Thursday, September 15, 2005

Recent debate

Here's a copy/pasted version of a recent debate I had on my xanga site. wallaceapprentice is me, mkcuiaba is him. Enjoy.



Hey Nick! Long time no hear...of course, that would be my fault. I just decided to intrude into your nice Mennonite rythm of thinking and throw in something to shake it up. (again)

I think the evidence for some of the propositions scientists have made and you are questioning can be found in a book called "Creation and Time" by Dr. Hugh Ross. It supports some of the evolutionists claims with a longer time for creation than many evangelicals would lead you to beleive. However, interestingly enough, this man is a christian.

The point is, yeah, secular scientists are simply trying to prove that God doesn't exist. However, it may be possible that some of their findings are quite true. How do you know? Even with my bias, christian opinion, I can't tell you what I believe about creation other than God had something to do with it. You can't necessarily prove evolutionists wrong, but they can't prove you wrong either.

Posted 9/8/2005 at 9:11 PM by mkcuiaba


Nice, Micah. An MK not sure whether or not there was death and struggle before Adam...

At that point, you've just nullified the basis for the entire Bible.
Posted 9/10/2005 at 12:33 AM by wallaceapprentice


Oh? Did I now?

I'd like to look at it as though I'm taking in a broader view (as an mk) and realizing that there is truth in every culture, not just our own, and that can make those things that seem so important become less important and less obvious, and those that weren't as important, become in fact the most important things. Save`[portugese, I think -ed.]?

Posted 9/11/2005 at 3:32 PM by mkcuiaba


That's utter gibberish! What's more important than believing that God's Word is infallible?!?!

First of all, there *isn't* truth in every culture, as not every culture has obtained TRUE truth through the word of God. Furthermore, Christianity is not associated with any particular culture, and therefore you have no right to make any kind parallel between TRUE truth and CULTURAL truth. Francis Schaeffer wrote in his book "He is there and He is not silent" that there is a moral dillemma as soon as you remove God from a culture (and indeed, these cultures from which you are deriving truth from are most apparently Godless). That dillemma is this: Truth becomes relative to culture. Since truth is Good and the opposite is Evil, and without a god you cannot have definitive measurements for either, without God, truth becomes entirely irrelevant because it HAS NO BASIS. It also varies between culture. What's true here isn't there, and so forth.

Finally, however noble you percieve yourself as being in having taken on this *broader view*, in the end, it comes down to only one Thing. TRUTH. TRUE truth.
Posted 9/12/2005 at 4:05 PM by wallaceapprentice


Wait just a minute! Nothing I said was against what the bible says. (though you might think otherwise) My point is, the bible doesn't say fact-to-fact this is how the earth was made and how long it took. That's not how the first few chapters of the bible were written and therefore you can't read it like that.

Secondly, true, without God no culture can be good and considered to be true. However everywhere you go in this world there is evidence of God, even in people. So, though a culture doesn't believe in God and therefore cannot be good, you can still find a little trail of truth in that culture. For instance, through values. (I've seen it myself)

Posted 9/12/2005 at 11:22 PM by mkcuiaba


Listen Micah. I have only one simple point to make. As soon as you've accepted an old age for the earth, you've accepted death and struggle before Adam. There are many other peices of evidence that I could use, but I choose that one. I'll repeat myself from before: As soon as you've accepted death and struggle before Adam, you've just nullified the basis for the entire Bible. BTW What evidence do you have that the first few chapter weren't written literally, as in Six Day Creation etc. Am I supposed to believe that the first few chapters were written figuratively, and the rest is literal?! What in the world draws the line between them? What else am I not supposed to believe?

What good is the *little trail of truth* in a culture when we Christians have the only *Trail of Truth* worth looking for? And the reason that other cultures do have traces of truth, as much as other religions, is because THEY ALL CAME FROM THE SAME PLACE. They are all shades of original truth! We have the purest thing! It's entirely pointless to waste your time trying to find Ultimate Truth as an assimalation of truths from other cultures and religions. We have the ULTIMATE TRUTH.
Posted 9/13/2005 at 7:01 AM by wallaceapprentice


I have one thought. If we say that the 6 day creation is figurative, how do we defend any of the Bible from naysayers?
Posted 9/14/2005 at 12:06 AM by icedteafanatic


Ok, look guys. Obviously you've never herad this before. The original hebrew text of the first several chapters of genesis was written as poetry. The first several chapters is all poetry, not a story filled with facts. As any poetry you can't simply take it word for word to be true, but instead you have look to see what it means. (by the way, I'm not making this up. The people who found the original text in hebrew studied it and saw this themselves)

Secondly, CALM DOWN NICK! I'm not trying to tell you that you should look for truth soley from other religions and cultures. All I'm saying is that because they have truth, you can learn something from other cultures. The whole point of my post in first place was to tell you to keep an open mind about things other than what you grew up with. What good are going to do if you keep judging everyone who believes differently than you? That doesn't help anyone, but if you can realze that there are some similarities and then work up from there you'll do much better.

Posted 9/14/2005 at 11:39 AM by mkcuiaba


Judging from the *blue Kool Aid* you appear to have been drinking, both politically and spiritually, your level of compromise is unprecedented! How can you continue to sidestep what I'm saying? And why, for crying out loud, are you so stuck on an old age for the earth? It is absolutely clear to me that you, just as the *people who found the original text in hebrew*, have been put seriously under the influence of liberal academia of the worst kind, and your bias is showing. There are major problems with your philosophy. There are obviously large amounts of people who have NOT subscribed to the belief that the original text was poetry, probably because the people that said it was, started with a premise (evolution), and set out on an exploration for data that conformed to there premise! This is the utmost of unscientific procedures, and should be recognized immediatly by someone as intelligent as you. These people that don't believe the poetry stuff, (which, btw, I HAVE heard of before) can see and understand that, as I have been hammering on in the past, old age for the earth consistently disagrees with the bible on this account: Death and Struggle. Adam fell, causing death. It was his sin that started the ebb and flow of life as we know it. There was no death before he fell. In order for animals to have been evolving for millions of years before that would mean that there had been Death and Struggle BEFORE Adam's sin. Once you disavow the fact that Adam's sin caused the first death, you have also disavowed the entire philosophy of the Bible dealing with sin and sin nature: Man has choice. The first man CHOSE WRONG.

Secondly, I have absolutly NO inclination to remain calm when I see one of my dear friends accepting the Darwinist Lie. It grieves me to see the effect. And to think that I'm judging everyone else who believes differently from me is completely eroneous! I'm not judging them, because they don't have The Truth. Micah, it all boils down to the way you view God. It boils down to this one thing: How big do you think God is? How much of your life is completely under his control? How much, if He has made us, do you owe to him? I love people who don't believe same as me because they are my mission field! THEY are the people I want to reach with The Truth. We owe our lives to Christ, Micah, and we can't waste our time trying to define Truth. Jesus said "No man that puts his hand to the plow and looketh back is fit for the kingdom of God." It doesn't get much plainer than that.

In future, please try to address the questions being posed.
Posted 9/14/2005 at 11:22 PM by wallaceapprentice


Ok Nick, my final point on all this is solely to say that I'm not saying I believe in evolution. I'm trying to say that I don't know exactly how the earth was created because neither side can completely desproove the other side, and that is all I'm trying to say. You have you're belief, which is perfectly fine and many people would agree with you, however you don't know for sure. Ya, I know, the bible says so, but that is another arguement we're having. Look, I don't want to argue with you any more. All I wanted was to see if I could broaden your view of the bible. And if you're wondering, yes, I do have tons of scriptural references to back me up, but I'm not going to continue this any longer. I'm ending this arguement here, so until next time we talk Nick. (hopefully it'll be on something we can agree on) :)
Posted 9/15/2005 at 12:34 PM by mkcuiaba


I have my final point as well. *Ya, I know, the Bible says so.* Micah, what more do you need? Ever heard of simple faith? Have you gotten so lost in... whatever else that exists that you've forgotten that the Bible is infallable truth? Ultimate truth. I don't need to disproove the other side. I KNOW. Beyond a shadow of doubt. Can you say that about anything the Bible says if you can't say it about the first book?

*All I wanted was to see if I could broaden your view of the bible.* Micah, my view of the Bible never will be (because it cannot be) broadened. The Bible is one thing: Truth. It doesn't get any narrower than that.

*And if you're wondering, yes, I do have tons of scriptural references to back me up...* I don't doubt it. If we don't know the original hebrew language, we can misinterpret many verses of the Bible because of a lack of knowledge about context, etc.

I'm afraid, Micah, very afraid, that God, and the passionate pursuit of True Truth, is less than your highest priority.

Thanks for your input,
Cordially
Posted 9/15/2005 at 11:36 PM by wallaceapprentice

11 comments:

Janet Miller said...

thats quite the debate! I enjoyed reading it tho. :) L8r

Anonymous said...

I have to totally agree with Nick here. If I say the first part of the Bible is figurative (i.e. the six day creation)than how do I defend any of the Bible? How do I defend my belief that Jesus was in the tomb three days and rose again? **We can't prove them wrong**(speaking of evolutionists)Sir, have you ever been to an Answers is Genesis seminar? WE, as humans, prove evolution wrong. We are so complex, there is not the slightest chance that we "evolved"! We are living, walking, and talking evidence of our Creator!! How can you so easily dismiss that!?

Anonymous said...

I thought debating was evil and vain?

Nic Miller said...

Hans. Please. Stop the cynicism. It's not the debate, it's the content. I myself enjoyed this debate because its religious connotations validated it to me. Maybe you just totally don't see things my way, and never will. Its not debating that's vain (did I EVER say evil?), its the content of the debate, keeping the outcome in mind.

Can you at least give me ADVICE on how to deal with these problems instead of doing the thing I continually push as being wrong, that is, tearing down fellow Christians? And perhaps you really don't mean it in a cynical way, but in an objective way, in which case I would suggest you be more careful of the way you present yourself in the future. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Pointing out an inconsistency is not cynicism.

We were debating fundamentally the same thing: What is God's will for us to do?

Nic Miller said...

OK, if you thought I was being inconsistent, and I don't feel I was, then all is well.

I have a hard time seeing what you were debating as being something that involves God's will, although I can imagine where that comes from. It didn't seem to be one of Jesus' concerns when he was on the earth.

Nic Miller said...

Oh, Hans, did you actually READ the debate?

Anonymous said...

Yup I read it. You did a great job! I appreciate that.

I said "fundamentally". That's really what both of our debates boiled down to: Seeking God's will in all areas of life: theology, politics, science, etc.

Nic Miller said...

Understood. All is well.

BTW, when are you coming up to Amish Country next? You, me, and Pat need to meet for lunch at WCC.

whimsicalfaery said...

Debating is still pretty vain, although I would say the reason is that no one ever changed someone else's mind by debating. Maybe this is not always true, but I would say for the most part that the only effect it has on people is that each person becomes more and more stubborn and unwilling to consider objectively what the other person is trying to present. That's the very nature of debate. Neither is trying to learn anything, the sole purpose for a debate is to "win" an argument. (e.g. who can throw the best verbal shots, who is the most eloquent, who has the most prestigious people backing him up)

I will not deny that there is a place for debate. Goodness knows that I enjoy arguing with Nic way too much to ever give it up, but I still say that there are times when debating is not appropriate and would only be detrimental. (This is regardless of content.)

(Then again, isn't this a debate that I'm participating in right now?)

Nic Miller said...

Personally, I can honestly say that when I debate with someone whom I know to be more intelligent in a certain area than I, I'm seeking, as much as anything else, to find out better what I believe. Often, such an encounter will serve as a stepping stone in my "trail-blazing" experience as a Christian. In the above example, I was trying to act as a "stepping stone" for mkcuiba, not that I feel like I'm smarter than he, but I honestly feel he's misguided. This was the spur, the energy, behind my debate.