Featured I'm convinced the creationism debate does more harm than good

God's Word doesn't return void. If God chooses to use this debate to save someone, then that person will be saved.

 

Without a doubt. But we have a limited number of opportunities to engage people. Why put up barriers? We are constantly defending issues and that's what we're known for---the issues.

Preach the Gospel. Talk about Jesus! Be known for THAT.

 

I'm not sure that I would agree in whole with your point. It almost sounds as if you're saying:
"never mind your preconceived notions, let me tell you about Jesus"

I'm not a big advocate of making a parade out of a debate, but it can sway some minds

Suppose one preconceived notion is that Jesus never existed. How effective do you think "Meet Jesus" is going to be, unless I first go through some effort to demonstrate that He was here, that He did die, that He did rise again?

Same with evolution/creation debate. Most on the evolution side are there because they (maybe pretend to) believe there is no God. Do you really think "Meet Jesus" is going to work? No.

There needs to be a jarring of the intellect, to at least acknowledge the possibility that God exists, or there isn't one chance for them to embrace Christ

It might come through a seeming self-discovery byway of various experiences in life, but it might also come through a reasonable presentation in a highly publicized debate

 

If we learn about Jesus by the bible which teaches creation,and the bible is attacked as not trust worthy ....you have no Jesus and no gospel to speak about. Salvation is word centered as we do not know truth apart from the word,quickened by the Spirit.
Truth is to be declared from the word of God...written.:thumbs:

 

That's exactly what I'm saying. Winning a debate about an issue isn't going to save anyone.

The church has a very bad habit of letting the lost frame the conversation and then we go on the defensive to convince them that they are wrong.

While we may convince them that they are wrong about an issue, they'd still be on the way to hell.

It reminds me of the Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my door a long time ago and spent about 40 minutes trying to convince me that Jesus and God are not the same. They tried to win an argument and didn't seem to give a flying hoot about my eternal salvation.

THAT's what we sound like.

Sway some minds toward what? The debate isn't about accepting Christ as Lord and Savior.

Proving to people that Jesus existed doesn't save anyone. The Muslims believe HE existed. Now I do understand what you're saying. But I think the church keeps missing what we were commissioned to do. ANd that wasn't to win an argument but to tell them about the love of a forgiving Jesus Christ.

What is this Meet Jesus?

No there doesn't. They already know that God exists because God says so.:smilewinkgrin:

I disagree. I think this is just like all the programs we're constantly putting on. Preach the Gospel. Talk about Jesus !!

 

With this, I cannot disagree. I don't think anything I wrote was advocating just winning an argument for the sake of itself

Maybe not this debate, but this debate could be the seed planted, that someone else waters, which God makes grow.

You're right on everything there. But, if they don't believe Jesus ever existed, how are they supposed to fawn over His undying love? It must FIRST be established that He actually existed.

Same with this debate. Many on the evolution side are there because they believe there is no God. How in the world do you ever expect them to believe God so loved the world, without FIRST establishing that He does, in fact, exist ???

Nothing, really. It just seemed to an appropriate way to express how I understand your position:

you: "Hey, Come here and meet Jesus"

atheist: "There is no Jesus"

you: "Don't worry about that, come meet Him anyway"

atheist: "I don't want to meet this figment of your imagination"

you: "But He'll save you"

atheist: "How can an imaginary friend save me?"

you: I can tell you what He did for me"

atheist: He doesn't exist, so He didn't do anything for you"

you: "He died for me, and He died for you"

atheist: "He didn't die, because He never existed"

you: "C'mon. Are you sure you don't want to meet Him, I can introduce you"

atheist: I'd rather meet the Flying Spaghetti Monster"

you: "I'll give you one more chance before I've gotta go"

atheist: "You need psychological help"

Do you see my point? Maybe I've got you position all wrong, but that's what I'm hearing from you - Don't worry about trying to prove anything, just preach Jesus.
But preaching Jesus isn't worth a hill of beans if someone believes He never existed.


If I have you all wrong, I am definitely open to clarification

That's why I wrote that maybe they're pretending. But scripture says they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And that they believe a lie.

And the gospel is built on historical facts, that Jesus lived, died, and rose again.

And if the foundation is rejected, then the whole message is rejected

Why do you think Christians are accused of having "blind faith" ? Because it is perceived that we have no historic value, no scientific value, no intellectual value.

Your prescription, which sounds an awful lot like "leave your intellect at the door" simply bolsters this opinion

 

Jesus the missing link?

 

So what was the point that Jesus debated publicly the Pharisees and Scribes?

 

The point was to witness Himself like HE always did. The focus was HIM. The focus of this event has been billed as Creationism vs Evolution. And yall know that the minute Christian and evolution come up, Christ is lost in the mix.

It's the same as with abortion and homosexuality. we are trying so hard to win an argument that shouldn't even be an argument.

They get us to argue with them over these things and we look like the big, bad hateful Christians that they say we are because we let them frame the conversation that warrants no debate.

Preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ that focuses on His love and forgiveness of the sinner no matter what the sinner has done. That immediately takes the focus off of issues and places it on the only hope for mankind: JESUS!

 

No I would not agree. The debates not only confront the lost in their error over creation with hopes of them seeking more truth they also confront some of the saved who do not have the faith to believe the creation account in their error as well, and finally they tend to seal the faith of those who do believe what is written.
That being said I do believe that some people should not be debating the account as they do a poor job. In the case of Ham and Nye Ham did a poor showing in my opinion. I have listend to Kent Hovind who did a much better job before he went to prison for tax reasons.

 

Excellent "observation" Ann,

While I do share a love and respect for science, Bill's "agnosticism" (which clearly leaned by appearance to atheism) was evident. I was dissappointed at his criticism of ID, but I understand the "fear" that science has of considering the originator of the origins.

Many great christian schools have a great balance of complete respect of science and an unwavering intellectual (not just mystical) commitment to God as the author of all. The "hard core" naturalists, as I suspect Bill Nye is, simply cannot bring themselves to give any credence to anything beyond their observational and scientifically intuitive skills.

All in all, ( I am of course "biased") I think the conversation is important in the arena of theistic apologetics, particularly in the domain of academia. I am so appreciative that there is a chorus of voices of christian who are also scientists of many flavors who take up this challenge.

I perceived the debate between Mr. Nye and Mr. Ham to be quite civil and respectful. Mr. Nye did a much better job then I was expecting.

 

We need to realise that its NOT either the Bible or science, but its bible and real science, rejecting unproved assumptions such as evolution, extreme ages/dating etc!

As at times, some seem to see ONLY evolutionary processes and scientific facts that "suoort" that view, and extreme ages, as being 'good science!"

 

Quarreling gives debating a bad name.

 

No, it is about faith alone in what is written, not if science agrees. If science does agree than fine and if not chuck what is being called science and hold to what is written.

 

I think the debates of this sort do more harm than good.

In the first place, they tend to set up a false dichotomy that one must choose either science or the Bible. Truth is, one can toss out the extreme versions of science (no creator at all) and the Bible (six day young earth creationism) and hold to both faith and science.

Now, it might be useful to see a good inhouse debate between creationist Christians, with day/age theory, undetermined but old age creationism, gap theory, six day old earth, and six day young earth creationism debated.

But mainly I believe we are arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin rather than sharing the gospel. (And no, I don't believe the gospel requires any theory of creation beyond what Genesis actually says. In the beginning God....)

 

Apparently you did not watch it.

 

Ken Ham did an excellent job showing how the Bible and science DO go hand in hand.

 

OP's question is do debates of this kind do more harm than good. Not how did you like this debate, or did this particular one do more harm than good.

I gave my opinion. It stands. Yours may be different.