Dr. Hugh Ross

[Gman]

Then feel free to clarify, because you stated that Jesus didn't rise to a body of flesh and bone, something that you are still defending.

Yes it appears it was a different body from his resurrected one.. Philippians 3:21

What do you mean, you aren't sure how? Something is either physical or it isn't. And am I to understand you as arguing that Jesus didn't REALLY have flesh and bones . . . that He was just commenting that the disciples THOUGHT He had flesh and bones? Is that REALLY your position, Gman? I would hate to obviously not understand again.

You have seen Christ in his resurrected body? When, please tell me... It appears to be physical, but nothing like our own flesh and bone body. Why? How many people do you know who can walk through doors? John 20:26 Or make sudden disappearances? Luke 24:31

Now THIS is what I obviously don't understand. If the spirit is physical as you have said, then how can you distinguish between physical and spiritual death? If one part of my body does--say, my right kidney--is that a different kind of death than physical death? What if my hand or eye or liver dies? Is that something other than physical death? If the spirit is just another part of the body, like the heart or brain, how is its death not also physical?

Apparently you know more than I. Apparently you claim that you have the exact same resurrected body as Christ did.. So why don't you show us some miracles? Like transporting yourself? Acts 8:39, Acts 1:9; Heb. 4:14. Or a disappearing act? Luke 24:31..

[Kurieuo]

I really dislike where you have taken many things here Chris, however I feel obligated to respond.

No, it impacted me as I was revulsed by his judgement that my faith in Christ was not sincere and strong. He was quite clear. I don't have to prove it to you to be justified on this. I know what I heard.

And you are so convinced of this despite your admission that you had no theological training? You are really not willing to admit that you might have misunderstood what he heard? And you have no evidence beyond your own memory to back your position? So you are really basing your argument here on the memory of encounter with a nuanced theological position that you were theologically ill-equipped to process?

If so, you are very right that you can't be justified on that--at least not to me. Perhaps that's enough for you, but I have always thought you were one who required more evidence for a position than that.

Training is a bit much isn't it? I never knew in order to have faith in Christ one needed theological training. Likewise, I fail to see how theological training is needed if someone then turns around and says, "well, actually no faith because you don't believe days in Genesis are ordinary days."

Way to turn it around Jac. You're a great rhetorician, I'll give you that, but this is just being blatently obvious.

Condemn? Judge, perhaps, but there is nothing wrong with judging the attitudes of those who profess to follow Christ. We are infact encouraged in Scripture to do so. Those who do not profess Christ though we are to leave to God.

You know, this is the second time that I can remember that you have pulled this card--talking about debate tactics. I've had no training of any kind in rhetoric, Kurieuo. Perhaps you have. Perhaps you are trying to make a rhetorical attempt to draw attention away from the substantive point I am making and turn the attention on me and my character. That appears to me to be a veiled ad hominem. That's hardly appropriate, my friend, and, I believe, in direct violation of the board rules .

See that is just it - you say "pulled this card". To you, discussions now seem to be all about playing the right card and winning. Not listening. Not helping. Not even truth... my many years experience on boards like this means I am aware to persuasive tactics often employed, and in particular when they are used in an unbecoming manner. They might be made subconsciously, it just becomes a person's habitual style of debating over time, however I will call them out when I see them and make no apology.

Now you think training must be required to use rhetoric. Is everything you know because of being trained in in your church? Nevermind you have had around 10 years experience (or more) debating on boards like this. There is your familiarisation and training in rhetoric right there. One does not need formal training in rhetoric.

Again, it seems you have turned the table on me to try enable you to escape the heat. Am I being deceitful and using these tactics myself? Let me say I am very suspect of anyone who claims to not employ techniques to persuade someone else of their views. That is, after all, all rhetoric is. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. I myself do try to employ persuasive techniques to get my points better across. But, then there is an honest way of using rhetoric to try give what you are saying more impact, and a dishonest way of employing rhetoric which attempts put a black mark against the person or people you are debating, or maybe plays a victim card to draw greater sympathy, or acts like those of an opposing position are bullys, censoring, abusing their power, etc.

Readers should be aware to these tactics! I am sure they can decide for themselves who has been playing what rhetorical trick. I will comment no more on this but I will say I like to see myself as an open book.

As far as condemning vs. judging, I'll accept your distinction, and I'll tell you the same thing I told DnC. If you believe you have the right to judge another Christian, that's between you and God. If you believe that you have the ability to judge another man's motives, then you have reached a stage in your spiritual growth that is superior to me in every way I can imagine. As I said before, in all honesty, I have great difficulty at times knowing my own motives.

If you are advocating the position one should never judge, then I do not know how you reconcile this with Christ's own words (Matthew 7:15-20):

• 15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

Now lets be clear here. All I said was that I listened to Ken Ham tapes when I was much younger, and in it he said if you do not take the days in Genesis as ordinary days, then you don't have faith. Is this me making a judgement on Ken Ham? *sigh* Forgive me if I just recall an event in my life that happened. You have somehow managed to put me on the defensive for this, when all I ever did was just state an event in my life. I am beginning to feel that you can't just let people believe differently than you, but you don't even want to allow others you disagree with the decency of hanging onto their own experiences.

So while you may believe that God tells us to judge others, I believe that Jesus told us not to judge one another, and that Paul echoed that statement, reminding us that he doesn't even judge himself. If someone is doing something that I think is in fundamental violation of Scripture--such as becoming the judge of another when there is only One Judge--I'll certainly point it out, but what that person does then is up to God. It certainly isn't my place to condemn, or judge . . .

You mean what Paul said when he wrote in 1 Cor 5:12-13:

• 12What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."

Or are you talking about not judging those who are new to Christ, or weak Christians, as Paul discusses in Romans 14:1-4? Surely you do not think Ken Ham is such a person...?

Rather, it becomes obvious, those in places of authority who have a high influence should be judged and not allowed to teach when they are wicked. The reason being because they will otherwise lead a great deal many weaker Christians astray.

Now let me be clear. Ken Ham, I do not judge as being purposely deceitful, nor do I challenge his faith in Christ. I do not know the guy, so how can I know? He appears to be essentially a sincere Christian who is just very passionate about his theology on creation. Sadly, I disagree with him. And sadly, he challenged my faith as a Christian when I listened to those Creationist tapes I had. If anything, I think he just needs to heed Paul's words in Romans, and be more sensative to new or weaker Christians when he preaches.

Now, if you want to argue that Gen 1 should not be taken literally, then you are well within the stream of historical Christian interpretation. As I understand your position, though, you believe, rightly, the text should be taken literally, and you argue that eons of time is the literal, intended meaning. In making that argument, you are completely outside the stream of historical Christian interpretation.

Literal is a poor term to use. For if yom can represent sunrise to sunset, a full ordinary day, or symbolically as unspecified period of time, then what is its literal use? When talking of literal use, many understand this to represent correctness - what the author initally intended. However, none of us have dibs to say Moses believed this way or that by default, because none of us have access to Moses. All uses of a word should be left open unless the text explicitly rules out one way. And while you disagree, I think Scripture supports the literal use of yom as being symbolic of an unspecified period.

For example, re: the "evening and morning" phrase, God works on the sixth day which culminates with "evening and morning" (Gen 1:31). The sixth day ends (evening), and the new seventh day begins (morning). "By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done." (Gen 2:2-3) What does this mean. Well, the seventh day is not closed.

I will leave it up to the reader to explore in Scripture when the seventh day ends.

Perhaps I have missed posts in my absense, but when I actively participated in this debate, there was no misrepresentation or slandering of YECs. If there was, it was policed like everything else according the the discussion guidelines.

I debated Felgar on this issue and it was quite civil. He represented YEC quite well. As have a great deal many other YEC posters who visited this board. In fact, they put forward very complex issues which I really had to think hard on. I believe prevous YEC posters have quite adequately represented their position. In fact, between all the posts on this board, probably just about every issue that can be touched between YEC and OEC Day-Age has probably been discussed. I'm sorry you feel other YECs in the past were not as well equipped to deal with the challenges Day-Age proponents offer like you believe you can.

Furthermore, I am also strongly insulted by your slanderous accusations that the owner and moderators purposely misrepresent YECs on this board. On a personal level, going back to the very beginning on this new board we both moderated, I think you know better Jac that it is not this way at all. Take some time out to examine closely the implications what you are saying here Jac on those who run the board. I don't think this is being fair at all, and it is poor taste in rhetoric if it is being used as such.

First, have I ever said that no YEC before me was "as well equipped to deal with the challenges of Day-age proponents offer like" me? Have I actually said that, Kurieuo? I don't believe so. I don't believe I've ever said anything about the quality of YEC posters before me. I've simply pointed out that I've been watching many of these accusations go unchallenged in many contexts for quite some time and that enough is enough.

I am happy to retract my saying that "you feel other YECs in the past were not as well equipped to deal with the challenges Day-Age proponents offer like you believe you can." It just definitely sounded like this is what you were saying. For example, where you stated:

I'll tell you like I told Danny: the reason I finally decided to put my foot down on this is that I got tired of watching this board misrepresent YEC and slander its proponents. I am under absolutely no illusion that I will ever change any of the regular posters' minds. That's not my intention. But you and I both know that these boards are read very frequently by others, and I'm just not going to let this go unchallenged anymore" (underline emphasis mine)

I'm sure you can appreciate my mistake. Your words made it sound like no YEC person was ever allowed to have a say, and all that has been on this board are OEC Day-Age anti-YEC people who just continually misrepresent YECs.

I did jump the gun here, and now you've clarified, with all sincereness please accept my apology.

If, then, I've said that the YECs who came before me were unqualified, please quote me so that I can publicly retract and apologize. If not, I am asking you to retract and or this statement, as it has implies something very negative about my character. You police other people when they attack other Christian's character . . . what about yourself?

Don't you know I'm all-powerful at these boards. I am one of many gods here. So I can bully who I well please!

Seriously, I'd pray one of the other mods would bring it to my attention if I was out of line. Or if a lot of posters voiced concern, the issue can be escalated to Rich himself. However, I'd step down of my own accord if most felt this way. So how does this sound? Since you imply an abuse of power on my part, I am happy to run a poll. Excluding newcomers who are not familiar with who I am, if those who post regularly think I'm out of line as a moderator, then I'll step down from my role. Would that please you Jac?

Second, you thankfully have nothing to be insulted about. I was not referring to you when I said that YECs were being slandered. I was specifically referring to DnC, which is something I have said directly to him already. I'll assume you have not been reading the conversation between he and I and so missed that part. Specifically, I am objecting to his saying that Ham has said that a person isn't saved if they don't believe in YEC. That is a flat lie. I am asking you, as a moderator, to police such actions as consistent with this board's purpose. Unless he can post a direct statement by Ham stating as such, which is still forthcoming, he has made a deeply offensive, unevidenced assertion.

So now I understand why you leaped on me when I stated my own experience with Ham. If one has no faith, then does that count as Ham believing such a person is not saved? Afterall, one must have faith in Christ to be saved. I can see myself why DnC would say such a thing, as I myself understood Ham to believe such a thing. Certainly, he targets "Rossism" as though it is heresy and a matter of salvation. So I am just not sure this is as a clearcut lie like you make it out to be.

Perhaps rather than so forcefully demanding DnC provide a quote and trying to get rid of him for lying, you could take it off the public forums, and privately message him with a bit more of a benefit of doubt that he intended no wrong and thought what he said was an honest statement. Then he might be more willing to look around for a quote, and perhaps retract his statement if unable to turn anything up.

If, then, you feel my rhetoric is strong (there's that word again . . . why are you trying to cast my substantive arguments in terms of mere rhetoric?), may I suggest reading me more carefully to see if perhaps you have not misunderstood what I am saying? For my part, I will try to make my own statements still more pointed so as to try to avoid people coming to improper generalizations that I did not intend and certainly do not believe, as you have drawn from my words here.

I think perhaps you just get so passionate and involved with what you are saying, that you often steamroll over people and attach negative moviations to those who disagree with you. I am certain this board is not as oppressive and one-sided as you say. You do keep posting here afterall. Try looking up from writing to occasionally to smile, and give the benefit of the doubt to the motives of others who disagree with you. We OEC Day-Age people aren't all out to mislead, deceive, lie, bully, etc.

I agree with you here Jac on the importance of the issue.

I'm sorry you so easily disregard the negative experiences of many Day-Age proponents with YEC. It happens both ways, I know. But given the majority of us here are I guess Day-Age in position, obviously the experiences are more flavoured against YEC. That said, the issue is not won or lost based on character, or character assassination. You can be a Hitler and still be more correct on one particular truth than say Mother Teresa. Someone's character has absolutely no bearing on valid and sound arguments or what is true.

I am also sorry you believe all that has happened to YEC on this board is one-sided slander; that you don't see the positive interactions between fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who accept each other regardless of differences in belief on creation. People like Felgar, Kmart, bizzt, Strix, Jbuza, myself and many others who accepted one another in Christ regardless of our creation position.

I've never disregarded them, Kurieuo. I have been trying to get you people to see that it goes both ways. You and others repeatedly point out the heinous sins of Ham and Hovind, using them to paint YEC in general with a divisive brush--all while paying lip service to the occasional polite YEC--and then imply, if not outright state, that no such statements come from OEC. I'm demonstrating that it DOES come from your side. I'm saying nothing about what comes from mine. I'm sure you will admit that you know nothing of my correspondence between AiG and myself, so don't assume that I am being one sided, Kurieuo.

I admit I know nothing of your correspondence between AiG and yourself. Care to elaborate?

As I'm sure you agree, two wrongs don't make a right. If you really do believe that YEC is as divisive as you claim, the last thing you should be doing is engaging in such behavior yourself, and still less should you allow it to go on on the boards generally.

I think the misbehaviour you talk of is a bit exagerrated, and my engaging in it...??

Again, I am happy for people to let me know if my behaviour is divisive or wrong and point to something factual so I can change. As previously mentioned, I am even willing to place my neck on the line and run a poll for people who post regularly.

For what it is worth, I find it instructive that the public proponents of YEC aren't here anymore, the ones you have had such positive interactions with . . . I hope you can come to see that I'm not defending YEC when they are in the moral wrong. I am telling you, as a brother in Christ, that returning evil for evil is hardly the appropriate Christian response. Pretending like OEC is clean on this matter is intellectually dishonest. When you are willing to disavow Deem for saying that YECs who promote the appearance of age should not be tolerated within the church and that their god is not the God of the Bible as firmly as you do Ham and Hovind, I'll be far more inclined to take your arguments against them as being objective.

For what its worth, many OEC posters who were here then, are also no longer here. Isn't that just how people are? I'm sure 2-3 years from now a lot of current posters would have moved on in life. So it seems to me you are trying to again negatively portray how the board is run. Are you suggesting we have banned all YECs, or that all such YECs actually despised myself and other Day-Age board members?

Your complaint against Deem should be taken up directly with him rather than behind his back in discussions like these. We have not seen the emails he receives from YECs. I'm sure many aren't nice, as I have had an opportunity myself of receiving one. I can also understand what Rich is saying through the appearance of age argument. It hinges on the conclusion that God is a liar. Do you believe the God you worship is a lier? If not, then you essentially agree with Rich's logic. Where you diverge is with his reasoning that "appearance of age" = deciet = God's lying to us. If it concerns you that much, again why not take this up privately with Rich? Trying to cause dissension and mutiny here isn't appropriate.

Finally, I will come to Rich's cause a little here as you are greatly misrepresenting his words. Can you please quote the exact statement where Rich says that YEC persons who promote the appearance of age should not be tolerated within the Church? If you can not than I request you withdraw this statement and publicly apologise.

Kind regards, Kurieuo

[Kurieuo]

It seems to me the YEC position fails to differentiate between "moral" evil and "natural" evil.

I wholeheartedly agree with this Bart.

We may call something bad that happens to us evil, however this does not mean a moral evil has been committed. In order to call "death" really evil, one needs to at least first personify death in order to legitimately call it's action 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.

Another great point! At least, it seems YECs accept the same meaning for "evil" as Hume does. Only the meaning Hume assigns to "evil" is devoid of God since he did not accept God's existence. Why should Christians accept a secular understanding of evil?

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.

Something I also agree with and have tried conveying (unsuccessfully I think so far).

[RickD]

Jac, I just watched part of the debate on you tube with Ham and Ross. Ham said that belief in animal death before Adam's sin undermines the doctrine of atonement, and undermines the Word of God. When asked by Ankerberg if belief in billions of years means that someone can't be saved, Ham said obviously not in Ross' case. So, at least in that debate, Ham believes Ross is saved. I don't remember Ham ever actually saying someone can't be saved if he believes in billions of years, just that by believing in death of animals before man's sin, that undermines the authority of the Word of God. I can't speak for what Kurieuo has heard Ham say in the past. In my mind, OEC/YEC doesn't have a bearing on salvation as far as believing one or the other. The only place where I see a potential problem is with the unsaved who study science,(astronomy, geology) who really know their science, and throw out the Bible completely because some well meaning Christian tries to convince them that the Universe is 6,000 years old.

Thanks for adding that RickD.

Although I don't see this matters to the discussion, except where perhaps my character is being attacked as being dishonest or misleading, however Ross actually believes in death before the fall. Therefore, Ham would believe Ross isn't saved, right Rick?

Perhaps by saying "obviously not in Ross' case" Ham was actually meaning, "obviously not in Ross' [position]" (since Ross believes in billions of years).

Kurieuo, actually what I'm saying is the opposite of what You're saying. In that debate, Ham said that Ross' billions of years undermines the Word of God, and undermines the Atonement of Christ. Ham "obviously" believes that Ross IS saved. "obviously" was Ham's own word. Ham never said that Ross wasn't saved in THAT debate. While I disagree with Ham's beliefs that billions of years undermines the Atonement, and the Word of God, he didn't say that Ross wasn't a Christian.

[DannyM]

Jac,

All I've seen on here of late is people (rightly) pointing out the arrogance and ungraciousness of Ham towards his fellow Christians. I've never ONCE heard an OEC/Day/Age believer tell a YEC that he "undermines the word of God" because he believes in a different LITERAL interpretation of the creation days. This man is actually a DISGRACE to the Christian brotherhood. I've frankly had enough of seeing you turn on those who merely POINT THIS OUT. Perhaps if you took a step back and realised WHO is really playing the divisive role here then you'd start to understand that NO-ONE is in the wrong for simply pointing out how arrogant and ungracious this man IS. This is an OEC site and, frankly, I'm double impressed with the RESTRAINT shown on here, and the overwhelming COURTESY of those addressing the issues( a few flippant posts notwithstanding). There is NOTHING ungracious in pointing the finger at the TRULY ungracious Ham. Personally, I think you are going entirely overboard with this; perhaps this "energy" would be better spent on the TRUE divisive figure that is Ham.

God bless

[DannyM]

Yes it appears it was a different body from his resurrected one.. Philippians 3:21


You have seen Christ in his resurrected body? When, please tell me... It appears to be physical, but nothing like our own flesh and bone body. Why? How many people do you know who can walk through doors? John 20:26 Or make sudden disappearances? Luke 24:31

Apparently you know more than I. Apparently you claim that you have the exact same resurrected body as Christ did.. So why don't you show us some miracles? Like transporting yourself? Acts 8:39, Acts 1:9; Heb. 4:14. Or a disappearing act? Luke 24:31..

Galatians 1:15-16 "But when God, who had set me apart even from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me so that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with flesh and blood."

[Dazed and Confused]

Jac,

All I've seen on here of late is people (rightly) pointing out the arrogance and ungraciousness of Ham towards his fellow Christians. I've never ONCE heard an OEC/Day/Age believer tell a YEC that he "undermines the word of God" because he believes in a different LITERAL interpretation of the creation days. This man is actually a DISGRACE to the Christian brotherhood. I've frankly had enough of seeing you turn on those who merely POINT THIS OUT. Perhaps if you took a step back and realised WHO is really playing the divisive role here then you'd start to understand that NO-ONE is in the wrong for simply pointing out how arrogant and ungracious this man IS. This is an OEC site and, frankly, I'm double impressed with the RESTRAINT shown on here, and the overwhelming COURTESY of those addressing the issues( a few flippant posts notwithstanding). There is NOTHING ungracious in pointing the finger at the TRULY ungracious Ham. Personally, I think you are going entirely overboard with this; perhaps this "energy" would be better spent on the TRUE divisive figure that is Ham.

Well said.

[Kurieuo]

Jac, I just watched part of the debate on you tube with Ham and Ross. Ham said that belief in animal death before Adam's sin undermines the doctrine of atonement, and undermines the Word of God. When asked by Ankerberg if belief in billions of years means that someone can't be saved, Ham said obviously not in Ross' case. So, at least in that debate, Ham believes Ross is saved. I don't remember Ham ever actually saying someone can't be saved if he believes in billions of years, just that by believing in death of animals before man's sin, that undermines the authority of the Word of God. I can't speak for what Kurieuo has heard Ham say in the past. In my mind, OEC/YEC doesn't have a bearing on salvation as far as believing one or the other. The only place where I see a potential problem is with the unsaved who study science,(astronomy, geology) who really know their science, and throw out the Bible completely because some well meaning Christian tries to convince them that the Universe is 6,000 years old.

Thanks for adding that RickD.

Although I don't see this matters to the discussion, except where perhaps my character is being attacked as being dishonest or misleading, however Ross actually believes in death before the fall. Therefore, Ham would believe Ross isn't saved, right Rick?

Perhaps by saying "obviously not in Ross' case" Ham was actually meaning, "obviously not in Ross' [position]" (since Ross believes in billions of years).

Kurieuo, actually what I'm saying is the opposite of what You're saying. In that debate, Ham said that Ross' billions of years undermines the Word of God, and undermines the Atonement of Christ. Ham "obviously" believes that Ross IS saved. "obviously" was Ham's own word. Ham never said that Ross wasn't saved in THAT debate. While I disagree with Ham's beliefs that billions of years undermines the Atonement, and the Word of God, he didn't say that Ross wasn't a Christian.

Sorry RickD. I see I misread what you wrote.

[Dazed and Confused]

Perhaps rather than so forcefully demanding DnC provide a quote and trying to get rid of him for lying, you could take it off the public forums, and privately message him with a bit more of a benefit of doubt that he intended no wrong and thought what he said was an honest statement. Then he might be more willing to look around for a quote, and perhaps retract his statement if unable to turn anything up.

That would be a great idea, however I never made any such statement as Jac would have you believe. Jac continually distorts the facts and jumps the shark. Then he tells mom on me for spilling milk on the sofa, even though I never left the kitchen. He must be my older brother because the younger would never do this to me.

I broke out our conversations in sequential order and edited out all the irrelevant content.

Dazed and Confused wrote: To me it is a spiritual battle and some of the leading YEC proponents are without honor.

Jac3510 wrote: That's a very harsh claim, DnC. Do you think it is honorable to be so judgmental?

Dazed and Confused wrote: I wouldn't consider it being judgmental just factual. I think someone telling me I need to repent before God or I have no salvation because I don't agree with their six day cause as being harsh and judgmental, among other points.

Jac3510 wrote: I'd also like to know where any YEC leader has ever said you have to believe in the YEC framework to be saved. Now you are just saying things that are flat untrue.

Dazed and Confused wrote: 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?

Jac3510 wrote: 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 . . .

Dazed and Confused wrote: 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… 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?

Jac3510 wrote: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.

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

Jac3510 wrote: 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.

Dazed and Confused wrote: Really were did I specifically say that Ham believes that if you reject YEC you are going to Hell?

Jac3510 wrote: I fully admit that Ham accuses OECs of making God a liar. I have no problem with that any more than I have a problem with OECs saying that YECs make God a liar.

Dazed and Confused wrote: Then why would you have a problem with me stating that a few of the YEC's proponents have no honor because of this very thing? Then you call me a hypocrite and judgmental, yet you don't really care.

Jac3510 wrote: I don't suppose I should be surprised, given your entire tone of this discussion, though . . . you take it upon yourself to judge a Christian brother as dishonorable and then go on to slander him.

Dazed and Confused wrote: Really, what tone would that be? This is like when you accused me of being angry, yet never provided any reason when asked to do so. Just because I have an opinion doesn't imply anger, as I said several times before "you twist things out of context to fit your agenda."

Anyways, I already conceded the issue with him, look above about halfway through, so why is he trying to get pops to take me out to the wood shed. Ha ha older brothers suck.

[Canuckster1127]

You know, and this is just me, but in my past I've found that many times the more aggressive and attacking on some things that I am, the louder and less tolerant I am, and the more focused I am am on showing that everyone else who disagrees with my position is wrong, that the person I'm trying the hardest to convince .... is me.

I'm probably the only one though that has done that in the past.

[Dazed and Confused]

To Jac3510,

We as believers are not perfect in this life, me especially. I know I can be a rather mischievous foe when debating in a forum type atmosphere and I've had a lot of experience doing so. I've never had a problem with it prior because it was always with atheist. But debating a brother in this manner has not edified either one of us. The great thing about being brothers in the Lord is that one day we will meet and fellowship together for eternity. I really don't want to peruse this topic with you or anyone further. Looking forward to seeing you on greener pastures were we can be like minded. All grace and mercy to you for contributing here and being part of the "god and science" family and one thing we can agree on is God is the Creator!


Your brother in Christ,
DnC

[Dazed and Confused]

You know, and this is just me, but in my past I've found that many times the more aggressive and attacking on some things that I am, the louder and less tolerant I am, and the more focused I am am on showing that everyone else who disagrees with my position is wrong, that the person I'm trying the hardest to convince .... is me.

I'm probably the only one though that has done that in the past.

Ha ha your not alone. I'm really not sure if I just did this or not. All I know is that the Lord told me knock it off or else He is going to send me to my room.

[Canuckster1127]

It's not aimed at any one person in particular. It's just something I need to be reminded of, and if it's true with me maybe it's true with others. Take it or leave is you see fit.

[RickD]

Jac, I just watched part of the debate on you tube with Ham and Ross. Ham said that belief in animal death before Adam's sin undermines the doctrine of atonement, and undermines the Word of God. When asked by Ankerberg if belief in billions of years means that someone can't be saved, Ham said obviously not in Ross' case. So, at least in that debate, Ham believes Ross is saved. I don't remember Ham ever actually saying someone can't be saved if he believes in billions of years, just that by believing in death of animals before man's sin, that undermines the authority of the Word of God. I can't speak for what Kurieuo has heard Ham say in the past. In my mind, OEC/YEC doesn't have a bearing on salvation as far as believing one or the other. The only place where I see a potential problem is with the unsaved who study science,(astronomy, geology) who really know their science, and throw out the Bible completely because some well meaning Christian tries to convince them that the Universe is 6,000 years old.

Thanks for adding that RickD.

Although I don't see this matters to the discussion, except where perhaps my character is being attacked as being dishonest or misleading, however Ross actually believes in death before the fall. Therefore, Ham would believe Ross isn't saved, right Rick?

Perhaps by saying "obviously not in Ross' case" Ham was actually meaning, "obviously not in Ross' [position]" (since Ross believes in billions of years).

Kurieuo, actually what I'm saying is the opposite of what You're saying. In that debate, Ham said that Ross' billions of years undermines the Word of God, and undermines the Atonement of Christ. Ham "obviously" believes that Ross IS saved. "obviously" was Ham's own word. Ham never said that Ross wasn't saved in THAT debate. While I disagree with Ham's beliefs that billions of years undermines the Atonement, and the Word of God, he didn't say that Ross wasn't a Christian.

Sorry RickD. I see I misread what you wrote.

That's ok. After I reread what I wrote, it wasn't as clearly written as it should have been.

[Gman]

If we really want to honest with one another... No one really knows if OEC or YEC has all the 100% truth. I don't think I would ever make such a claim anyways. My belief leans with OEC, but it could be wrong too...

In hindsight, I don't think that Ken Ham would ever make such a statement as this...

http://www.reasons.org/old-earth-creati ... cal-belief