Young-Earth Creationism

Originally posted by 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..

Click to expand...

You're the one who claimed such "core doctrines" existed, Louis.  

As we wait for you to actually put up, or shut up....

I saw a list like ten pages back posted by Louis. I guess you all missed it. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7 gives the gospel very clear. Personally I would say the gospel is the essential core doctrine (salvation by grace, through faith, not works).

"You're the one who claimed such "core doctrines" existed, Louis. "

No, acutally they were historically given thanks As for the claim he made, I'm waiting for his defintion

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.

Click to expand...

   That's a pretty lame dodge, Louis. I certainly hope none of the people reading this thread are people you want respect from.

   Because you've lost any I had, and you're fast entering uncharted territories.

   I've met people, Louis, who would rather die than admit their own errors. But you take the cake. Most of them have the grace to flee a topic once they've made a fool of themselves.

   You seem to be a glutton for punishment. Are you embarking on a campaign to see how bad you can make yourself look?

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.

Click to expand...

   You mean besides things like "Person X was a Anglican theologian" and "Person Y was an Anglican Bishop" and "Person Z was a devoted Lutheran whose lifelong goal was healing the Reformation and reunifying the Church"?

   Besides those? I mean, they're pretty subtle. I can understand how they'd be missed by someone who was completely illiterate and stupider than a stump to boot.

   Since I've got evidence you can read, and as you're a mod, I'm guessing you're not a complete moron, I can only surmise that you're making a fool of yourself for some other reason.

   It is nice to see you admit I gave evidence. Are you planning on apologizing for lying about me?

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

Click to expand...

  Neither were they. None of them were Catholic. Don't you even know basic Christian history? The names I gave were mostly Anglican, and one Lutheran.

   The priest, the Bishop and the Vicar were all Anglican. Not Catholic.

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.

Click to expand...

   I didn't make the claim, Louis. And as I'm not Christian, why should my opinion on what's essential doctrine be worth anything?

   Frankly, I don't think it exists. You claimed it did, and you're willing to make a fool of yourself to avoid stating what it is. Why is that, Louis?

   Why are you so scared of answering a simple question? Or are you just unable to?

 

No, acutally they were historically given thanks <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif" border=0> As for the claim he made, I'm waiting for his defintion

Click to expand...

&nbsp; You made the claim, Louis. What's a matter? Regretting opening your mouth? Do you think you're fooling anyone? You opened your mouth, you made a statement. Back it up, or stop making it.

&nbsp;&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

" That's a pretty lame dodge, Louis. "

LOL, I'm not dodging at all, just waiting for you, the person claiming something, to give me YOUR defination. That's usually what the person makeing the claim does. after all, its YOUR claim, so please give me your definition, or does the person NOT making the claim have to do all the work now?



"You mean besides things like "Person X was a Anglican theologian" and "Person Y was an Anglican Bishop" and "Person Z was a devoted Lutheran whose lifelong goal was healing the Reformation and reunifying the Church"?
"

None of that is an explicit statement made by the person. That's what I asked for, and something you didn't produce, I'm not even going to the "real" christian card, so I thought you'd be quite pleased. I'm being soft on you and you accuse me of dodging? How rude...

"It is nice to see you admit I gave evidence. Are you planning on apologizing for lying about me?
"

1. didn't lie 2. You didn't give VALID evidience.

". Don't you even know basic Christian history? "

clergy implies catholism. If you ment lutherns too, my appoliges, I'm not luthern either. So again..so what?

"And as I'm not Christian, why should my opinion on what's essential doctrine be worth anything? "

*sigh* for those of you that can't seem to follow along like Mor here.

1. mor claims some geologists (the first ones) were christian
2. I said prove it
3. mor proves a list of names
4. Thats not proof
5.mor says they where christians!
6. I say, okay, what do you think a christian is?
7. mor dodges saying that has no relivance
8. I say, yes it does because if you are identifying someone as christian you should know what makes christian a christian
9. mor goes on a rant and refuses to answer.

And that is where we are now...with him ranting.

Originally posted by LouisBooth

1. mor claims some geologists (the first ones) were christian
2. I said prove it
3. mor proves a list of names
4. Thats not proof[

5.mor says they where christians!
6. I say, okay, what do you think a christian is?
7. mor dodges saying that has no relivance
8. I say, yes it does because if you are identifying someone as christian you should know what makes christian a christian
9. mor goes on a rant and refuses to answer.

And that is where we are now...with him ranting.

Click to expand...

Once again, you ignored my question. This is the third time. What would you accept as proof that the CHRISTIAN CLERGYMEN Morat listed are Christian, if being a member of the Christian clergy is not proof?

LOL, I'm not dodging at all, just waiting for you, the person claiming something, to give me YOUR defination. That's usually what the person makeing the claim does. after all, its YOUR claim, so please give me your definition, or does the person NOT making the claim have to do all the work now?

Click to expand...

&nbsp; I gave it. You refuse to give any reason it's not valid, except one reference to 'essential doctrine' that you refuse to define. Further, when asked what sort of evidence you wanted, you didn't answer.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Since biographies are an established source for determining things like religious affiliation, you're should either accept it, or specifiy what sort of evidence you want.

None of that is an explicit statement made by the person. That's what I asked for, and something you didn't produce, I'm not even going to the "real" christian card, so I thought you'd be quite pleased. I'm being soft on you and you accuse me of dodging? How rude...

Click to expand...

&nbsp;&nbsp; I pointed to several works of Christian theology by one of those on the list. How was that unacceptable, Louis?

&nbsp;&nbsp; And even then, do you not think becoming a Priest involved explicit statements of belief? That being a vicar didn't involve explicit statements of belief? Do you think the biographies I linked to were just lying?

&nbsp;&nbsp; That's it. When people wrote biographies of these people, over the past 200 years or so, they lied because they knew one day it could be used against LouisBooth.

&nbsp;&nbsp; You're making a fool out of yourself.

1. didn't lie 2. You didn't give VALID evidience.

Click to expand...

&nbsp;&nbsp; You did lie. You claimed I didn't give any evidence. Now you admit I gave evidence, but you say it's not valid.

&nbsp;&nbsp; There's a big difference. Your original claim (I didn't give ANY evidence) was a lie. You've admitted it. You owe me an apology.

clergy implies catholism. If you ment lutherns too, my appoliges, I'm not luthern either. So again..so what?

Click to expand...

&nbsp;&nbsp; ANGLICAN. I used the word Anglican all over the place. Either you don't know enough Christian history to seperate Anglicans from Catholics, or you can't read. Which is it?

1. mor claims some geologists (the first ones) were christian
2. I said prove it
3. mor proves a list of names
4. Thats not proof
5.mor says they where christians!
6. I say, okay, what do you think a christian is?
7. mor dodges saying that has no relivance
8. I say, yes it does because if you are identifying someone as christian you should know what makes christian a christian
9. mor goes on a rant and refuses to answer.

Click to expand...

&nbsp;&nbsp; Actually, you forget step 5 where I linked to biographes of them. Once again you're lying. Why can't you admit error? Why do you keep lying about me?

&nbsp;&nbsp; Once I linked to biographies that stated their Christian status (Clergy and theologians, for the most part), you claimed they were not Christian but refuse to say why.

&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm sick of being lied about, Louis. It's bad enough in ordinary posters, but you're a mod. You should have higher standards.

&nbsp;&nbsp; It's obvious you don't. I don't think I've met another person on this board that would stoop to such transparent and obvious lies.

&nbsp;

"What would you accept as proof that the CHRISTIAN CLERGYMEN Morat listed are Christian, if being a member of the Christian clergy is not proof?"

See above posts.

"I gave it. "

cool, can you please restate your defination of what a christian is in bold so I can be sure not to miss it? thanks


" Since biographies are an established source for determining things like religious affiliation, "

Nope, not at all, that is why I want your explicit definition.


"When people wrote biographies of these people, over the past 200 years or so"

You don't think that people writting history might emblelish things at some point? If your answer is no then why do you not beleive the bible again?


"You claimed I didn't give any evidence. "

*sigh* no I didn't lie thanks.


"Which is it?"

okay, now list the beliefs of anglicans and we can determine if I fit that. You're not going too good on listing beliefs at this point though....


"Once again you're lying. "

*mod hat on*

call me a liar again and I will warn you as a clear violation of rule 1.

*mod hat off*

"you claimed they were not Christian but refuse to say why."

I've said why many a time...you didn't give me a source with them explicitly stating they are.

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"you claimed they were not Christian but refuse to say why."

I've said why many a time...you didn't give me a source with them explicitly stating they are.

Click to expand...

Just for clarification here: does this mean that you will only accept words from the person themselves saying that they are a Christian?

Is that enough evidence that they are a Christian? (I have had others tell me that someone saying they are Christian is meaningless - actions tell the truth, words lie.)

As for concluding someone is a Christian just because they hold a church position or other religious office or affiliation:

Matthew 7
22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

This was too good to pass up:

Originally posted by LouisBooth
You don't think that people writting history might emblelish things at some point? If your answer is no then why do you not beleive the bible again?

Click to expand...

If YOUR answer is yes, Louis, then why do you believe the Bible at all?

sigh* no I didn't lie thanks.

Click to expand...

&nbsp; Shall I quote the numerous places you claimed I didn't give any evidence?

&nbsp;&nbsp; Why not admit your error? Come on, Louis, how hard is it? Just say (and quiote truthfully) "I, LouisBooth, incorrectly stated you did not give evidence. What I meant was that you gave evidence whose validity I questioned" and then we can move on.

&nbsp; As for calling you a liar: Have you asked yourself why you've been accused of this by three people on three threads in the last few days?

I've said why many a time...you didn't give me a source with them explicitly stating they are.

Click to expand...

&nbsp; You mean besides pointing out one's work with the Bible, wherein he takes the validity of the Bible as a given, and pointing out that another wrote works of Anglican theology?

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Was he doing theology as a mental exercise?

&nbsp;

"If YOUR answer is yes, Louis, then why do you believe the Bible at all?"

placement of the eyewitnesses and when the accounts where written and also in terms of the amount of fragments found and the widespread area they were found it among a few other things.

"Was he doing theology as a mental exercise?"

still waiting for the explict statement and your definition until then I'll just chaulk ya up to can't do it or don't want to.

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"So? The evideience only shows that God created an earth. Nothing else. If created mature, it doesn't logically follow that he is being deceipive. Just as if science finds evdience for something it thinks of the reverse, it doesn't imply science is being desceptive.

Good, I expect to eventually find out why God created the earth mature, so we are on the same level, thus the question still stands, do you think science is ignorant as well?

Click to expand...

There is no evidence that god is real. But there is alots of proof of evolution.

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"If YOUR answer is yes, Louis, then why do you believe the Bible at all?"

placement of the eyewitnesses and when the accounts where written and also in terms of the amount of fragments found and the widespread area they were found it among a few other things.

Click to expand...

That's a dodge, Louis. None of that makes any difference if the writers embellished their historical accounts, which you implied happens all the time.

You're familiar with the two-source hypothesis, right? That's the hypothesis that Mark wrote first and Luke and Matt essentially copied him and added content from a second sayings source "Q". What if Mark was a habitual embellisher?

"There is no evidence that god is real. But there is alots of proof of evolution."

I'd say both types of evidence are open to interpreation. though one is more scientificly testable, but I also think there is more evidience then just a physical world.


"You're familiar with the two-source hypothesis, right? "

Yes


"That's the hypothesis that Mark wrote first and Luke and Matt essentially copied him and added content from a second sayings source "Q"."

Problem, the only reason Q is thought to exsist is to explain way the simlar passages. Its a widly accepted theory, doesn't make it right


"What if Mark was a habitual embellisher?"

another thread another topic