive one, I think). Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs, but I just offered my own thoughts on the matter that, apparently, when you looked at them, you decided were more consistent with what you already knew to be true on a broader scale then what you had believed up to that moment. People don't change our minds. We change our own. Sometimes against our wills, but we change our own.

Okay, you HELPED to SETTLE my mind, might be the more accurate Nevertheless it was a bit of a "moment" for me at the time and it helped alot.

As far as me defending YEC, yes, I am doing a lot of that right now. The board goes through phases. As I have said before, I have broadly avoided this issue, for 1) I didn't know where I stood until recently, and 2) I didn't want to get into an issue that went against the board's fundamental position. The motivation to break with old policy was the repeated attacks I have seen over and over again on YEC as what I perceive to be deeply unfair. I've come to the conclusion that YEC needs a real defense here, not necessarily to change anyone's mind, but to counter the trite, dismissive, and disrespectful treatment I see it get on a regular basis. Again, I want people to make informed decisions. If someone wants to be OEC, then fine, I don't have a problem with that in the world. But I don't want it to be because any idiot obviously can see that Romans 5:12 HAS to refer to mankind, that YECs are heretics that should be excluded from the church when they promote the appearance of age, that YEC is only based on two verses read through a preexisting theology, etc.

I guess that it is not such a bad idea. Many on here can't seem to get along with the arrogance and impiety of YECs such as Ham, myself included, so hearing you make the case might be more palatable for some.

Just a quickie: Do you have a paper or anything written, Jac, where you set out the arguments for objective vs subjective morality? Off topic I know but have been meaning to ask ...

God bless

[RickD]

Danny, I'm interested in why you think death by cancer is evil. Would you be so kind as to share that with me? I'm not looking for an argument, just curious because my Dad had cholangiocarcinoma(bile duct cancer) when he died in Sept.

[DannyM]

Danny, I'm interested in why you think death by cancer is evil. Would you be so kind as to share that with me? I'm not looking for an argument, just curious because my Dad had cholangiocarcinoma(bile duct cancer) when he died in Sept.

Hey Rick, I think it's an evil and tragic way to die. My nan died from cancer, and my friend's (very young) daughter died from cancer. My use of the word "evil" may well be an emotional one, but nonetheless it is how I see it.

[RickD]

Danny, I'm interested in why you think death by cancer is evil. Would you be so kind as to share that with me? I'm not looking for an argument, just curious because my Dad had cholangiocarcinoma(bile duct cancer) when he died in Sept.

Hey Rick, I think it's an evil and tragic way to die. My nan died from cancer, and my friend's (very young) daughter died from cancer. My use of the word "evil" may well be an emotional one, but nonetheless it is how I see it.

Danny, if you are saying that it is a horrible, painful way to die, then I agree with you. I'm just not sure why you used the word "evil"' when horrible, painful, sad, horrific would have sufficed. I just think evil may not be the best adjective to describe a cancerous death.

[DannyM]

Danny, I'm interested in why you think death by cancer is evil. Would you be so kind as to share that with me? I'm not looking for an argument, just curious because my Dad had cholangiocarcinoma(bile duct cancer) when he died in Sept.

Hey Rick, I think it's an evil and tragic way to die. My nan died from cancer, and my friend's (very young) daughter died from cancer. My use of the word "evil" may well be an emotional one, but nonetheless it is how I see it.

Danny, if you are saying that it is a horrible, painful way to die, then I agree with you. I'm just not sure why you used the word "evil"' when horrible, painful, sad, horrific would have sufficed. I just think evil may not be the best adjective to describe a cancerous death.

Rick, "evil" can mean "morally bad," "wicked," disagreeable," "harmful," "injurious," ... "Evil" can be used to portray a number of emotions. However, I readily accept that my use of "evil" may well be an emotional one.

[RickD]

Danny, I'm interested in why you think death by cancer is evil. Would you be so kind as to share that with me? I'm not looking for an argument, just curious because my Dad had cholangiocarcinoma(bile duct cancer) when he died in Sept.

Hey Rick, I think it's an evil and tragic way to die. My nan died from cancer, and my friend's (very young) daughter died from cancer. My use of the word "evil" may well be an emotional one, but nonetheless it is how I see it.

Danny, if you are saying that it is a horrible, painful way to die, then I agree with you. I'm just not sure why you used the word "evil"' when horrible, painful, sad, horrific would have sufficed. I just think evil may not be the best adjective to describe a cancerous death.

Rick, "evil" can mean "morally bad," "wicked," disagreeable," "harmful," "injurious," ... "Evil" can be used to portray a number of emotions. However, I readily accept that my use of "evil" may well be an emotional one.

OK Danny, I don't disagree then. Thanks

[Dazed and Confused]

Dazed, If you have that podcast, I'm interested as long as it's unedited. I don't want to see something added or left out. I'd rather let Ham dig his own grave so to speak. Thanks

I'll take a look for it. However, there are three Sunday morning messages, so I'm not sure what one made the podcast. But I'm confident that Ken Ham spouted the same rhetoric in all three morning messages. When I was in Wisconsin we had a different YEC speaker at my church and he basically made the same remarks. It's just what they do.

[Jac3510]

So, back to this

I thought my words were obvious, but... "To those who would perish, death would only be seen as evil."

Whether or not someone sees something as evil is not the question. The question is whether or not something IS evil. You and I agree that abortion is evil. Plenty of people don't see it that way. Bear in mind, I am responding to your statement:

"I am granting that physical death can be evil, but I am not granting it is only evil. "

To that, I asked you to distinguish what can make it evil sometimes and not others. Your answer that some people can see it as evil doesn't answer the question. So I ask again: on what basis is death sometimes evil and sometimes not?

But where there is a greater good in God allowing us to have freedom to choose (and as such commit evil acts), if God did not intend physical death to happen then it seems God had no power to stop "physical death" (evil) from happening.

You are confusing potential for actual. Allowing us the capacity to choose evil is not itself evil. Our choosing evil is evil. If, though, God were to make us so that we were forced, by our nature, to choose evil, then that would be evil--which, by the way, is one of the theological problems I have with strong Calvinism. In the same way, for God to create us in a way that we can die is not evil. That's a logically necessary part of creation for the simple reason that we do not exist within ourselves. In philosophical terms, there are certain attributes of God that are non-transferable, and perfection and aseity are two of them. As such, all of creation, by virtue of being contingent, has the capacity for death, much as all moral agents have the capacity to choose evil. But by the same token, just as it would be evil for God to create men in a way that they must choose evil by their nature, so it would be evil for God to create men in such a way that they must die by their nature.

In light of that, I have no clue how the second part of your sentence above follows. Did God intend for sin to happen? Certainly not. Does that mean that He has no power to stop sin? Certainly not.

Again, just because God can and does use the evil of this world to bring about His purposes does not make that evil good. It only shows just how great God really is.

But again... I don't see how this gets you off the hook with "physical death" infringing upon God's intended plan and as such God's omnipotence. I haven't read the rest of your response below yet, but I'm not sure you're getting this part...

1. If God is omnipotent then nothing can impose itself upon God's plan unless God intends it.
2. Physical death (presumably you believe brought about by Satan) imposed itelf upon God's creation without God intended it.
3. Therefore, God is not omnipotent.

(1) is false. Do you, again, believe that God INTENDED for men to sin? Of course not. He allowed it, but that doesn't make their sin any less evil. Yet that doesn't mean that God is not omnipotent. Likewise, God did not intend on death entering the world. He allowed it, but that doesn't make it any less evil, nor does it mean He is not omnipotent.

By your logic, it seems to me that you have to choose between God's omnipotence or His goodness, for either 1) God is intended for man to sin and therefore is not good, or 2) God did not intend on man to sin and therefore is not omnipotent.

I can understand this if there was an obvious correlation, but none exists. How can sin cause herbivore animals to suddenly change into carnivore animals? How can sin cause the world to begin winding down? No, physical death is separate from Adam and Eve's sin. No correlation exists which naturally follows. It's like saying because I'm drinking a cup of coffee, the sky is going to turn red. No correlation. On the other hand, Adam sinning by lets say killing Eve, well then physical death makes sense. Direct correlation here. Physical death was able to impose itself upon God's creation because Adam freely chose to kill Eve. You need to explain how Adam and Eve's sin caused all the dramatic changes which brought physical death into the world, if you wish to tie it to their sin.

There is a direct correlation between the death and sin. Besides the fact that Scripture plainly asserts it all over the Bible, theologically, we see that where there is sin there is separation from God, who is the source of life, and therefore, death sets in.

I'm assuming you realize that death is really the absence of life, just as darkness is the absence of light, cold is the absence of heat, and evil is the absence of goodness. Where God is not, death is. As it stands, your view seems to have two severe problems:

1. Death is somehow made an essence in and of itself that is, in your words, "imposed" on the world;
2. Death is not the direct result of sin.

Either of those statements, by themselves, are enough to overturn your entire argument.

I still think you are missing some crucial issues Paul covers in 1 Cor 15.

For example,

• 20 But now Christ ahas been raised from the dead, the bfirst fruits of those who care asleep.
  21 For since aby a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead.
  22 For aas in Adam all die, so also in 1Christ all will be made alive.
  23 But each in his own order: Christ athe first fruits, after that bthose who are Christ's at cHis coming,

We died in Adam a spiritual death which affects our relationship with God. God promised Adam that if he ate from the tree, in the very day he ate fruit he would die. Thus, it is a traditional and standard theological understanding that he died a spiritual death. So "as in Adam all die [spiritually], so also in Christ all will be made alive." Our relationship with God is reinstated once we receive Christ, albeit to be more fully reinstated in the hereafter. Another component to Adam and Eve's sin was that they would now eventually suffer physical death. However, as Christ was resurrected, we are now also promised resurrection into life with Him. On the other hand, "If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." (1 Cor 15:32)

I would submit to you that your understanding is not the "traditional and standard theological understanding." As I have already shown, the CFs and first century Jews held that Adam's death was physical in the very day he ate of the fruit. I would further submit to you that the entire notion of "spiritual death" as commonly understood by the modern pastor is derived from paganism, the Greek thought that matter is evil and the spiritual is good. It's been long and well understood that OT theology--in which Paul was steeped and from which perspective he wrote--knows nothing of an eternity "in heaven" where our souls will sit on clouds and play harps forever. The hope of the OT has always been in physical resurrection at the end of time. As such, physical death is always understood as being a necessary result of being separated from the life-sustaining God. That we have taken that separation and given its own label--"spiritual death"--is close enough to making a false distinction. That we have now totally separated it from physical death is merely an imposition of pagan philosophy and systematic theology on biblical, progressive revelation.

That I am correct about this is evident from the verse verses you quote here, which, further, is the context of the particular verse in question. Note that Paul points out that "If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." Tell me, who would have said the dead are not raised, and why did Paul feel the need to mention it? The answer, of course, is Greek philosophy. As you fully aware, the Greeks mocked the notion of resurrection. As such, people began to reinterpret Jesus' resurrection as a spiritual resurrection. Paul blasts this idea. There will be a physical resurrection, contrary to Greek thought. Thus, Jesus' death was physical. But why the need for a physical resurrection? Because men physically die. And why do men physically die? Because Adam sinned (1 Cor 15:21-22), and following him, we all sin. As such, death is the enemy of man. God became a man to defeat that enemy. Thus, death is Jesus' enemy. Thus, death is evil.

Thus, by your own admission, as quoted below, God could not have created the world to die, or else God would be evil. Thus, God did not create death before the Fall. To say so is to make God evil, by your words.

Jesus conquered death, it has no hold over us. I'm not sure what you make of the following:

• 42 aSo also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown 1ba perishable body, it is raised 2can imperishable body;
  43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in aglory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power;
  44 it is sown a anatural body, it is raised a bspiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
  45 So also it is written, “The first aman, Adam, became a living soul.” The blast Adam became a clife-giving spirit.
  46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.

It was all intended by God that the natural come first. God cannot create evil, as this makes God evil. Thus, if physical death is entirely evil as you say, and was created by God, then God is evil. Looking at it from Gman's and my own perspective, we can still comprehend 1 Cor 15 with the understanding that physical death is our enemy, was our enemy... but that is certainly no longer the case for those in Christ.

• 50 Now I say this, brethren, that aflesh and blood cannot binherit the kingdom of God; nor does 1the perishable inherit 2cthe imperishable.
  51 Behold, I tell you a amystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be bchanged,
  52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for athe trumpet will sound, and bthe dead will be raised 1imperishable, and cwe will be changed.
  53 For this 1perishable must put on 2athe imperishable, and this bmortal must put on immortality.
  54 But when this 1perishable will have put on 2the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “aDeath is swallowed up in victory.
  55 “aO death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?”
  56 The sting of adeath is sin, and bthe power of sin is the law;
  57 but athanks be to God, who gives us the bvictory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you won't follow the pagan Greeks and equate the natural with evil. A natural, perishable, dishonorable, weak body is not an evil body. It is temporary, for sure, to allow man to choose God, as you and I both agree is logically necessary if God is to avoid the charge of divine rape. God cannot logically create man in an originally imperishable, glorified, powerful, spiritual body. Such a body is only possible if one is in the right relationship with God, and one cannot be in such a relationship without having made the choice.

Does this mean, then, that God created the natural body to die? There's nothing that requires it. The natural body must only be able to choose. If it chooses life, then it reaps this abundant life. It it chooses itself--flesh--it reaps death, which is precisely what happened.

Jesus conquered death because, complete with His natural, perishable, dishonorable, weak body, He chose life. Those who are in Him will be given a body like His own. So, again, unless you want to argue that such a body is necessarily evil, you don't have a case, and if you do want to make that argument, you are going to have a severe problem dealing with how Jesus in an evil body could atone for sin.

So your position has a lot of problems, K . . . the confusion between perception of evil and actual evil, of intention vs. allowed consequences, of the very definition of death, of the results of sin, of the relationship between "spiritual" and "physical" death, of the relationship between matter and spirit . . . all that, and you still have the direct biblical assertion that death is "his" enemy, where "his" goes back to "Jesus." As you agreed that anything that is the enemy of Jesus is evil, you have the direct assertion that death is itself evil.

The evidence is simply overwhelming for me. God did not create death before the Fall. For Him to have done so would make Him evil. Rather, it entered the world through Adam's sin, just as Paul asserted in Rom 5:12.

[Jac3510]

Is it evil for someone to drown? Is it evil for someone to get into a motorcycle accident? We make cars, motorcycles, etc.. which are essentially missiles that can kill, and then we blame God for it and call it evil? Sometimes it's just the circumstances too not that it is evil..

Yes, it is evil for someone to drown or die in a motorcycle accident. Death is evil, Gman. Like I said, you go and tell someone whose spouse just died in an auto accident that an evil hasn't befallen them.

If you want to argue that it isn't evil because they are now in heaven, then you are appealing to a teleological ethic in which the end justifies the means. That is condemned by Scripture. Things are good or evil because of their own nature, not because of the consequences they bring about. If, then, your position requires me to accept that the ends do justify the means, I guess I have yet another reason to both reject it and make a moral argument against it.

Don't forget spiritual death too... Context? Again, where in these verses does it say that death is evil? Death IS an enemy, just like running into a brick wall. It stops you in your tracks. But the brick wall is not evil.. It's just a barrier.

Get it now?

Where in the context do you see the word "spiritual death"? In fact, to the contrary, Paul directly speaks of physical death as the enemy. Observe: "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." (1 Cor 15:20-21)

"Fallen asleep" is a term for physical death. "For" is an explanatory word that clarifies the previous sentence. Thus, "death" is in direct parallel to "falling asleep" and refers to physical death. Further, the "resurrection of the dead" refers to our physical resurrection. All of this is deeply intertwined with physical death.

Physical death is the context. Physical death is the enemy of Christ, which makes it evil.

Get it now?

Meaning it's a metaphor in a sense that it wasn't physical... Are things in heaven always physical?

You missed my point. If the ToL in the Garden of Eden wasn't referring to qualitative life, then why use it to make a qualitative point in the Proverbs? When you make a comparison, you are pointing to similarities in things. You can't say that the ToL is proverbs is qualitative but that the ToL in Eden was quantitative, because you destroy the comparison being made in Proverbs.

Yes... NATURAL death is good in a sense that it limits the population. But not forced death.. So? So what about God limiting man's time on earth to 120 years? Genesis 6:3. Does that make God a murderer too?

First of all, I've let this slide several times, but I'll go ahead and clarify now: God doesn't restrict man's lifespan to 120 years in Gen. 6:3. That is how long man had before the Flood would come. Second, God can't murder no matter what, because God owns all life. Third of all, I find it absolutely appalling that you think "natural death" (although, as I asked to Danny, what the heck is "natural" death, anyway?!?) is GOOD because of the consequences. That yields two morally condemnable results:

1. A teleological ethic that necessarily justifies such evils as slavery;
2. Joy at the death of loved ones now that they aren't around to suck up any more resources.

I mean, really . . . if overpopulation is your biggest reason to support death, let me just remind you that Jesus fed 5000 with a small boy's lunch. I don't think providing for a large population is going to be much of a problem for God, do you?

There is only so much space on this earth... Right? If God intended that man wouldn't die, then how do you explain Gen 1:28? Man (at some point) would have to stop reproducing... Correct? If true, then less people would be in the spiritual heaven and on earth. God would have to stop his creative processes which are both spiritual and physical...

Get it now?

Do you realize that all the people in the entire earth could fit in the state of Connecticut? Do you realize how many people the earth really can hold? Do you realize that there are 148,940,000 km² of land? If the whole earth were as populated as New Jersey (452.16 persons / km²), that would allow for 67,410,244,000 people. So . . . no . . . I don't think overpopulation is a problem.

Get it now?

No offense, but it doesn't appear you have truly thought these things through Jac..

No offense, but if your argument is based on overpopulation when the world can easily hold more than 67 trillion people and goes on to lead to a teleological ethic, it doesn't appear that you have truly thought through these things Gman.

[Jac3510]

I don't like playing in sandboxes, the sand gets all up in my shoes and it's hard to get out. And sometimes you can accidentally kick sand in your brothers eye.

I'm not sure how calling someone dishonorable isn't playing in the sandbox . . .

Some YEC proponents strongly imply this when they call someone with an OEC view a heretic or that their serving another god. Our we reading the same thread here or did I make a wrong turn somewhere? Ken Ham stated at my church that "those who didn't adhere to the six day creation model should repent before God for making Him a liar" and I should know because I was there. Harsh and judgmental wouldn't you think? It's like the man has no honor, but he sure left with a fat wallet. I believe my church still has Ken Ham's visit available for podcast if your interested. Let me know.

Don't need it, but thanks anyway. I've heard him make the statement, too.

Tell me, how does pointing out that if you don't believe Scripture you are making God a liar (1 John 5:10) make someone dishonorable? The issue is whether or not OEC does, in fact, believe the God's Word. Now, as one who was on your side of the aisle for a long time, I can fully attest and am convinced of the fact that you believe the Bible does teach long ages, and, as such, you don't think you are making God a liar. If you are right, we are the ones making God a liar. That doesn't make you dishonorable in pointing that out. I'm just afraid that OEC is built entirely on the reading of modern science and NOT of a reading of the text alone, and, to that extend, you do not believe the Word as it is written. For more on that, see the debate between Bart and I here.

Further, I'd like to know how Ham's statement implies at all, much less "strongly implies" that you "have no salvation because I don't agree with their six day cause". Again, you are just bearing false witness against your brother now. Not very honorable, my friend . . .

Yeah, again I don't think were on the same page here, because none of what you just said seems to be applicable to what has been discussed here on this thread.

As a whole, no? But then again, I was responding to your claims that YECs are dishonorable and that we--or at least Ham--believes that if you reject YEC you are going to Hell.

What divisive statements are you referring too?

Yours or YECs? In the latter, Ham's statements about needing to repent from calling God a liar are clearly divisive. In your case, calling Ham dishonorable and lying about him are even moreso.

That's not what I said or implied, though He is our Judge. What I said being, "I meant what I said with all meekness and trembling before the Lord. He knows all that I have gone through concerning this issue and of course He knows my heart."

You didn't answer my question before, but I'll rephrase as to make it more acceptable to your pallet. Would you consider someone telling you to "repent before God for making Him a liar" based solely on your creation stance an honorable person?

Answered above. If you believe that making the same point God made makes you dishonorable, then we have much deeper problems, I suppose. The fact is, one of the two positions is correct, and one makes God a liar. Either God created the world with death and corruption already in place, and we who say that would make God evil need to repent of calling God evil, or God did not create the world with death and corruption already in place as that would make God evil, and you need to repent of calling God evil.

Is this a salvation issue? In and of itself, of course not. No one says that it is, despite certain OEC claims to the contrary. Is it a serious issue that has serious ramifications throughout all of your theology and how you read Scripture? Very much so.

[Dazed and Confused]

I don't like playing in sandboxes, the sand gets all up in my shoes and it's hard to get out. And sometimes you can accidentally kick sand in your brothers eye.

I'm not sure how calling someone dishonorable isn't playing in the sandbox . . .

That wasn't what I was implying. I was referring to your statement "I suppose you have fully removed the log from your own eye?" It's sandbox tactics and it doesn't interest me. Lets clear this up for future episodes, “Yes indeed I'm a despicable fellow, no question about it.” and you can quote me on that one. I would say Kent and Ken are saints compared to myself and that's the honest truth. Now that that's cleared up we can just focus on the facts relevant to the discussion.

Tell me, how does pointing out that if you don't believe Scripture you are making God a liar (1 John 5:10) make someone dishonorable? The issue is whether or not OEC does, in fact, believe the God's Word. Now, as one who was on your side of the aisle for a long time, I can fully attest and am convinced of the fact that you believe the Bible does teach long ages, and, as such, you don't think you are making God a liar. If you are right, we are the ones making God a liar. That doesn't make you dishonorable in pointing that out.

Again this is not what I was implying. Lets break it down. You being a YEC proponent believe that the bible teaches a young earth. I'm cool with that and I never would accuse you of calling God a liar. Never. I'm not decisive on this issue. Most of my friends are YEC and I keep my OEC viewpoint tucked away. Except when the Lord calls me to bring forth the truth of His creation and that is mostly to non-believers anyhow.

I see I'm going to have to break this down further. Perhaps Ken Ham is honorable in a great many things. Maybe in his devotion to his wife and kids, in his actions and deeds toward his neighbor, but when it come to making offensive statements towards those of an opposing viewpoint he is without honor. The definition of honor being "worthy of high respect" and in this case Ken Ham is not worthy of any "high respect".

Or when he starts off his sermon by pedaling his creation package deals and then pumps up the congregation into a mild frenzy. A friend of mine bought his deluxe creation package deal for $250 bones! Geez that's a record. There isn't even a close second on that one. After he showed me the package he bought I felt rather I'll and put on my best "wow that's really cool face." I've only seen one other person put on the Ritz like that before a sermon. His name was Tim Storey and he was a con, not that I feel that way about Ken Ham. I just don't think Ken Ham is worthy of "high respect" in pushing his products, there is no honor in taking advantage of people. So how would you define what Ken Ham does when he calls some to repent or claims there making God a liar?

Further, I'd like to know how Ham's statement implies at all, much less "strongly implies" that you "have no salvation because I don't agree with their six day cause". Again, you are just bearing false witness against your brother now. Not very honorable, my friend . . .

Ken Ham is just one of a few YEC's who have made outrages claims concerning OEC believers, that they are a heretics, that they serve another God, that they are calling God a liar, there the ones throwing the stones. Can no show any evidence from those of the OEC camp that make similar ridicules statements? I would highly doubt it. You obviously like to twist what I say and take it out of context, which just undermines my trust in your claims. I never said Ken Ham's statement implies that "you have no salvation". What I said was, "Some YEC proponents strongly imply this when they call someone with an OEC view a heretic or that their serving another god." Hmm... were is Ken Ham mention by name? More sandbox tactics.

Some further examples of your sand boxing, you stated, "You get angry when YECs make "divisive" statements." Your twisting what I said again. How did you come to the conclusion I was angry? You make it sound like I'm a aggressive angry Christian. You seem to adjust the lighting to fit your agenda. Further on you state "but engage in them just the same here", so I ask you how is this divisive? This forum is based on the OEC creation stance. What I'm posting here is not divisive, this is more in tune with fellowship of like minded believers. I don't go around to churches across the country or other Christian forums and make offensive claims like calling people liars and telling them to repent because they believe in a six day creation account.

One further sandbox tactic you employed, you stated "Tell me, how does pointing out that if you don't believe Scripture you are making God a liar (1 John 5:10) make someone dishonorable?" What does 1John 5:10 have to do with what we are discussing? That verse is dealing with the testimony of Jesus Christ. How can you draw a parallel between discerning doctrines we have liberty in and the testimony of Jesus Christ, which is non negotiable. The verse is clear, "The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son."

As a whole, no? But then again, I was responding to your claims that YECs are dishonorable and that we--or at least Ham--believes that if you reject YEC you are going to Hell.

Really were did I specifically say that Ham believes that if you reject YEC you are going to Hell?

Yours or YECs? In the latter, Ham's statements about needing to repent from calling God a liar are clearly divisive. In your case, calling Ham dishonorable and lying about him are even moreso.

Ken Ham dishonors himself by making these statements or in other words he is unworthy of any "high respect". Do you think that Ken Ham is worthy of respect for making these divisive claims? I'm dying in anticipation on this one! It's making me crazy.

If you believe that making the same point God made makes you dishonorable, then we have much deeper problems, I suppose.

Hey were are your pail and shovel bro. I'm getting more sand in my shoes. Argh! now it's between my toes.

The fact is, one of the two positions is correct

The fact of the matter is that I'm not dogmatic on anything except Christ crucified. There are so many paradoxes in God's word and in being a Christian, like "blessed are those who mourn."

one makes God a liar.

I've heard this one before. Hey what are you trying to sell?

Either God created the world with death and corruption already in place, and we who say that would make God evil need to repent of calling God evil, or God did not create the world with death and corruption already in place as that would make God evil, and you need to repent of calling God evil.

Can you say Blue Oyster Cult? I can and they rock, however I don't adhere to there theology.

Is this a salvation issue? In and of itself, of course not. No one says that it is, despite certain OEC claims to the contrary. Is it a serious issue that has serious ramifications throughout all of your theology and how you read Scripture? Very much so.

I'll concede this point. I think it is implied, but I don't really have a direct quote.

[Gman]

Yes, it is evil for someone to drown or die in a motorcycle accident. Death is evil, Gman. Like I said, you go and tell someone whose spouse just died in an auto accident that an evil hasn't befallen them.

Huh? So a motorcycle death is evil too? Really? But the speeds that those things go in.. So you are going to pin that on God too? Or is it evil motorcycles?

If you want to argue that it isn't evil because they are now in heaven, then you are appealing to a teleological ethic in which the end justifies the means. That is condemned by Scripture. Things are good or evil because of their own nature, not because of the consequences they bring about. If, then, your position requires me to accept that the ends do justify the means, I guess I have yet another reason to both reject it and make a moral argument against it.

Where did I say that? That it isn't evil because they are now in heaven?

Where in the context do you see the word "spiritual death"? In fact, to the contrary, Paul directly speaks of physical death as the enemy. Observe: "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." (1 Cor 15:20-21)

Again... You are taking it out of context... Nowhere does the text ever say that death is evil. You are simply reading into it your own belief system. Jesus DID die physically. But your statement backfires.. Why? Because Jesus did not resurrect into a new physical body. It was His spiritual body that was resurrected..

"Fallen asleep" is a term for physical death. "For" is an explanatory word that clarifies the previous sentence. Thus, "death" is in direct parallel to "falling asleep" and refers to physical death. Further, the "resurrection of the dead" refers to our physical resurrection. All of this is deeply intertwined with physical death.

No it does NOT... Jesus did not resurrect into a physical body of flesh and bone... Again, you are just reading into it. Just like Genesis 3:18 where you think that God genetically altered the entire landscape because of Adam's sin. Nowhere does the bible teach this..

Physical death is the context. Physical death is the enemy of Christ, which makes it evil.

Get it now?

If you want to call God evil for having death in this world then that is your prerogative..

You missed my point. If the ToL in the Garden of Eden wasn't referring to qualitative life, then why use it to make a qualitative point in the Proverbs? When you make a comparison, you are pointing to similarities in things. You can't say that the ToL is proverbs is qualitative but that the ToL in Eden was quantitative, because you destroy the comparison being made in Proverbs.

No you missed MY point... Can you take and eat from the fruit of the ToL in heaven?? Do you really think we have to physically eat from the ToL to stay alive in heaven? The qualitative point of the ToL still stands...

First of all, I've let this slide several times, but I'll go ahead and clarify now: God doesn't restrict man's lifespan to 120 years in Gen. 6:3. That is how long man had before the Flood would come.

So why aren't we then living a lifespan of 900 years then now?

Second, God can't murder no matter what, because God owns all life.

How is it that God is murdering though natural ways?

Third of all, I find it absolutely appalling that you think "natural death" (although, as I asked to Danny, what the heck is "natural" death, anyway?!?) is GOOD because of the consequences. That yields two morally condemnable results:

1. A teleological ethic that necessarily justifies such evils as slavery;
2. Joy at the death of loved ones now that they aren't around to suck up any more resources.

No... You got it wrong.. Death of a loved one IS not joyous. I have encountered many deaths in my life including both my parents and a best friend. And it was not fun.. But it is NOT evil. It's just the way it is. No one is bigger than God. It's just a temporary life Jac..

I mean, really . . . if overpopulation is your biggest reason to support death, let me just remind you that Jesus fed 5000 with a small boy's lunch. I don't think providing for a large population is going to be much of a problem for God, do you?

Ok, then how is God going to fit everyone on this planet with only so much space? And the animals too? And plants to support them? They are going to have to stop multiplying at some time..

Do you realize that all the people in the entire earth could fit in the state of Connecticut? Do you realize how many people the earth really can hold? Do you realize that there are 148,940,000 km² of land? If the whole earth were as populated as New Jersey (452.16 persons / km²), that would allow for 67,410,244,000 people. So . . . no . . . I don't think overpopulation is a problem.

Get it now?

Jac.. No... If Adam and Even and their progeny had to reproduce before their 900th anniversary, they could have produced as many as 17 billion offspring during that lifespan. And what about the animals Jac? Cats and dogs can give litters of up to 8 or 9 babies... We won't even get into insects..

No offense, but if your argument is based on overpopulation when the world can easily hold more than 67 trillion people and goes on to lead to a teleological ethic, it doesn't appear that you have truly thought through these things Gman.

Until when Jac? So you think that man and animals can keep multiplying and multiplying unto eternity?? No limits?

How? Skyscrapers on the planet?