Young-Earth Creationism

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Cancer To Iniquity
So, God intends us to study something that he made to look as it is not? This sounds a bit deceptive to me. I mean, if I altered my car's odometer and then told someone to check it, I would be deceiving that person.

-jon

G~d also gave us the Bible to study. Regardless, the creation is what it is, it has changed, and still changes. If someone misinterprets what they see, that's their own fault.

 

[Morat]

  Does that include misinterpreting the Bible, Nick? Perhaps you're guilty of that...after all, most Christians hold a different interpretation than you...

 

 

[LouisBooth]

"So anyone who says or does anything that Louis Booth might dissagree with at any point in either their or Louis booth's life is not a "True Christian" TM.
"

LOL, since I hold to essential christian docterine and if they don't adhere to those they aren't, yes. Just like if I were to say, "those that don't agree with LW about evolution aren't evolutionists." Because you adhere to the theory. Funny how you just like to mock rather then refute though. A persons actions and motivations do give us incites to something about his christianity.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"So anyone who says or does anything that Louis Booth might dissagree with at any point in either their or Louis booth's life is not a "True Christian" TM.
"

LOL, since I hold to essential christian docterine and if they don't adhere to those they aren't, yes. Just like if I were to say, "those that don't agree with LW about evolution aren't evolutionists." Because you adhere to the theory. Funny how you just like to mock rather then refute though. A persons actions and motivations do give us incites to something about his christianity.

You would be very wrong that I would assume that one who does not hold the same ideas about evolution , or for that mater any other scientific theory, are not scientific or evolutionists (what ever that is). After all Louis, it is a theory and not doctrine.

And yes I do think that some behaviors tend to tell some things about ones personality.

For one, you seem to start many of your posts with LOL or *chuckle* seeming to indicate that you look down upon the others ideas and laugh at them.

I find that many people who do this are actualy undereducated, overconfident people who more often than not end up being the laughingstocks because they were not only wrong, but never admit when they are wrong because of their pride.

This seems to fit what I have seen of your posts thus far.

Take this thread, you laughed at morats list before you knew who was on it and now you have to try and cover for your mistake by claiming that they are not Christians at all. Even after being shown that there are ordained ministers and bishops on the list you still cover up the matter to try and salvage your pride. And you are doing the same thing in a few other threads at the moment.

 

[Morat]

  Hey, Louis, would those be the same 'essential doctrines' you refuse to list? Those essential doctrines?

  So what you're saying is "I have a secret list in my head of what makes a True Christian. I won't tell you what's on the list, so you'll just have to trust I'm being honest when I tell you who is and isn't".

   Hmm. Nope. Don't buy it.

 

 

[ocean]

Only God knows who is and who is not a "True Christian".

 

[Sinai]

For what it's worth, Billy Graham lists the following as what one must do to be a Christian:

1. Recognize that God loved you so much that He gave His Son to die on the cross.

2. Repent of your sins. To be sorry is not enough; you must repent, which means that you must turn your back on sins.

3. Receive Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord, which also means that you cease struggling and trying to save yourself.

4. Confess Christ publicly.

---Billy Graham: World Aflame, pages 158-59.

 

[LouisBooth]

"After all Louis, it is a theory and not doctrine."

I'm not so sure about that anymore...

"For one, you seem to start many of your posts with LOL or *chuckle* seeming to indicate that you look down upon the others ideas and laugh at them."

No no, not at all. I write that if I do get a chuckle or a laugh out of it, just like when I post a smile, I really smile when I write it. the "wink" is usually understood better as a "I'm joking" thing, so I don't usually use it because I write when I am doing. I don't look down on people or their ideas, why should I?

"you laughed at morats list before you knew who was on it "

No, I read the list, I just did what most of you advocate here which seems kinda funny that I get jumped on for it. I asked for evidience for a claim. Something Mor didn't provide but when off on a rant on how I should accept something without evidience to back it up. I see inconsistancy, don't you?

"Louis, would those be the same 'essential doctrines' you refuse to list? "

I've never been asked to list them, so I haven't. They are historically there for reading if you want...Hmm..didn't you say you where a "christian" morat? I thought you'd know them then? Maybe I am mistaken and it was someone else...

 

[Morat]

No, I read the list, I just did what most of you advocate here which seems kinda funny that I get jumped on for it. I asked for evidience for a claim. Something Mor didn't provide but when off on a rant on how I should accept something without evidience to back it up. I see inconsistancy, don't you?

  That's a pretty blatant lie for someone whose words are on record. I initially pointed out that several famous Christians were on the list.

   When that wasn't sufficient, I grabbed five names at random and linked to biographies giving their religious beliefs.

   On the list were two Anglican priests (one a Bishop and the other a theologian of some note), an Anglican rector and a devoted Lutheran with a life-long goal of "fixing" the reformation and reunifying the Church.

  When faced with that, you pretended mere ordination wasn't 'proof' of Christianity!

 

I've never been asked to list them, so I haven't. They are historically there for reading if you want...Hmm..didn't you say you where a "christian" morat? I thought you'd know them then? Maybe I am mistaken and it was someone else...

  Another lie, Louis! You and crazyfingers went back and forth for pages over what "essential doctrine" was, and a core complaint was that you refused to list them (crazyfingers asked, and so did I).

  Nor am I Christian. I used to be. And even then I would have had a hard time listing a single essential doctrine that would cover all Christians.

 

 

[ocean]

Only God knows who is truly a Christian.

 

[LouisBooth]

"When faced with that, you pretended mere ordination wasn't 'proof' of Christianity!"

You don't read the bible very much do ya? Check out Matt 7:21-23

"I used to be. "

then you should know them.

 

[Morat]

  I provided evidence. You don't like it, but you have given no reason not to accept ordination, authorship of Christian theology, and devotion to the Church. So claiming I didn't give "Evidence" is a lie. Heck, it's far better evidence than I have of your Christianity.

   Further, you didn't even address your other lie. You have been asked many times what "essential doctrine" is. You and I both know it. It's a matter of record. Yet you lie and say you haven't.

   They're not even subtle lies, Louis. One is contradicted by a glance through this thread, and the other by your own words in an argument with Crazyfingers.

  Two blatant lies. Is 'bearing false witness' no longer a sin, Louis? Or is lying to atheists okay?

 

 

[LouisBooth]

"I provided evidence"

no, you provided a list of names, no evidience at all.

"You and I both know it"

So give me your version "for the record" I'd like to see an "ex-chrisitan" at work

"Two blatant lies. Is 'bearing false witness' no longer a sin, Louis? Or is lying to atheists okay? "

*mod hat on*

break the rules again and you'll be warned

*mod hat off*

 

[Lacmeh]

Louis Booth, please tell me then, where you state what essential doctrine is in your opinion. I would really be intereted in it.

 

[Morat]

"I provided evidence"

no, you provided a list of names, no evidience at all.

   Louis: Let me ask you this straight out:

  1) Did I present a list of people I claimed were Christians?

  2) When you said I didn't show they were, did I link to biographies of 5 of them (at random) to show they were Christian?

   And frankly, Louis, can you not tell the bloody difference between "no evidence" and "evidence I do not accept?"

   Because your claim that I presented "No evidence" is a flat out lie. I linked to online biographies.

   That is the lie you are repeating, and the lie I find offensive, and the lie I would have reported in anyone but a mod as a violation of forum rules!.

   I felt you would know better.

   I presented online biographies that verified their religious beliefs. Several were actually clergy. Continuing to claim I did not do this is a lie. If you persist in making this claim, I will report you.

   Claiming I presented evidence you did not accept as persuasive is another matter, in which case I shall only point out the ludicrous nature of not accepting clergy status as evidence of Christianity, although that does make me curious as to what sort of "evidence" you want, if biographies aren't sufficient.

"You and I both know it"

So give me your version "for the record" I'd like to see an "ex-chrisitan" at work <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border=0>

&nbsp;&nbsp; It's not my version that's the issue, Louis. It's yours. You refuse to list "essential doctrine". Why? Does it not exist? Do you not know what it is? Have you been talking through your hat this entire time?

&nbsp;&nbsp; You have been asked by multiple people, multiple times to list this "Essential doctrine" you keep throwing out.

&nbsp;&nbsp; If you're not going to explain what essential doctrine is, then I respectfully ask that you stop using it. If not, I will be sure to point out your history of using a meaningless and undefined term despite multiple requests to define it and give it meaning.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Why? Does it not exist? "

Oh, it exsists, just wondering what you think it is, come on, you WERE a christian, did you just forget it all..or did you never really know it? So fill me in.

" If you're not going to explain what essential doctrine is, then I respectfully ask that you stop using it"

if you don't know what it is, then how can you advocate you know a CHRISTIAN when you read about one? You say these people were christians, yet you dont' know what essential docteine is!! That's the point I'm making. I can't call you a evolutionist if I dont' know what one is.

"When you said I didn't show they were, did I link to biographies of 5 of them (at random) to show they were Christian?"

Histoical accounts, yes. I saw no explict statements and on top of that you haven't told me what you think essential docteine is thus explaining what a christian is. So please enlighten me.

"Several were actually clergy"

So? I'm not catholic. I'm not 100% positive all the clergy are saved either, so what's your point?

"You have been asked by multiple people, multiple times to list this "Essential doctrine" you keep throwing out"

I'm still waiting for your version. In a scientific study you have to define what makes a experimental and a standard. I'm waiting for your definations to see if you adhere to historical christianity.

 

[blader]

if you don't know what it is, then how can you advocate you know a CHRISTIAN when you read about one? You say these people were christians, yet you dont' know what essential docteine is!! That's the point I'm making. I can't call you a evolutionist if I dont' know what one is.

That's a rather weak dodge. I'm sure we do know what essential doctrine is. From the evidence Morat provided, they are beyond a reasonable doubt, Christians. They're ordained Christian clergymen, for Zeus' sake! We just don't know what YOU think it is. Which is why we're asking.

You ignored my question. Once again, what, if anything, would you consider adequate proof that the ordained clergymen Morat cited are Christians?

 

[LouisBooth]

"I'm sure we do know what essential doctrine is. "

that's why I'm waiting for a full defination.

"would you consider adequate proof that the ordained clergymen Morat cited are Christians?"

did you miss it? I'm not catholic

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"I'm sure we do know what essential doctrine is. "

that's why I'm waiting for a full defination.

"would you consider adequate proof that the ordained clergymen Morat cited are Christians?"

did you miss it? I'm not catholic

Did you define essential christian core doctrines yet?

Or is that something that we missed as well?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Did you define essential christian core doctrines yet?"

still waiting for the person that's claiming he knows it to tell me

Hmm..me thinks I have a shadow..