Spock Posted February 5, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 5, 2014 I appreciated how Ham wasn't ashamed of the Bible and took a strong stand on it authority. He didn't have time to answer everyone of Nye's comments and Nye didn't have time to answer everything either. The time constraints were too small. But I appreciate that Ham wasn't ashamed of God's Word, which is more than I can say for some "Christians." Stop Shiloh, stop. We all here are not ashamed of gods word. Some may be ashamed at how people interpret his word, but that's a whole other topic. I didn't say anything about you. I was just making a general statement. Why would you be ashamed of someone who takes God at His word and trusts the Bible? Why is that person an object of mockery for you? I didn't realize trusting in God's word was so offensive to you. When did I say that? Cut and paste my words that make you think that. I love and admire people who trust in gods word. I better because I will be spending an eternity with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I appreciated how Ham wasn't ashamed of the Bible and took a strong stand on it authority. He didn't have time to answer everyone of Nye's comments and Nye didn't have time to answer everything either. The time constraints were too small. But I appreciate that Ham wasn't ashamed of God's Word, which is more than I can say for some "Christians." Stop Shiloh, stop. We all here are not ashamed of gods word. Some may be ashamed at how people interpret his word, but that's a whole other topic. I didn't say anything about you. I was just making a general statement. Why would you be ashamed of someone who takes God at His word and trusts the Bible? Why is that person an object of mockery for you? I didn't realize trusting in God's word was so offensive to you. Fred Phelps claims to take God at his word and claims to trust the bible, this person is offensive to me. The difference is that Fred Phelps doesn't take God at is word. Fred Phelps isn't a Christian. He is a cult leader. You cannot compare Fred Phelps with Ken Ham. They defy comparison. Your ridiculous comparison is offensive and profane in the first order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I appreciated how Ham wasn't ashamed of the Bible and took a strong stand on it authority. He didn't have time to answer everyone of Nye's comments and Nye didn't have time to answer everything either. The time constraints were too small. But I appreciate that Ham wasn't ashamed of God's Word, which is more than I can say for some "Christians." Stop Shiloh, stop. We all here are not ashamed of gods word. Some may be ashamed at how people interpret his word, but that's a whole other topic. I didn't say anything about you. I was just making a general statement. Why would you be ashamed of someone who takes God at His word and trusts the Bible? Why is that person an object of mockery for you? I didn't realize trusting in God's word was so offensive to you. When did I say that? Cut and paste my words that make you think that. I love and admire people who trust in gods word. I better because I will be spending an eternity with them. You're embarrassed by Ken Ham and the way He interprets the Bible and you have been mocking him on this very thread. He simply takes God at His word and uses the Bible has his starting point as a source of truth, but that's "embarrassing" to you given your remarks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted February 5, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,192 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,469 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted February 5, 2014 The most important aspect of the whole of debate was that metaphysical reality could notbe addressed by natural science and thus the debate was determined that God was necessaryto the highest question of present-> that of "life" ... Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoob57 Posted February 5, 2014 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 35 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 41,192 Content Per Day: 7.98 Reputation: 21,469 Days Won: 76 Joined: 03/13/2010 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/27/1957 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Ham wimped out on the "what if" question...Need more details. What was the question? Come on friend, we need more meat. along the lines of "if the earth could be proven to be old would you still believe in Jesus" and he danced around the question without answering it. Basically, he wouldn't give allowance for the "if".Ok, this makes more sense. In my opinion, it still doesn't look flattering to him. I don't why he couldn't say, yes, I would believe in Jesus no matter what.Because the literal foundation of Gen 1-11 'IS' fundamental to a non drift tether tothe eternity we are in... reinterpreting a literal presentation of hermeneutic to a nonliteral sense due to an outward influence of peer sanctioned acceptance leaves no constantin interpretation and the free fall from this is non predictable to say the least to thesoul that does... Love, Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsRational Posted February 5, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 150 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 4 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/09/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/01/1984 Share Posted February 5, 2014 This "debate" was a waste of time in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted February 5, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 5, 2014 Ham wimped out on the "what if" question...Need more details. What was the question? Come on friend, we need more meat. along the lines of "if the earth could be proven to be old would you still believe in Jesus" and he danced around the question without answering it. Basically, he wouldn't give allowance for the "if".Ok, this makes more sense. In my opinion, it still doesn't look flattering to him. I don't why he couldn't say, yes, I would believe in Jesus no matter what.Because the literal foundation of Gen 1-11 'IS' fundamental to a non drift tether tothe eternity we are in... reinterpreting a literal presentation of hermeneutic to a nonliteral sense due to an outward influence of peer sanctioned acceptance leaves no constantin interpretation and the free fall from this is non predictable to say the least to thesoul that does... Love, Steven Please, Give me a break. This is absurd. You can't say for sure your interpretation is right. In fact, many believe you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted February 5, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted February 5, 2014 I appreciated how Ham wasn't ashamed of the Bible and took a strong stand on it authority. He didn't have time to answer everyone of Nye's comments and Nye didn't have time to answer everything either. The time constraints were too small. But I appreciate that Ham wasn't ashamed of God's Word, which is more than I can say for some "Christians." Stop Shiloh, stop. We all here are not ashamed of gods word. Some may be ashamed at how people interpret his word, but that's a whole other topic. I didn't say anything about you. I was just making a general statement. Why would you be ashamed of someone who takes God at His word and trusts the Bible? Why is that person an object of mockery for you? I didn't realize trusting in God's word was so offensive to you. When did I say that? Cut and paste my words that make you think that. I love and admire people who trust in gods word. I better because I will be spending an eternity with them. You're embarrassed by Ken Ham and the way He interprets the Bible and you have been mocking him on this very thread. He simply takes God at His word and uses the Bible has his starting point as a source of truth, but that's "embarrassing" to you given your remarks. In other words, you can't cut and past anything that is not there. I thought so. Shame on you for trying to cast my good name in a false manner. Doesn't the bible caution us against that kind of behavior? My biggest disappointment in Ham wasn't he couldn't even say, " there is NOTHING that could separate me from the love of Christ, including if my interpretation of Genesis one is in error. This I definitely know." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I appreciated how Ham wasn't ashamed of the Bible and took a strong stand on it authority. He didn't have time to answer everyone of Nye's comments and Nye didn't have time to answer everything either. The time constraints were too small. But I appreciate that Ham wasn't ashamed of God's Word, which is more than I can say for some "Christians." Stop Shiloh, stop. We all here are not ashamed of gods word. Some may be ashamed at how people interpret his word, but that's a whole other topic. I didn't say anything about you. I was just making a general statement. Why would you be ashamed of someone who takes God at His word and trusts the Bible? Why is that person an object of mockery for you? I didn't realize trusting in God's word was so offensive to you. When did I say that? Cut and paste my words that make you think that. I love and admire people who trust in gods word. I better because I will be spending an eternity with them. You're embarrassed by Ken Ham and the way He interprets the Bible and you have been mocking him on this very thread. He simply takes God at His word and uses the Bible has his starting point as a source of truth, but that's "embarrassing" to you given your remarks. In other words, you can't cut and past anything that is not there. I thought so. Shame on you for trying to cast my good name in a false manner. Doesn't the bible caution us against that kind of behavior? My biggest disappointment in Ham wasn't he couldn't even say, " there is NOTHING that could separate me from the love of Christ, including if my interpretation of Genesis one is in error. This I definitely know." i correctly reiterated your comments above. I don't need to cut and paste what anyone can see if they scroll just a few posts up. You impugn him because He interprets God's word literally and trusts God's word over the words of sinful men. I didn't say anything about you that didn't already say about yourself. All you have done is mock him on this thread. Somethng I have noted about your postings. You have a very mocking attitude and it comes through in your posts, as well as your under the radar barbs you throw out Furthermore, the question Nye asked didn't deserve to be answered because it was a low brow jab at Ham and was not relevant to the debate. It would have been just as inappropriate for Ham to have asked Nye if the earth were young would he convert to Christianity. Those were not be part of the debate and were out of bounds. I am amazed at how people like you who claim to be Christians will readily jump on the wagon to support an unbelieving atheist who impugns the integrity of Gods' word, yet are willing to mock and denigrate a fellow believer just because he loves and trusts God's word over the words and theories of men who are the enemies of the Cross and Christ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 Ham wimped out on the "what if" question... Need more details. What was the question? Come on friend, we need more meat. along the lines of "if the earth could be proven to be old would you still believe in Jesus" and he danced around the question without answering it. Basically, he wouldn't give allowance for the "if". Ok, this makes more sense. In my opinion, it still doesn't look flattering to him. I don't why he couldn't say, yes, I would believe in Jesus no matter what. Because the literal foundation of Gen 1-11 'IS' fundamental to a non drift tether tothe eternity we are in... reinterpreting a literal presentation of hermeneutic to a nonliteral sense due to an outward influence of peer sanctioned acceptance leaves no constantin interpretation and the free fall from this is non predictable to say the least to thesoul that does... Love, Steven Please, Give me a break. This is absurd. You can't say for sure your interpretation is right. In fact, many believe you are wrong. Actually, Steven is right. How one looks at and interpets Gen. 1-11 sets the bar for how the rest of the Bible is interpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts