Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2015, 06:52 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
To:evalutionkills

Some people complain about the exclusivity of Christianity.  They will say we are arrogant because we believe Jesus is the only way and that only those who trust in Christ will be saved (John 3:16; 14:6).  But, this is not arrogance.  It is the claim of Christ, and we are repeating what He said--was He arrogant?  Is it arrogant to depend upon the wisdom, truth, and work of someone else, particularly when it is Jesus, who claimed to be God in flesh (John 8:24, 58), who walked on water (Matt. 14:25), calmed a storm with a command (Mark 4:39), and rose from the dead (1 Cor. 15:1-4)? 
Exclusivity is not arrogance any more than it is arrogant to say that I have exclusive sexual rights to my wife or that a police officer has exclusive rights of wearing a police uniform or that only one person can hold the office of the President of the United States at a time, etc.  Just because something is exclusive, does not mean it is morally wrong.  Therefore, it is not arrogant to repeat the words of Christ, whom we follow, when He says He is the only way to salvation (John 14:6).
Arrogance is . . .
Arrogance would be to deny who Jesus said that He was, to deny what He did, to deny what He proclaimed, and say that He is wrong about being the only way.  How is that not risking arrogance by judging Jesus?  Nevertheless, arrogance is condemned by Scripture.  Please consider the following verses.
1 Cor. 13:4-5, "Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered."
2 Tim. 3:1-4, "But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God."
James 3:14, "But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not bearrogant and so lie against the truth."
James 4:16, "But as it is, you boast in your arrogance; all such boasting is evil."
Jude 16, "These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speakarrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage."
Conclusion
Christianity is not arrogant.  It teaches humility and love towards others.  It denies having even the intention of any arrogance.  Saying that Jesus is the only way does not mean it is arrogance.  We are simply repeating and proclaiming what Christ Himself has said.  So, anyone who would say Christianity is arrogant is saying that Jesus is arrogant and in the process denying who He claimed to be.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 06:53 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
To Aliza

Some are under the assumption that, while the Bible condemns gay sex between men, it nowhere condemns being a lesbian/lesbianism. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 mention men having sex with other men, but say nothing of women having sex with other women. In the Sodom and Gomorrah account in Genesis 19, the men of the cities wanted to gang rape other men. First Corinthians 6:9 mentions effeminate men, very likely referring to homosexuals, but does not mention lesbians. So, does the Bible in fact condemn male homosexuality, but not lesbianism?

Romans 1:26-27 puts this invalid assumption to rest: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” Clearly, this passage puts lesbianism on equal ground with male homosexuality. Lesbianism is described as women exchanging natural relations (with men) for unnatural relations (with women). According to the Bible, being a lesbian is just as sinful as being a homosexual male.

There’s an implication in Romans 1:26 that lesbianism is even worse than male homosexuality. Notice the phrase “even their women.” The text seems to suggest that it is more common for men to engage in sexual depravity, and when women begin to do it, that is a sign things are getting really bad. Men usually have much stronger sex drives than women, and so are more prone to sexual deviancy. When women commit unnatural sexual acts, then the degree of immorality has truly become shameful. Lesbianism is evidence of people being given over to “the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another” (Romans 1:24).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 06:54 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
To alla

“The creation was merely very good, not perfect”
Ross and his staff argue that “very good” really means only that it was perfect for what it was intended for, but not that there was no death or disease.15 Their outline gives some other examples of the phrase, and I’ve added the context of what it was describing in square brackets:
‘God’s very good creation does not mean that it is “perfect”. Most occurrences of this phrase (me’od tov) are translated as “very beautiful” or “very wonderful”—Genesis 24:16 [Rebekah’s beauty], Numbers 14:7 [the promised land], Judges 18:9 [land of Laish/Dan], 2 Samuel 11:2 [Bathsheba’s beauty], 1 Kings 1:6 [Adonijah’s handsomeness], Jeremiah 24:2,3 [figs].’16
But such a justification shows that he could benefit from elementary training in exegesis, e.g. that given in the book Exegetical Fallacies, by the evangelical New Testament scholar Dr D.A. Carson. Ross commits a classic case of a fallacy that Carson called:
Unwarranted adoption of an expanded semantic field. The fallacy in this instance lies in the supposition that the meaning of the word in a specific context is much broader than the context itself allows and may bring with it the word’s entire semantic range.17
I.e. the fact that the phrase “very good” can have these meanings in some contexts does not mean it can have these meanings in any context. Certainly, the phrase “very good” can be used of people and things in a fallen world.18 But the specific context of Genesis 1 shows what God meant by me’od tov. The ‘very good’ was the culmination of Creation Week, where God had already pronounced things ‘good’ six times. This is a clear indication of no principle of actual evil in what God had made.
There is a Hebrew word תמים (tāmîm) that’s usually translated ‘perfect’ or ‘without blemish’ (it’s in the plural form because the phrase is “perfect in his generations”). Ross makes a lot of the fact that this is not used to describe Creation, and he correctly points out that it is used of Noah. But this actually undercuts Ross, because it demonstrates that even tāmîm is used of fallen people, including one who later got drunk (Genesis 9:21). Rather, John Gill comments on Genesis 6:9:
… and perfect in his generations; not that he was perfectly holy, or free from sin, but was a partaker of the true grace of God; was sincere and upright in heart and life; lived an unblemished life and conversation, untainted with the gross corruptions of that age he lived in, which he escaped through the knowledge, grace, and fear of God; and therefore it is added, that he was holy, upright, and blameless “in his generations”: among the men of the several generations he lived in, as in the generation before the flood, which was very corrupt indeed, and which corruption was the cause of that; and in the generation after the flood: or “in his ages”, in the several stages of his life, in youth and in old age; he was throughout the whole course of his life a holy good man.
The singular form תם (tām) is also used of Job (Job 1:1), who was likewise not sinless. But the words refer to completeness and moral integrity, not sinless perfection, since we likewise know that Job confessed his own sinfulness. The word is actually also used of Jacob inGenesis 25:27. However, most Bible translators don’t seem to want to admit that he is described so favorably, and instead translate tām as ‘plain’ or ‘quiet’ instead of ‘perfect’.
So there is no reason that tamim would have been used instead of me’od tov to describe a sinless creation. Rather, tov me’od, as the culmination of many occurrences of tov, makes more sense when used to describe the goodness of God’s creation and the physical perfection of its completion.
No actual evil in the finished creation
Now it’s obvious that the creation didn’t stay good. But is this a detraction from God’s declaration? No. The point is that when God created moral beings, there was no actual evil. In fact, evil is not a ‘thing’ in itself, even though it is real. Rather, evil is the privation of some good that something ought to have, as Augustine pointed out. Murder is a removal of a good human life. Adultery is a privation of a good marriage. Good is fundamental and can exist in itself; evil cannot exist in itself. It is always a parasite on good. For example, a wound cannot exist without a body, and the very idea of a wound presupposes the concept of a healthy body. Blindness in a human is a physical evil, because humans are supposed to see (but oysters are not, so blindness is not an evil for oysters). Also, evil actions are done to achieve things like wealth, power and sexual gratification, which the evildoer finds ‘good’ (meaning ‘pleasing’). Evil things are not done as ends in themselves, but good things are. Now, since evil is not a thing, God did not create evil [although He does create calamity as He has a right to do, and this is the correct understanding of Isaiah 45:7].
But God created both Adam and Eve, as well as the angels, with the power of contrary choice. This means that they had the power to make a choice contrary to their own nature. Even God does not have this power, for He cannot sin and go against His perfectly holy nature (Habakkuk 1:13, 1 John 1:5).
The power of contrary choice was a good, with no actual evil, but it meant that there was thepossibility of evil. But, evidently, God saw that a greater good would come from it, in that the result would be creatures who genuinely love God freely. Actually, real love must be free—if I programmed my computer to flash ‘I love you’ on the screen, it would hardly be genuine love. But Adam’s misuse of this good resulted in actual evil befalling him and the rest of the material creation, over which he had dominion (Genesis 1:28).
Satan’s Fall
Many commentators regard Ezekiel 28:11–19 as referring to the fall of the being we now call Satan (Hebrew for ‘adversary’).19 Evidently, Satan had also misused his power of contrary choice before Adam’s Fall, because he could control the snake as the instrument of temptation (Revelation 12:9). One possible interpretation of Revelation 12:4 is that a third of the angels joined in the rebellion20—they would have become the demons referred to in Scripture. But the fall of Satan and the demons was clearly not during the ‘very good’ Creation Week. Similarly, God blessed the 7th Day (Genesis 2:3). There was no hint of any sin or curse on this day. Therefore, Satan must have fallen after this. But this was still before the fall of man, the timing of which can be constrained, as will be explained.
Mankind’s Fall
Eve was deceived by the Serpent’s temptation, and in turn gave the forbidden fruit to Adam, who was not deceived, but still ate (1 Timothy 2:13–14). So when did this happen? Not too long, as can be deduced from the revealed history of the first humans. Adam and Eve were commanded to “fill the Earth” (Genesis 1:28), and by definition, before they fell, they must have been obedient. Further, they were created “very good”, which implies physically perfect bodies, which means that they would have been capable of conceiving immediately, at least within the first menstrual cycle. However, their first child (Cain) was conceived after the Fall, and was indisputably sinful.
Therefore, their Fall must have occurred a very short time, perhaps three to four weeks at most, after Creation Week. Corollary: we can also restrict the timing of Satan’s fall to the narrow window between the blessed 7th Day and the Fall of mankind.
As a result of his sin, Adam and his descendants acquired a sin nature (Romans 5:12 ff.), and lost the power of contrary choice. But in this case, it now meant that they could no longer go against their sin nature (Psalm 51:5, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 7:15–25). So people today don’t get their sin natures by sinning; they sin because of their sin nature.
The potentiality of evil, but not the actuality, is also illustrated by the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the original creation, God knew evil in the same way as an oncologist knows about cancer—not by personal experience but by knowledge about it (in God’s case, by foreknowledge). But after Adam and Eve sinned, they knew evil in the same way as a cancer sufferer knows cancer—by sad personal experience.21
In the Eternal State, redeemed humanity will no longer have the potential for sin. So in this sense, the Eternal State, with the new creation of the new heavens and new earth, will be even better than Eden.
In summary, following Augustine:
Adam and Eve were created with the ability not to sin.
After the Fall, humans had no ability not to sin.
In the Eternal State, humans will have no ability to sin.
Conclusion
The “young” earth is actually a deduction from a number of biblical teachings, not a starting point. In particular, it follows from the biblical big picture that God created a perfect creation that fell because of sin. Without this “bad news”, the good news of the Gospel with theredemption from sin lacks any foundation, and dangles rootlessly in a vacuum.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 07:00 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
Dear Breathren

Put away your pride and trust in God.

If you will not believe In God you will not be saved,are you hoping to die without having to see God after you've died just ceasing to exist?or are just not submitting to God ,because you hate his rules,and just want to ignore God so that you can watch porn for example?or are you denying God because your a coward and ashamed to say it in front of your mate's?or are being an atheist to act smart or to act cool,or are you just being dishonest and just looking at the evidence against God but your not carefully looking at the evidence for God's existence, my friend, if you are a professed “atheist/agnostic,” I promise you that YOU WILL BELIEVE IN GOD after the very first 5 seconds of awakening in the horrifying torment Hell. There are no atheists in Hell.

There are many be athiest’s and agnostic’s who have died who used to be good and some funny and some smart and some helpful,and some protective and some careing and some who do evil deed’s.They are sadly a believer in God this moment in the fires of Hell, as they awaits his final judgment at The Great White Throne Of Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). The Bible teaches and warns in Revelation 20:11-15 that God the Father will bring up all the dead from Hell (Greek: Hades) and the dead, and He will judge the dead, casting them into the Lake of Fire (Greek: Gehenna) for all eternity without hope or end you might wonder is there fire after death,the fire repressant’s some sort of torment. 2nd Thessalonians 1:8 warns that God Himself will punish them, taking vengeance upon them with flames of fire. 2nd Thessalonians 1:8, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Only a total fool would dare say that these plain Scriptures are merely figurative, or mean anything other than exactly what they teach.

I don't write this letter to be unkind; but rather, to WARN YOU OF THE JUDGMENT TO COME IN THE LAKE OF FIRE! Colossians 1:28-29, “Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.” Only one sin can keep a person out of Heaven, which is the unpardonable sin of unbelief. If you die in your sins without having received Jesus Christ as your personal Savior in your lifetime, you will go to Hell to burn forever. Nobody Is Laughing In Hell . Everyone who goes to Hell pays their own way, but every one that goes to Heaven has a free pass.

But you say, “I don't believe in Hell!” You are not alone, a USA TODAY poll shows 59% of Americans don't believe in a literal Hell. ARE YOU GOING TO HELL?. Whether or not you believe that a literal Hell exists doesn't change the fact that it DOES exist. Are you calling God a liar? God authored the holy Bible.(See archaeology),(See archaeology 2).

But let's say for argument's sake that you don't know for certain that Hell exists. Are you willing to burn in Hell for all eternity if you're wrong? Common sense tells us that sin MUST be punished. Our very human soul tells us that there MUST be a God Who is going to judge every human being in eternity. The Bible warns in Ecclesiastes 12:14, “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”

By definition, according to CCC 1033(Catechism of the Catholic Church), hell is “[the] state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed.” Some people cannot fathom how Hell could be a reality if God is truly an “all-loving” and “merciful God.” Yet, Hell could be said to be both the definitive expression of God’s justice and of the lofty calling and dignity of man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 07:20 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.
(23-09-2015 06:45 AM)Searcher777 Wrote:  To:goodwithoutgod

mmmmmm yes, welcome dear friend. I would like to enter discourse with you. I can blow your mind as well....with irrefutable evidence that destroys the story of christianity.(No my friend it can’t becuase you put your,belief in what you see,but I put my belief throught faith) I actually have a degree in religious studies with specialization in christianity...and guess where I got it? Saint Leo University.(but you didn’t take it seriously did you?) So trust me, I speak your language fluently, and I will use not a single atheist source to refute you,(you use,your athiest skill’s against me thats fine) I will instead use christian university's own textbooks, and my indepth knowledge of biblical historicity to eviscerate your infection of faith.(I know it’s history my friend) Come, join me, I have much to teach you.(Do I not know,tha what will teach me,will only send me to hell) How you ask? BY clicking the below link. It takes you to an area of our forum called the boxing ring. Where you and I can enter uninterrupted debate one on one. (No,you can say it over here,am not wasting my time,with a person who is just looking for way’s to be ignorant)Everyone can watch, but no one can enter.(what about the moderator,they of course can) Just start a new thread there, something like "Hesso challenges GWG to a debate". I am busy, but trust me, I will be there.(I planning one in athiest and theists thread) I see you quote Mark...are you aware that the synoptic gospels were not actually written by their namesakes?(A brief look at any harmony of the Gospels will immediately point out an obvious fact - namely, Matthew, Mark, and Luke go over a lot of the same ground, but John is very different.
For the uninitiated, a harmony of the Gospels is a work that attempts to show the life of Christ in chronological order, pointing of the reference texts.
The number of parables and stories that occur in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which do not occur in John, is just too great.
Note, for example, just the miracles of Christ.
Miracle Matthew Mark Luke JohnThe nobleman's son at Capernaum healed 4:46-54The demoniac in the synagogue healed 1:21-28 4:31-37 Simon's wife's mother healed 8:14-17 1:29-34 4:38-41 Circuit round Galilee 4:23-25 1:35-39 4:42-44 Healing a leper 8:1-4 1:40-45 5:12-16 Christ stills the storm 8:18-27 4:35-41 8:22-25 Demoniacs in Gadarenes 8:28-34 5:1-20 8:26-39 Jairus' daughter. Woman healed 9:18-26 5:21-43 8:40-56 Blind men and demoniac 9:27-34 Healing the paralytic 9:1-8 2:1-12 5:17-26 Matthew the publican 9:9-13 2:13-17 5:27-32 "Thy disciples fast not" 9:14-17 2:18-22 5:33-39
Because these three seem to have the 'same view' on a lot of matters, they have been called the "synoptic" Gospels, from the Greek syn (same) and optic (relating to sight or view).
Famed exegete Daniel Wallace goes into detail on the so-called Synoptic Problem, asking how it is that three Gospel writers could include so much that is so similar, in even the same order. While he does not deny inspiration by the Holy Spirit, he shows how the complete agreement would not really fit with three men independently relating the same facts, without some form of collaboration or borrowing. A close reading of parenthetical remarks or the details which are included in some accounts but not others would seem to indicate that the authors were aware of the other works, and expected their audience to do the same.
Given this similarity, the fun question then becomes, who borrowed from whom?
Traditionally, Matthew was viewed as the first Gospel, hence its location first in the New Testament canon. That said, beginning with Schleiermacher in the early 1800s, the idea that Mark was actually the first began to take hold.
The rules of hermeneutics that are used to reconstruct "the original wording" (remember these were hand-copied manuscripts and minor variations happened) usually suggest that when two possible variations are presented, "the harder meaning is to be preferred." In other words, if a copyist is reading sourcing material and either re-copying it or re-using it, it is far more likely that a copyist would harmonize what is said with an overall theology, rather than introduce something that makes the existing theology less pure and pristine. Since Mark's Gospel typically includes some of the most human aspects of Jesus (the Messianic secret, the abrupt ending, etc...), the principle is taken to a macro level, thus giving Mark "temporal first place."
The synoptic "problem" does not seek to deny "Inspiration," but does seek to create an historical chain of events that tells us how our Gospels came to be.)

Your nonsense has been debunked so many times on this forum it's tiresome to go through it again. You aren't looking for real answers, you're just doubling down on trite apologetics. This works on someone that wants to believe, but for many of us, these assertions of yours have been set aside long ago as myth making.

All you are demonstrating is what lengths a believer is willing to go to obfuscate the truth.

BTW-I was formerly a Pentecostal, when I believed, I considered Catholicism to be a Satanic delusion.
Now I just remove the word Satanic........

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
23-09-2015, 07:26 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
So our friend returned.

Can I assume that no one minds me blocking this dearly unloved breathren?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like DLJ's post
23-09-2015, 08:18 AM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
Why do religious people go all crazy on you when they have no evidence that any of their shit is true but they keep blathering away anyway with page after page of unproven nonsense. Just shut up!Beat_stick

Dodgy

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
23-09-2015, 04:14 PM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
(23-09-2015 07:26 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So our friend returned.

Can I assume that no one minds me blocking this dearly unloved breathren?
I'm down with it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 04:38 PM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
(23-09-2015 06:54 AM)Searcher777 Wrote:  The “young” earth is actually a deduction from a number of biblical teachings, not a starting point. In particular, it follows from the biblical big picture that God created a perfect creation that fell because of sin. Without this “bad news”, the good news of the Gospel with theredemption from sin lacks any foundation, and dangles rootlessly in a vacuum.

The "young Earth" is bullshit. Science has proven it's a crap idea. Dinosaurs got cancer. That happened LONG before any humans existed, therefore it happened LONG before the mythical Adam and Eve lived. Therefore all your nonsense is an utter waste of time, and complete bullshit. So sad. Too bad.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-09-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Believe and now before it's too late.(With Science and Archaeology evidence for God)
(23-09-2015 07:26 AM)DLJ Wrote:  So our friend returned.

Can I assume that no one minds me blocking this dearly unloved breathren?

Your assumption is a given.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: