“Just how long are the ‘last days’ supposed to last? … The Bible says that no one knows when the end will come, but then it gives some clues. And the clues it gives are all things that have happened since the dawn of human beans.”
Yes, the questioner did write “beans” instead of “beings,” revealing that he has a strange belief about where we sprouted from, or he’s a big Mr. Bean fan, or he’s just like the rest of us and makes mistakes when typing.
Human beings are prone to err, and the greatest error any of us can ever make is to be wrong about God. The religious leaders at the time of Christ made that mistake continually. They came to Jesus with questions for which they didn’t really want answers. Instead, their intent was to trick Him so that they could catch Him in His words. One such time was when they asked Him about the resurrection. They concocted a scenario in which a woman had seven husbands who died one after the other. Then they asked, “In the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as wife.” Jesus answered, “Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God?” (See Mark 12:18-27 for the whole story.)
The same answer could be given to 90% of the questions asked by skeptics. According to the Bible, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all those who do His commandments" (Psalm 111:10). So a professing atheist who has no fear of God also has no understanding at all of the character and power of God. Even those of us who know Him know only a tiny drop in an infinite ocean of His greatness. He is omnipresent--He dwells everywhere, filling the infinitude of space. Every tiny atom in the universe is displayed before Him. He is omnipotent--nothing is impossible for God. He is omniscient--seeing every thought of every human heart. These thoughts are too much for human brains that can barely juggle a few thoughts at at time, let alone comprehend the greatness of the God who gave us life.
Skeptics also don't know the Scriptures. Most of the verses cited in questions are read with an ignorance of corresponding verses to give them their biblical context.
So, in answer to the question: God’s timeframe is different than ours-- “For a thousand years in Your sight are like yesterday when it is past . . .” (Psalm 90:4), and “ . . . with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" (2 Pet. 3:8). The Bible tells us that the “last days” began on the Day of Pentecost (see Acts 2:17). We have been in the last days for two thousand years (not much in God’s timeframe). Most of the signs that the Bible speaks of have been around for many years; however, prophecies about the increase of travel and the increase of knowledge are far more evident in recent years. And, of course, the Jews obtaining Jerusalem in 1967 is the fulfillment that started the prophetic clock ticking. How long will the last days will last? God only knows . . . but we are certainly getting close to when the door of His mercy closes.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
A Skeptic's Question About Human Beans
139 comments:
Ray,
So a professing atheist who has no fear of God also has no understanding at all of the character and power of God.
Indeed true. In much the same way as you have no understanding of the character and power of Zeus.
You never did answer the question of how we can have free will when God has perfect knowledge of the future.
"He is omnipotent--nothing is impossible for God."
Including not existing - and in a puff... gone.
Ray,
Jesus was asked a specific question, to which he replied in essence 'You're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about.'
How was that reply any kind of answer to the question that was posed to him? So--Just which one of the 7 earthly husbands would be the wife's husband in heaven--based strictly on Jesus' answer?
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day
Peter was answering the same question as the skeptic who wrote to you and got pretty much the same answer. It's coming. Peter makes up some excuse based on a line in Psalm 90 which says that the passage of a thousand years is nothing to an eternal God, which is a fairly logical conclusion. However even if it seemed like yesterday, it was still a thousand years as, according to Genesis, it was He who decided how long a day should last.
In Psalm 96 when God says "Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways: Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest." did he mean 14.6 million years?
Jesus said He would be back before the generation passed, and Paul was telling virgins not to bother getting married as time was short. People have been asking Christians when this final judgment is coming and the answer for the last thousand years is that the signs are clear and it is going to happen very soon. It never does. The next generation convinces itself that the last generation were deluded and read the signs wrong, but this time the signs are clear. And so it goes on.
Ray,
Yes, I meant to type human "beans."
I did it on purpose because it sounded kinda funny. I am rather fond of the literary device, the logodaedaly.
Then from the rest of your post I find you never did answer the question, and you ignored some compelling evidence from the bible that caused Christians in the first century to think the Kingdom was imminent.
Nice try, though, ol' bean.
Human beings are prone to err, and the greatest error any of us can ever make is to be wrong about God.
And the most common error is to believe that God exists. It is caused by our own nature. We over-subscribe to the idea of agency. We assume that there must be an agent behind everything that happens.
Let's say that humans manage to replicate the Big Bang and in the process create a universe parallel to our own. We would not be able to see into that universe, nor know anything about what was happening in it. 14.5 billion years later, human life may evolve on a planet and ask themselves "where did we come from?". We would have no way of telling them.
One thing I would add is that God has no timeframe. The great I AM who is the God that has always been (past), the God who is (present) and the God that will always be (future), dwells in what seems a continuous now. Now completely understanding this seems impossible but it’s not completely out of our reach. What would happen if you could travel at the speed of light? Time would stand still.
The problem humans have is we are trying to understand the Creator from a created point of view. We will never be able to fully grasp Him and only can start to know Him through Christ Jesus.
Whenever I bring up the last days or second coming of the Holy Lamb people always say, “People have been saying that since Jesus died on the cross and were still here.” Which I reply, yes but right now this very second we are closer to the realization of this undeniable Truth.
It could be today as none of us know the future. Life is swift, one moment we are here and next we are gone into an eternity of another reality. There are answers in Christ and hope of something better to come. Today is the day of salvation. Are you covered by the blood of the Lamb?
Ray,
I knew this thing about "Who knows what a day is for God" was soon to come. You are becoming predictable. I was about to set you for this one in the "flat Earth" discussion, but left it to you.
So, according to your post, the days to God can last for centuries, millennia, millions of years, is "not for us to know". Thus, the Earth can actually be billions of "human" years old, and still be only 6,000 God years old, right? And if so, then there was enough "human" time for evolution to occur, right? And please other fundamentalists, I know there were no humans for most of these billions of years. I am just putting a reference to the years to distinguish them.
Now, I never underestimate you, you must have an answer for this. Just to be clear the question is: Is it remotely possible that nature have more than 6,000 "human" years to do its job?
AMEN Brother Ray!
Greetings and Salutations in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Glory to His name!
No doubt we are in the "end times", with the events in the middle east, the stage being set in Iraq with the new Babylon.
I firmly believe that God's time table is different and greater than ours.
I would like to share with you the constant threat of atheism in America / World, and the agenda they have with "Scientology" the religion.
Just the other day, it came in the mail ... again. Dianetics by R.L. Hubbard. It's a part of this religion founded by Hubbard.
He said at the beginning "if you want to get rich, find your own religion and be the object of worship"
He did just that! Such a fraud.
His judgement will be great for leading so many away from the Lord.
This religion continues to grow and gain momentum. This is a false doctrine and a heresy to God.
I noticed a member of this blog endorsed it the other day, but I don't think she understands the implications of subscribing to it.
Remain faithful to God and His Holy Bible. Not the ramblings of a false prophet of atheism.
There is only ONE Messiah and that is Jesus Christ. He fulfilled the prophecies, gave the ulitmate sacrifice, and arose from the grave. Need I say more? God Bless!
Ron L. Hubbard is a worthless imitation and a enemy of Christ.
He is in league with Satan.
In a few billion years, long after humans have gone extinct, the furnace inside the earth will slowly extinguish and plate techtonics will come to a stop. The atmosphere and water will be stripped away and the earth will be much like mars is today. The in another billion years the Andromeda and Milky way galaxies will collide (talk about all hell breaking loose!)
So......Party!
This is a bit off topic for this post, but since this post isn't showing much promise for an intellectual discussion, I thought that I would direct you to some interesting work that is being done.
A couple day ago there was a discussion here about how God supposedly writes our conscience on "our hearts."
I commented that I surely would not try to explain how brain chemistry works, but last evening I found an article that is very comprehensive and easy to understand without training in neurobiology. There is always a risk a scientist runs when "simplifying" a concept for general consumption, since some will say "that's too simple and must be just a hunch or something."
Be that as it may, there has been a huge amount or research into how empathy and altruism work, and trust me on this, it doesn't come from the heart. The human brain has evolved into an organ that does set us aside from the other animals in that we can contemplate ourselves.
Here is the article by Marco Iacoboni
It was published several days ago in Natural History Magazine- Online, and titled Mental Mirrors.
"WHAT DO PEOPLE REALLY DO all day, every day? We “read” the world. And much of the world consists of other people. When a tennis player raises his racquet, for example, you know instantly whether he’s going to take a practice swing or throw his racket across the court in anger. We all make dozens—hundreds—of such distinctions every day. It is, quite literally, what we do, usually without a second thought. It all seems so ordinary.
In fact, it’s extraordinary—and even more extraordinary that it feels ordinary! We achieve our very subtle understanding of other people thanks to certain collections of special cells in the brain called mirror neurons. They are at the core of how we navigate through our lives. They bind us with each other, mentally and emotionally.
Mirror neurons are incredibly powerful; “vicarious” would not be a strong enough word to describe their effects. When we watch movie stars kiss onscreen, some of the cells firing in our brains are the same ones that fire when we kiss our lovers. And when we see someone else suffering or experiencing pain, mirror neurons help us to read her or his facial expression and make us viscerally feel the suffering or the pain of the other person. Those moments, I will argue, are the foundation of empathy (and possibly of morality). Research on mirror neurons gives anyone interested in how we understand one another some remarkable food for thought.......
......MIRROR NEURONS HELP EXPLAIN an essential characteristic of humans: we have an instinct to imitate one another—to synchronize our bodies, our actions, even the way we speak to each other. This synchrony we enjoy with others often has an emotional component."
You can search on the author's name or go to Natural History and read the whole article. It is absolutely facinating. /d
Your last days will not last more than a 100 years or so at most.
So rather than worrying about when the end of the earth will come, worry about when the end of Your days will come. Hopefully on that day, you will be on the side of Good through trust in Christ and not on the side of Evil.
"Jesus was asked a specific question, to which he replied in essence 'You're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about.'
How was that reply any kind of answer to the question that was posed to him? So--Just which one of the 7 earthly husbands would be the wife's husband in heaven--based strictly on Jesus' answer?"
Howdy, you're ignorance of the Bible is astounding. Rather than spoon feeding you the answer, you are going to have to read it if you really want it.
John Doyle said...
"And the most common error is to believe that God exists. It is caused by our own nature."
Wow! That's amazing John that you recognize that God is embedded with-in our very own nature!
You really are coming a long way! At this pace, you'll probably be saying that the law is written upon our hearts in short order.
What you are saying makes a lot of sense as well, considering through out history, human "beans" have sought to find, understand and worship the God they instinctively know is there.
It definitely takes a LOT of FAITH to deny the God that is with-in your very own nature. That's why they are called Ah-theists, because they have to have so much FAITH in themselves to override their very nature.
Aren't you guys getting tired of the " ah-theists" bit? Seriously. It's getting as old and sad and pitiful and lame as Robin Williams' shtick, and that's saying something. Come on, put your heads together. Come up with something else.
This isn't mine, obviously, but it's the first thing I thought of when I read this latest post (I apologize for the length, but it's quick reading, and great literature besides):
ESTRAGON: What exactly did we ask him for?
VLADIMIR: Were you not there?
ESTRAGON: I can't have been listening.
VLADIMIR: Oh . . . Nothing very definite.
ESTRAGON: A kind of prayer.
VLADIMIR: Precisely.
ESTRAGON: A vague supplication.
VLADIMIR: Exactly.
ESTRAGON: And what did he reply?
VLADIMIR: That he'd see.
ESTRAGON: That he couldn't promise anything.
VLADIMIR: That he'd have to think it over.
ESTRAGON: In the quiet of his home.
VLADIMIR: Consult his family.
ESTRAGON: His friends.
VLADIMIR: His agents.
ESTRAGON: His correspondents.
VLADIMIR: His books.
ESTRAGON: His bank account.
VLADIMIR: Before taking a decision.
ESTRAGON: It's the normal thing.
VLADIMIR: Is it not?
ESTRAGON: I think it is.
VLADIMIR: I think so too.
Silence.
ESTRAGON: (anxious). And we?
VLADIMIR: I beg your pardon?
ESTRAGON: I said, And we?
VLADIMIR: I don't understand.
ESTRAGON: Where do we come in?
VLADIMIR: Come in?
ESTRAGON: Take your time.
VLADIMIR: Come in? On our hands and knees.
Well, this is certainly a pleasant conversation I've stumbled onto...
Dale said, "you ignored some compelling evidence from the bible that caused Christians in the first century to think the Kingdom was imminent."
Would you be referring to verses such as Matthew 24:34? "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled."
This is a commonly misunderstood passage. The Greek word GENEA, here translated "generation," primarily refers to a "race" or "tribe," not a generation in the more commonly understood sense of the word. Understanding this, this passage suddenly turns from a disappointing "failed prophecy" to an incredible and wonderfully fulfilled prophecy. One of the greatest mysteries of this world is that the nation of Israel has somehow managed to survive without any land of its own for so many centuries until 1948. It would have made perfect sense in this situation for the Israelites to be absorbed into the lands around them and the Jewish race to completely disappear - you don't see any "Babylonians" walking around here do you? Yet incredibly the Israelites have remained a distinct race of people consistently throughout the ages, just as Jesus promised they would. The Jewish people would not pass away until these things came to pass.
Christians have been assuming that Jesus would return "any minute now" (which He could, by the way) for centuries, yet even Jesus Himself said a mere two verses later, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
We aren't meant to know when the end will come, only to be watchful and prepared.
@ Rufus, Iruk "sad & pitiful"
Yes your atheist religion is sad and pitiful, but by the LOVE of GOD we continue preaching the Gospel to you in the hope that you will repent of your sins, and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord, Master, & Savior.
There really is no choice in this!
The alternative is HELL. Do you really want to roast in torment?
You seem to be a reasonable man.
A man who served his country. I commend you for that! You have seen death, and plenty of it like I have. It wakes me up sometimes.
We are not mere animals that are slaughtered, we have Souls! don't you agree ? I tell you brother there is much more beyond Death's door.
The deception of this world is great. I know it first hand! But it is not greater than He that is in me.
Set aside what you think of me, Ray, and the Christians in your life. I apologize for anything that offended you. Forgive for putting that stumbling block in your path.
Think about what waits for you when you die!
Your number could come up any day, then its too late! You will be on your way to HELL! Its REAL!
I will continue to pray for you, as all the Christians pray for the non-believers on this blog. GOD BLESS! United We Stand in Christ.
It is interesting to note that human beans have always been great myth-makers. The sad part is, they have always also been great myth-believers.
Just look at all the kooky things people "believe in," to assuage their primal fears.
Rufus said -
"Aren't you guys getting tired of the " ah-theists" bit? Seriously."
Do you ever get tired of the 'I think, therefore I AM' shtick? I certainly would tire of saying Ah-theists, if it weren't true.
Maybe you would like I-theist better?
Definiton of an I-theist: Belief I Am God.
Traits of an I-theist (commonly known as Ah-theits):
- Worships Intellect
- Thinks people are basically good
- Thinks the study of the Natural (Science) disproves Supernatural
- Worships Life
- Scared of Death
- Worships Physical
- Individual Rules and Theologies
- Denies being an I-theist
- Denies faith in Self is an unorganized religion
- Bothered by others pointing out their Faith
@Matthew
This is a commonly misunderstood passage. The Greek word GENEA, here translated "generation," primarily refers to a "race" or "tribe," not a generation in the more commonly understood sense of the word.
This is a commonly proposed explanation, but is unacceptable.
"Some have sought to get around the force of this text by saying that the word generation here really means race, and that Jesus was simply saying that the Jewish race would not die out until all these things took place. Is that true? I challenge you: Get out your concordance and look up every New Testament occurrence of the word generation (in Greek, genea) and see if it ever means 'race' in any other context. Here are all the references for the Gospels: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36; 24:34; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 18:8; 17:25; 21:32. Not one of these references is speaking of the entire Jewish race over thousands of years; all use the word in its normal sense of the sum total of those living at the same time. It always refers to contemporaries. In fact, those who say it means "race" tend to acknowledge this fact, but explain that the word suddenly changes its meaning when Jesus uses it in Matthew 24!" - Chilton
@ Matthew -
From your profile:
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Poignantly Precise! What great insight C.S. Lewis HAS. Truly a blessing to all of us.
Our of arguments Terry? Oh, sorry, I forgot, you do not have arguments, just flattery towards Ray (I thought you had a stronger personality, obviously I am new here), and Bible recitations (the one named for the Kind, and only those parts that are convenient to your point). Oh let's not forget, your choosing carefully for specific texts that say Christians knew the Earth was round. (I enjoyed the ethic atheist place, but it seems they try too hard to give Christians/Churchs the benefit of the doubt, and in the end they say very little. Thanks for the link though.)
Why did you go for what I said? (somewhere around where I wrote "... fundamentalists will say we will roast in Hell ..."). Isn't it that too condescending? At least you could have tried something new.
Rufus said..."Aren't you guys getting tired of the " ah-theists" bit? Seriously. It's getting as old and sad and pitiful and lame as Robin Williams' shtick, and that's saying something. Come on, put your heads together. Come up with something else."
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It's not insulting to me as an atheist, it's insulting to my sense of humor. It's just really lame and not funny.
If you're going to call us a mocking name could you at least make it funny. If you need help, just ask!
Nice try Matthew,
What about the verse, "some of you here will not die before the kingdom appears.'
Or that fact that Paul says not to worry about marriage, etc because the kingdom is near.
"Just look at all the kooky things people "believe in," to assuage their primal fears."
LOL ... exactly. ;)
Terry,
thank you for what you wrote. I hope that it plants a seed that only God can harvest.
For all the Christians who read this blog, please continue to pray for the non-believers.
Tinina Marie
Ray,
I know you love God and that you love the Scriptures. I also know that your Bible is 8 inches thick with notes. That's really great.
But I'm concerned that you find some prophecy fulfilled in 1967? How can that be?
Was this a prophecy of Israel being regathered? I'm sure you've read Deuteronomy 30:1-6. That's where the Lord clearly says that when "you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice... that the Lord your God will bring you back..."
Tell me, what act of obedience did the nation of Israel show so that they could be brought back in 1967? God said they had to obey His voice for Him to bring them back.
I'm sure you've read how it goes on in 30:11-14 to that familiar passage that Paul repeated in Romans 10:6-11. They were not to say, "Who will ascend into heaven? Who will descend into the abyss?" etc. because "the word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart." And here is the word of faith: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
Paul made it clear that obedience to God is obedience to the Gospel.
So which one is right? The newspaper? The dispensationalists? Hal Lindsey? or the Apostle Paul?
Well done, John Doyle. Thanks...
Brent said..."Maybe you would like I-theist better?"
Not really, that's stupid, too.
@Brent
Thinks people are basically good
Of all you said ... this is one I actually do believe. I do believe that people are basically good.
Brent:
I meant something less lame an sad and pitiful, not more so. But keep trying; you get an "E" for effort.
NaFa said -
"It's not insulting to me as an atheist, it's insulting to my sense of humor."
It's not meant to be an insult NaFa and it's certainly not a joke Rufus. But I now realize why you guys get so bent out of shape over it.
Since your religion values superior intellect, quick wit, sarcasm, back handed compliments, put downs, and anything else that shows how smart you are, its and insult to you if I don't at least try to make you laugh at your own expense???
Or were you just trying to insult me because you think I care about everyone thinking I'm funny??? According to most Ah-theists here, you all ready think we Christians are unbelievably funny, so why do I need to try and make you laugh even more?
The Bible has a term for you; Mockers…. God also has a plan for you as well…
“Look, you mockers,
be amazed and die!
For I am doing something in your own day,
something you wouldn’t believe
even if someone told you about it.”
To Brent on I-theist.
You write the truth.
The wicked do not care about the LORD; in their pride they think that God doesn't matter. (Psalms 10:4)
To Dale alias dale...
"You posted a partial article by Marco Iacoboni published several days ago in Natural History Magazine- Online, and titled Mental Mirrors."
Hmmmm! Why is it that looking at 100% of the other animals of Gods creation do you find that none other than humans evolved this set of Mental Mirros? Humans have the ability to look in a mirror and recognize themselves while cats see another cat and hiss at themselves when they read their own intent which must be evil as they recognize and fear something in their demeanor reflecting back.
Other animals reflect negatively as well.
Man has another mirror and it is Gods Law as found in the bible. We can look into this mirror and recognize ourselves in both mirrors. A real mirror reflects our physical appearance...while The 10 CMndmnts Mirror reflect our morality.
I don't think there would be any reason for evolution of this type as it would impeed versus enhance the species. For perfect evolution the species should kill, eat, and mate and having an over exaggerated moral compass would appear to be a detriment not a virtue.
You do the math.
I thought I would take a moment to report that the movie Expelled is now only showing in about 200 theaters, down from 1300 the first week.
The earings are 7.5 million. They had said that if they earned 12 million the first weekend, they would consider it a success.
The movie is a flopper. The critics are having a field day with this one.
Also, it has been a very good week for science.
The United Methodist Church passed a resolution outlining their displeasure with folks trying to have creationism taught with science in the public schools:
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools."
Also, Despite the fanfare over Expelled in Missouri, the antievolution House Bill 2554 has died
The score so far: “academic freedom” antievolution bills have died in Florida, Alabama, and Missouri, and South Carolina’s looks poised to die as well.
And;
"A remarkable new genetic study published last week has demonstrated that the closest living relative of the giant T. rex are birds — specifically, chickens and ostriches — rather than reptiles like alligators and lizards.
The most amazing thing about last week’s report isn’t that relationship, which had been fairly well established based on the similarity of dinosaur and bird bones. Rather, it’s that scientists were able to find and remove genetic material from an animal that has been dead for at least 68 millennia. No one believed that soft tissue could be naturally preserved for so long a time.
68 millennia…more like 68 million years
“These results match predictions made from skeletal anatomy, providing the first molecular evidence for the evolutionary relationships of a non-avian dinosaur,” says co-author Chris Organ, a postdoctoral researcher in organismic and evolutionary biology at Harvard University. “Even though we only had six peptides – just 89 amino acids – from T. rex, we were able to establish these relationships with a relatively high degree of support."
More at eleven :>
Dale said:
"It is interesting to note that human beans have always been great myth-makers. The sad part is, they have always also been great myth-believers.
Just look at all the kooky things people "believe in," to assuage their primal fears."
Yeah, like once upon a time, there was nothing. Then that nothing became something all on its own. From that someting that nothing made came everything...over billions and billions of years. How do I know this is true you might ask yourself. I believe it to be true because I don't want to believe the alternative. There was no one there to cooberate the facts, so I have to pretty much take it on faith. But hey this is so much more fun.
So sad INDEED!
WOW WOW WOW..Mr. Comfort, I didn't know people like that lady from the united universalist Building, because it certainly can't be called Ekklesia, existed! I'm still shocked! wow, definitely someone to pray for intensely...
@ Clos ( get_education )
You said "fundamentalists will say we will roast in Hell ..."). Isn't it that too condescending? "
Its all in the way you want to take it. If you told that to me, before I accepted Christ, I would take it as a warning. My old minister, God rest his soul, said exactly that!
He never minced words, he preached it right from God's Holy Word.
If I said something like this I would not be doing my duty as a Christian:
"Clos, I think your wrong about God, but I don't want to offend you"
I would account for that on Judgment Day! I should have told you the TRUTH! God's Word.
My minister would do the following:
I remember him telling us to turn with him to a certain passage in the Bible. He wanted us to read it for ourselves. He knew that the Word of God converts the soul.
His Ten Commandments brings you to the Law of a Holy God. All have sinned and fallen short. Only ONE is Good! People will realize "I AM GOING TO HELL", UNLESS I accept the Lamb of God and confess my sins! He is willing and Righteous to forgive us! Our "ticket" to Heaven. Its that simple!
We need to make the first step.
That's where the atheist is so "foolish" ( Psalm 14:1 ). He is not even at square 1 with God.
You don't believe in Him! Talk about "Spitting" in the face of God! That is the best way I can put it.
His wrath is upon you until you show Him the RESPECT that is due Him!
Your claims of an imaginery God will vaporize in the torment of the Lake of Fire which burns forever and ever!
Save Yourself Brother a LOT of PAIN!
@ Clos, you said "just flattery towards Ray"
You are sadly mistaken
New Comer CLOS. (cough!)
That is called Respect and Exhortation. Allow me to give you the definition of flattery:
"insincere or excessive praise"
I have done neither. I am sincere in my praise of my Brother in the Lord. He has done great works thru Jesus Christ. Your shallow insults of him only prove my case even more.
Christians see it for what it is.
Baseless remarks with no foundation. Just LIEs!
You think what we talk about here is one big "JOKE". Brother, you need to WAKE UP before you pass away! Space Clams from space will not help you in Scientology.
Your shallow accusations will do you no good on Judgment Day! You are "born to die" like the rest of us. Only difference is we have Accepted Jesus Christ as Lord, Master, and Savior. You still have your head in the "sand".
You think you will live forever, and defeat death on your own.
You are sadly mistaken. You LIVE the LIE of an atheist.
AMEN! Well done brother!
Matthew - You are wrong.
It seems you've taken the popular Tim LaHaye approach to reading Scripture.
Amazingly, "this generation" means exactly what it says: the current generation to whom Jesus was speaking. Your greek is simply flawed.
Hank Hannegraff (as I've said before) does an excellent job exegeting eschatological Scriptures and dismissing popular fallacies like this one in his book "The Appocalypse Code."
Brent:
"Rather than spoon feeding you the answer, you are going to have to read it if you really want it."
There is no answer in the text. That is, of course, the point that Captain Howdy made. According to the bible, Jesus gave cop-outs to all difficult questions. It was first pitched to people who were deemed stupid enough not to look to closely. Later, there came to be an implied agreement that people not look too closely and discover that the bible was a lie.
Go ahead, continue with your agreement not to inspect the lie too closely. I know you would not want to admit you have been living one.
Re: CS Lewis... I ended up liking Aslan better than Jesus.
Brent:
Do you ever tire of being 100% wrong on every issue you try to debate?
Atheists don't think they are gods, we don't worship anything, and are comfortable with the reality that death is unavoidable.
Seriously, if the threat of Hell isn't enough to convert us, do you really believe we are that scared of death? If I was scared of death, I'd probably be a Christian. You guys are the ones that need the comforting fairy tale death won't be the end.
Think, man. I know it is hard for you, but please try before telling us what it is we believe. Because as it stands, you are batting .000. You make Mario Mendoza look like Ted Williams.
brent said--
"Jesus was asked a specific question, to which he replied in essence 'You're wrong and you don't know what you're talking about.'
How was that reply any kind of answer to the question that was posed to him? So--Just which one of the 7 earthly husbands would be the wife's husband in heaven--based strictly on Jesus' answer?"
Howdy, you're ignorance of the Bible is astounding. Rather than spoon feeding you the answer, you are going to have to read it if you really want it.
If you knew the answer, you would've said it.
Oh--I may know a place you can buy a 'Christian Firefighters Only' sign. Put one on all your windows! You want some?
brent said--
"Aren't you guys getting tired of the " ah-theists" bit? Seriously."
Do you ever get tired of the 'I think, therefore I AM' shtick? I certainly would tire of saying Ah-theists, if it weren't true.
Actually, to me it's I think, therefore I am smarter than you.
Brian said... Ray, I know you love God and that you love the Scriptures. I also know that your Bible is 8 inches thick with notes. That's really great. But I'm concerned that you find some prophecy fulfilled in 1967? How can that be? Was this a prophecy of Israel being regathered? I'm sure you've read Deuteronomy 30:1-6. That's where the Lord clearly says that when "you return to the Lord your God and obey His voice... that the Lord your God will bring you back..." Tell me, what act of obedience did the nation of Israel show so that they could be brought back in 1967? God said they had to obey His voice for Him to bring them back. I'm sure you've read how it goes on in 30:11-14 to that familiar passage that Paul repeated in Romans 10:6-11. They were not to say, "Who will ascend into heaven? Who will descend into the abyss?" etc. because "the word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart." And here is the word of faith: "if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Paul made it clear that obedience to God is obedience to the Gospel. So which one is right? The newspaper? The dispensationalists? Hal Lindsey? or the Apostle Paul?"
Brain...Jesus--Luke 21:24.
Captian Howdy says to Brent:
Oh--I may know a place you can buy a 'Christian Firefighters Only' sign. Put one on all your windows! You want some?
I'd almost forgotten he'd prefer that little girl he's holding in his picture burn to death in a fire instead of being pulled out by an ah-theist. I wonder if that goes for i-theists, too.
Did you ever learn the difference between real and imaginary fires, Brent?
Well Terry,
According to the wikipedia:
"Flattery or adulation is the act of giving excessive compliments, generally for the purpose of ingratiating oneself with the subject. Flattery often, but not always, connotes insincerity."
So, not always insincerity, yet excessive, and excessive is what I meant, and I stand by it. You jump so fast to the praising it cannot be but excessive.
Then what I meant about condescending is that you did not have to comply with my predictions (that you might tell us we will roast in Hell).
I am getting curious and curiouser about this CLOS. If I am her/him, then I cannot imagine what could her/him have said something so offensive to Ray. There are things here and there that look pretty harsher than anything I have said so far. But if I "look" that much like him/her, then (s)he has to be quite a reasonable person.
Anyway, good night guys (everybody, Christians included), all the best.
Dale,
I was thinking…your use of lil’ buddy as a term of un-dearment towards me got the creative juices flowing and I began to consider the term “lil’ buddy” . Thank you.
On “Gilligan’s Island” the Skipper used this same moniker for his First Mate Gilligan. I alluded to this in the post on sexiness and will bring it back here for re-visitation. As I considered this line of reasoning I thought of the many hijinks, within which, those castaways found themselves embroiled. Lil’ buddy would come a runnin’…shouting SKIPPER, SKIPPER. And the Skipper would always get annoyed and listen to Gilligan about some oddity like…Head-Hunters, Jap Soldier and Sub, Beatnick Musicians Hiding Out…on and on. The Skipper, and the others, would always disbelieve Gilligan until it was too late and salvation and rescue from their desert isle was lost because of plain old stubbornness, disbelief, and lost opportunity.
Reminds me plainly of you ah-theists posting here.
Dale as Skipper, Laura(Irukandji) as Ginger, WeeMaryAnne as well Mary Ann, Clostridium as Professor, PZMeyers is Mr Howell, Capn Howdy as Lovey. And of course the hero of the story (me) as Gilligan.
Just sit right back and you'll hear a tale, a tale of a fateful trip. That started when these ah-theists, threw God right off their ship.
SKIPPER, SKIPPER…Thar’s a judgment a comin’. Believe in Jesus and be saved.
Wubya
guitar425 said...
"Yeah, like once upon a time, there was nothing. Then that nothing became something all on its own. From that someting that nothing made came everything...over billions and billions of years."
Aaaaaaaah! No! No! No! Bad idiot!
For the absolute last time, the theory of the big bang does NOT, absolutely NOT under ANY circumstances at all posit that the universe came from nothing. It never has and it never, ever will.
In future, and this applies to all of you who like to drag this particular lie out and then shoot it down, if you ever get the thought that the big bang does say this then please, just slap yourself across the face. Oh, and when you think that you've read that this is true on some NASA website or some such, just bear in mind that you haven't - you've either read it wrong (most likely) or you aren't actually looking at a NASA website. Either get educated about the theory or stop trying to have an opinion on it, I don't really care which.
Pvblivs said...
"There is no answer in the text."
I guess the difference is that I read the Bible, so I already know the answer. You've already dismissed Jesus, so answering the trivial attempt to disprove the Bible is pointless. By saying such things you and Howdy demonstrate the ignorance by which you base your non-belief.
"Go ahead, continue with your agreement not to inspect the lie too closely. I know you would not want to admit you have been living one."
[Suspending reality for just one moment and assuming that Jesus is a "lie"] Then yes, you are right. I would never want to live in a world without Jesus. I would rather believe the "lie", then to ever live in a world with out Jesus or his teachings.
A real controversy in evolution resolved. Transitional fossil found From Science Daily (May 21, 2008). [all bolding mine].
"The description of an ancient amphibian that millions of years ago swam in quiet pools and caught mayflies on the surrounding land in Texas has set to rest one of the greatest current controversies in vertebrate evolution. The discovery was made by a research team led by scientists at the University of Calgary.
The examination and detailed description of the fossil, Gerobatrachus hottoni (meaning Hotton's elder frog), proves the previously disputed fact that some modern amphibians, frogs and salamanders evolved from one ancient amphibian group called temnospondyls.
The discovery is described for the first time in the journal Nature.
"The dispute arose because of a lack of transitional forms. This fossil seals the gap," says Jason Anderson, assistant professor, University of Calgary Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and lead scientist in the study.
The Gerobatrachus fossil provides a much fuller understanding of the origin and evolution of modern amphibians. The skull, backbone and teeth of Gerobatrachus have a mixture of frog and salamander features--the fossil has two fused bones in the ankle, which is normally only seen in salamanders, and a very large tympanic ear (ear drum). It also has a lightly built and wide skull similar to that of a frog. Its backbone is exactly intermediate in number between the modern frogs and salamanders and more primitive amphibians.
The new fossil also addresses a controversy over molecular clock estimates, or the general time salamanders and frogs evolved into two distinct groups.
"With this new data our best estimate indicates that frogs and salamanders separated from each other sometime between 240 and 275 million years ago, much more recently than previous molecular data had suggested," says Robert Reisz, professor, University of Toronto Mississauga and second author on the paper."
Ray, you and the others are on notice that the next time you claim that there are no transitional fossils you will officially be a Liar for Christ.
Rando said...
"Atheists don't think they are gods, we don't worship anything, and are comfortable with the reality that death is unavoidable."
Deny, lie, deny... another common tactic and trait of the Ah-theist.
captain howdy said...
Actually, to me it's I think, therefore I am smarter than you.
OK.... So?
Did you happen to read this from an earlier post?
"Since your religion values superior intellect, quick wit, sarcasm, back handed compliments, put downs, and anything else that shows how smart you are, its and insult to you if I don't at least try to make you laugh at your own expense???
Or were you just trying to insult me because you think I care about everyone thinking I'm funny???"
So let me ask you Howdy, are you trying to insult me because you think it matters if I am dumber than you??? My wife could've told you I'm an idiot.
Your values are only important in your religion. How's Howdyism going by the way? Any new converts?
Dale said, "Nice try Matthew,
What about the verse, "some of you here will not die before the kingdom appears.'
Or that fact that Paul says not to worry about marriage, etc because the kingdom is near."
Way to misquote scripture!
Matthew 16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." They DID see the Son of man coming in His kingdom, read the next nine verses (transfiguration) and then the crucifixion which promptly followed these events. It doesn't say "the kingdom will come" it says they will see the Son of man coming in His kingdom. "My kingdom is not of this world."
And we shouldn't "worry" about marriage, we have larger issues. Paul emphasized several times the benefits of staying unwed (none of which had anything to do with the kingdom being near - if you had cited a verse this would be easier to explain, but because you didn't I have nothing to draw from).
John Doyle said, "This is a commonly proposed explanation, but is unacceptable."
The number of times it meant something else does not change the fact that the PRIMARY MEANING of genea is tribe.
Kiwiinoz said, "The examination and detailed description of the fossil, Gerobatrachus hottoni (meaning Hotton's elder frog), proves the previously disputed fact that some modern amphibians, frogs and salamanders evolved from one ancient amphibian group called temnospondyls."
I've yet to find a Christian who disputes the reality of MICRO-EVOLUTION. Huge difference between evolving from one amphibian to another, and evolving from an amphibian to a chimpanzee.
Pure guesswork... nothing more, nothing less.
Bolt, the Field Museum expert, cautioned that it is difficult to say for sure whether this creature was itself a common ancestor of the two modern groups, given that there is only one known specimen of Gerobatrachus, and an incomplete one at that.
"At this point I would say it is by no means certain that this is representative of a common ancestor to frogs and salamanders, although it might be," Bolt said.
One other incomplete specimen? Come on, if evolution were true there should be way more than two examples of this.
Brent:
No, I have read the bible too. The difference is that I see the cop-outs and evasions for what they are. I suppose that this is supposed to be "The Emporer's new Answer." Anyone who is "foolish" or "unsuited to his position" will be unable to see it. And just as with the "garments," people pretend they see an answer. Sadly, it is easier to describe the splendor of clothing that one only imagines than to describe a fictitious wisdom.
Rando said...
I'd almost forgotten he'd prefer that little girl he's holding in his picture burn to death in a fire instead of being pulled out by an ah-theist. I wonder if that goes for i-theists, too.
I already know you worship earthly life and think it is the most precious thing there is (you may want to review the I-theist traits list), that is why you think you would be doing her a favor by pulling her from a burning building.
The truth however, is that she would be far better off to burn in that building, then be deceived by your lies.
If you ever deceive her or any other child, you are condemning them to a fire that never dies and it is impossible for you to pull anyone from it. YOU only cast children into it!
I care far more for my daughter then your callous heart will ever dream possible. I pray for her protection from you and your evil.
"But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea."
To kiwiinoz,
I still don't believe evolution theory...regardless your amazement at sala-frog bones or whatever was cobbled together to allow the Calgary Team to guestimate and theorize and post assertions about transitional fossils and dates.
Nothing comes from knowing this information except that it is another nail in the ah-theist coffin lid. Giving credence to those who wish to put their faith in evolution and thus disavow any culpability in ignoring God and His son Jesus.
@get_education
We can exchange definitions all day from the net, it has no bearing on your baseless comments.
You are not aware of our "exhortation" philosphy and how it is founded biblically. What you consider "excessive" is normal in our brotherhood.
Allow me to give an example!
Colossians 1:1-3, KJV
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother,
2 To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
3 We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you,"
If you look thru the New Testament you will see how Christians build one another up. This is a GOOD practice.
We call each other Brother and Sister. A family working towards a common goal. Salvation of souls!
In contrast, you have the atheist structure where people are egotistical, self serving, and arrogant. Your religion is grounded in the secular world.
Each member professes his worthiness to the other. As an outsider I see a pack of wolves ripping one another apart and cursing one another frequently.
I've been (unfortunately) thru many atheist's sites and found the same dogma. No belief in a super natural realm with no concern of what waits for you beyond death's door.
I hope this helps, but I would like
to ask you a question.
What caused "Big Bang"? :)
May God bless you! Praying for you Brother! JESUS loves us all!
@ Matthew -
I'm guessing from your icon that you like DDR and/or anime, correct? If so, it's nice to know that even bitter philosophical antagonists can agree on the finer things in life.
(Incidentally, the distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution is entirely artificial; lots of "micro-evolution" equals "macro-evolution." To paraphrase the maker of the caustic but oh-so-true "Why Do People Laugh at Creationists" videos, accepting the former while rejecting the latter is like accepting that you can walk across the room while refusing to believe that you can walk outside to your neighbor's house.)
I've yet to find a Christian who disputes the reality of MICRO-EVOLUTION. Huge difference between evolving from one amphibian to another, and evolving from an amphibian to a chimpanzee.
Matthew, this is the equivalent of saying that Christians believe in INCHES but not in MILES (centimetres and kilometres for those of us dealing in metric).
Small changes over multiple millions of years equals diversity. I'm not sure what you don't get about that, short of the fact that it conflicts with your belief system.
Pure guesswork... nothing more, nothing less.
You arrogant, ignorant woman, Lauren. You have no idea of the rigour involved in scientific research. But, as was mentioned earlier, you are most definitely out of your depth.
I still don't believe evolution theory...regardless your amazement at sala-frog bones or whatever was cobbled together to allow the Calgary Team to guestimate and theorize and post assertions about transitional fossils and dates.
Nothing comes from knowing this information except that it is another nail in the ah-theist coffin lid. Giving credence to those who wish to put their faith in evolution and thus disavow any culpability in ignoring God and His son Jesus.
Your celebration of ignorance is unbelievable.
By the way, Matthew meet Mark. Mark is a Christian who doesn't believe in micro evolution, contrary to your assertion.
My work here is done. I have had enough of so called Christians who wallow in and celebrate ignorance. You epitomise everything that Augustine admonished early Christians about.
So, I'm deleting this blog from my list of must reads. Sorry Christians, chalk this atheist up as a soul you failed to save through your own ignorance.
Hey fellow atheists, the heavy intellectual lifting is now up to you. Sorry. I have real science to get on with. There are people out there who know that they can benefit here and now from the work that I do, not in some mythical future.
Two parting thoughts for the Christians here. 1) Denial of reality is not the same as faith. Faith does not ask you to deny reality or close your eyes to the world. 2) You are biblio-idolaters who worship a collection of writings of mixed value and interpretation, in the guise of worshiping a God.
E noho ra.
Brother Brent, Greetings and Salutations in our Lord Jesus Christ. I read your post and it touched my heart.
"I pray for her protection from you and your evil."
Amen Brother! I feel the same way.
We must stand together as Christians to protect our children from the evil of atheism. Without God in their lives, they are evil. Puppets of Satan and this world.
The secular world does not want to deal with what waits beyond death's door.
The atheist SLAMS the door when you want to discuss it, and spouts off his insults and sarcasm.
He attacks us with cutting words to slice into our heart. His intent is to inflict pain and tear us away from our faith.
May God bless you and your family Brent. I'm proud to call you a brother in the Lord. The LOVE of God is our strength and our Shield.
Brent said...
"Rando said...
"Atheists don't think they are gods, we don't worship anything, and are comfortable with the reality that death is unavoidable."
Deny, lie, deny... another common tactic and trait of the Ah-theist."
Brent, I'm going to type this slowly so that you have a better chance of reading it - the word atheist comes from the word theist, meaning someone who believes in god(s) and the negating prefix a-, thus a-theist (there's no "h", just like there's no "u" in intelligence) means "someone who doesn't believe in gods". Now I know that you are easily confused and Ray has a different definition, but that's because Ray doesn't like reality and prefers to make up his own version.
"My wife could've told you I'm an idiot."
You should listen to her at lot more. She knows whereof she speaks.
Your graphic is wrong. Return of the King came out in 2003. :P
SKIPPER Dale!
Episode: Drunk on "Origin"
Your drunk again with WeeMaryAnne and Ginger! What's that your blabbering about ...Darwin was on the HMS Beagle? ahhh!! yeah. I heard he did alot of drugs as well.
Thanks for that tidbit of INFO.
You told him about Orign of the Species!? and he stole it from you. sure Skipper sure!! it was
garbage then, and still is.
The stinch of alcohol on you is over whelming. You smell like a
brewery. WHEW!!!
Come along, I will try my best to clean you up. Here, drink some coffee, it might just sober you up.
I suggest you take that class of Ray's on Hell's Best Kept Secret.
Try my blog connection HBKS.
It will help with your AA meetings.
Deep down inside you drink excessively for a reason.
You know there really is a Father in Heaven. Praying for you!
@
Mark...
Now I can't get the Gilligan theme song out of my head...too funny!
Brent said...
"Definiton of an I-theist: Belief I Am God.
- Worships Intellect
: Not sure what you mean by "worship" in this context. If you mean "respect" then yes.
- Thinks people are basically good
: Absolutely.
- Thinks the study of the Natural (Science) disproves Supernatural
: Of course.
- Worships Life
: Not sure if "worship" is the correct word here, but if you mean revere, enjoy, respect,then yes.
- Scared of Death
: Not particularly. I don't want to die because I love life. But I'm not afraid of Hell because it doesn't exists.
- Worships Physical
: Ditto other comments on that word.
- Individual Rules and Theologies
: Not sure what you mean.
- Denies being an I-theist
: Denies being an I-theist according to your definition. Yes.
- Denies faith in Self is an unorganized religion
: Once again...what do you mean "faith in self?" I know I exist. I don't need faith. Every time I stub my toe my existence is re-confirmed.
- Bothered by others pointing out their Faith"
: No. Bothered by others trying to LEGISLATE their faith on others who don't share it.
Can someone explain the ah-theist thing. I don't get it.
@ mark w laine--
I still don't believe evolution theory...
But you believe in demons, as I recall. You don't believe in biology, but you believe in demons.
"The truth however, is that she would be far better off to burn in that building, then be deceived by your lies."
This is the sickest, most vile statement I have seen since Vera claimed that God was doing the Mendonites a favor by killing every child.
If this is the kind of thinking that get's one to heaven, something is terribly, terribly wrong.
@lauren--
One other incomplete specimen? Come on, if evolution were true there should be way more than two examples of this.
Hmmm--So you don't believe in transitional fossils. But I bet you believe in demons!
Mark Laine,
You said,
"Dale, I was thinking…..."
Well, lil buddy, that is a novel idea coming from you! Keep up the good work!
@ paul brown
"Aaaaaaaah! No! No! No! Bad idiot!"
That was not a very atheistic....wait...yeah that is exactly the kind of response I should have expected. I'm sure you are the expert on all things, even before they existed, so I appologize. I admit I wasn't there at the beginning, but I know the One who was. I know you don't believe. So.
@brent--
So let me ask you Howdy, are you trying to insult me because you think it matters if I am dumber than you??? My wife could've told you I'm an idiot.
Well, you are an idiot--you've made that clear enough. But what creeps me out is the bit about how you'd prefer to see your little girl burn alive rather than be rescued by an atheist.
I wonder if your wife realizes you value your religion so much that you'd be willing to sacrifice that small child to it. I wonder if she realizes you'd rather see her little girl burn alive than be rescued by someone who wasn't a member of The One True Faith(TM)?
Say what you want about atheists, but at least I wouldn't let a little girl burn alive like you would. I'd rather see her rescued, even if it meant she grew up to be a born-again, Bible-bouncing Christian like you.
Ray,
Thank you for that short response. Yes, we should believe what Jesus said. In context, Jesus said, "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people. And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." (Luke 21:20-24, NKJV)
Todd interviewed Dr. John MacArthur the other day, and, in discussing hermeneutics, Dr. MacArthur said that you must determine how the original audience would have interpreted a passage and that is what it must always mean. That's a very good hermeneutic and it is the one I would like to apply right now.
I know that you know that this is part of the Olivet Discourse, and is parallel to Matthew 24 and Mark 13. In Matthew 24:1,2; Mark 13:1,2; and Luke 21:5,6, Jesus gave the context that He was predicting the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
Why were these the "days of vengeance"? Why were "those who are in Judea" being "led away captive into all nations?" It was to fulfill what was said in Leviticus 18:24-28:
"Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, either any of your own nation or any stranger who dwells among you (for all these abominations the men of the land have done, who were before you, and thus the land is defiled), lest the land vomit you out also when you defile it, as it vomited out the nations that were before you."
Jerusalem was indeed guilty. As Jesus had said in Matthew 23:34-36, "Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."
Clearly, generation must mean those living at that time. If generation meant "race" or "ethnicity" then all the righteous blood shed on the earth would be on all the Jews for all of time and that would be anti-Semitic. Uncle Cohen wouldn't like that. And neither would God according to Ezekiel 18:1-9.
But generation means generation, and within that generation, that is, within 40 years, Jerusalem was destroyed.
According to Ezekiel 16, God had found Israel, delivered Israel, washed her and clothed her. He made her His covenant bride. But she trusted in her own beauty and, in very explicit terms, Ezekiel described how she broke her marriage covenant with God. She brought upon her the curse of Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26. And, in the greatest crime of all of time, she said, "We have no king but Caesar," and crucified her covenant Lord.
As Jesus said in Matthew 21:43, "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it." So that Peter said of the believers, "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy" (1 Peter 2:9, 10).
Trying to have two people of God is dangerous to Christology. As Paul said in Ephesians 2:14-18, "For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father."
As Paul said in Romans 11, Jews come into the kingdom as everyone else, through evangelism.
Jerusalem was trampled under the feet of the Gentiles. As Daniel 7:25 had predicted, "He shall speak pompous words against the Most High, Shall persecute the saints of the Most High, And shall intend to change times and law. Then the saints shall be given into his hand For a time and times and half a time." Vespasian and Titus' siege of Jerusalem did indeed last three and a half years, from 67 to 70 AD.
@Kiwiinoz
So the possibility of those bones being just an extinct creature is non existant. There should be millions, if not billions, of transitional forms to even come close to proving evolution. One bag of bones doesn't bare any weight against any scrutiny the scientific community should have.
Just my opinion.
Celtic chimp, knowing the future does not remove your free will it only means you know the out come.
If I watch a baseball game that I recorded on video my knowledge of the outcome does not affect their actions during the game.
Captain Howdy said –
“I may know a place you can buy a 'Christian Firefighters Only' sign.”
Thanks, but I already have a book called “Atheist Firefighters Don’t Exist”. It’s a great read and hugely popular. You should try reading it. Here’s an excerpt of what the Ah-theist in the book are saying:
“The coming destruction can never touch us, for we have built a strong refuge made of lies and deception.”
the celtic chimp said...You never did answer the question of how we can have free will when God has perfect knowledge of the future.
Hi, chimp.
It is true that the Bible teaches that we are responsible for our thoughts, words, and actions; and that God not only knows the future, but is in complete control.
Trying to figure out how all that works together, we are like the people in two-dimensional "Flatland" trying to comprehend what a three-dimensional world is like.
Craig
Brent:
Rando said...
"Atheists don't think they are gods, we don't worship anything, and are comfortable with the reality that death is unavoidable."
Deny, lie, deny... another common tactic and trait
I'm not pompous enough to tell you what you really believe in your own mind. It's too bad you are. It makes having a discussion with you impossible. Well, that and your incredibly flimsy grasp logic, reason, and reality. As we will see below.
I already know you worship earthly life and think it is the most precious thing there is (you may want to review the I-theist traits list), that is why you think you would be doing her a favor by pulling her from a burning building.
The truth however, is that she would be far better off to burn in that building, then be deceived by your lies.
If you ever deceive her or any other child, you are condemning them to a fire that never dies and it is impossible for you to pull anyone from it. YOU only cast children into it!
Brent, Brent, Brent. Why aren't you getting this? Could one of you other Christians please explain to me how the mere act of an atheist pulling a little girl out of a burning building will condemn them to hell? I asked Brent and he was unable to do this. He is apparently unable to distinguish Hell from the average house-fire. He seems to think the moment the atheist does this, we would sit the kid down on the sidewalk and start quoting Richard Dawkins at them.
Brent, why do you remain under this ridiculous impression?
I care far more for my daughter then your callous heart will ever dream possible. I pray for her protection from you and your evil.
If you would really prefer that she burns to death in a real-life fire instead of get pulled out by an atheist, you are psychotic. I am betting you are all talk, though. I have no doubt you wouldn't hesitate to let an atheist firefighter pull your daughter from your burning house if you were ever in this situation.
Pvblivs said -
"No, I have read the bible too... people pretend they see an answer."
“Your mistake is that you don’t know the Scriptures, and you don’t know the power of God. For when the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage. In this respect they will be like the angels in heaven."
Mark Laine,
You said,
"Giving credence to those who wish to put their faith in evolution and thus disavow any culpability in ignoring God and His son Jesus."
Hey, lil buddy, Let's just say I never heard of evolution. There are plethora of evidence to show that the bible is merely an ancient book of myths written by pre-scientific people to try to make sense of their existence.
It is obvious that the evolution word terrorizes you. As the evidence continues to mount, you see your silly beliefs go up in the smoke of reason.
Take care lil buddy!
john doyle said...
Jesus said He would be back before the generation passed, and Paul was telling virgins not to bother getting married as time was short.
Nope. Jesus was saying that the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem would happen before that generation had passed away. As to Paul's advice, terrible persecution was about to come upon the people he was addressing; in fact, it was already beginning. Not a good time to be starting a family.
People have been asking Christians when this final judgment is coming and the answer for the last thousand years is that the signs are clear and it is going to happen very soon. It never does.
It is true that Christians who are longing with all their heart for the return of their Lord have often misinterpreted the signs of the times as signaling His immediate return; just like the little girl who thinks the sound of each approaching car is her daddy coming home from work.
The important thing, John, is that you and I are prepared to face Him when we are called to give account of ourselves, even if we die before Jesus comes back to Earth. If we come to Him now, as the sinners we are, and ask forgiveness, based on what He did for us on the cross, that day will be wonderful beyond expectation.
Craig
"I care far more for my daughter then your callous heart will ever dream possible."
Oh, the arrogance. I rest my case.
Easy, Brent. That type of accusation is going to get you, like, nowhere.
@ Brent,
What is wrong with valuing intelligence?
Of course, that is not the only quality I admire in a person, but I see no reason to admire ignorance either.
Contestant number one wrote:
"I've yet to find a Christian who disputes the reality of MICRO-EVOLUTION."
Interesting that the separation between salamanders and frogs occurred ~200 millions years ago, and that is microevolution. The lineages of humans and chimps separated ~5 million years ago, and yet salamanders to frogs is micro, and humans to chimps is macro. Quite interesting. Maybe the problem is that micro and macro in the fundamentalist context refers to whether they care about it or not.
Contestant number 2 wrote:
"Pure guesswork ..." then cited the convenient parts.
OK, the thing is, if you do understand how evolution works, you can see that you can never assume any given animal to be the direct ancestor of anything alive. Why? because selection and random processes (would need to explain population genetics and coalescence, and I rather keep it short) result in many many extinctions. So, we can only conclude that something is an indicator of the kinds of animals that gave rise to two lineages, not that such particular animal IS the ancestor. There is a huge difference, and we scientists have learn to be a bit overcautious about how we express our findings.
The other thing is that the very basic tenet of evolution is not the gradual change, but that the similarities of groups of animals (humans, gorillas, orangutans and chimps, for instance), are related by ancestry. It is like saying (I know I am repeating myself), hum since the Bibles, names, and basic beliefs of catholics and lutherans the most logical explanation is that these churches are descendants of an ancestral religion. We know about the big chiasma of the church, and that confirms the hypothesis. And, when someone tells you that the similarities between humans and orangutans are due to common design, not to common descent, it is like saying that God created catholicism and lutheranism all of a sudden, but used the same basic design ... Oddly enough, the metaphor works quite well, other Chirstianities have separated, some have gone extinct, and some have survived with little numbers, and the process continues, we see recent separations and so on.
Now imagine that the history of this branch of religions did not have a formal historical record, but rather sometimes, by random events, pieces of evidence (books, crosses, whatever), were randomly preserved (fossilized), then we would expect to find scant evidences of the common history of modern catholicism and lutheranism in the form of past forms of Christianity, yet we could never be sure (given that we expect branches to have gone extinct with no descendants), that the few books/pages/whatever we found belong to the direct ancestors of both these Churches, but sure they represent what the ancestral form might look like, since they are closer in time to it. Now whether after separating Lutherans and Catholics changed gradually, or quicker at times, is inconsequential, the fact of the common ancestry/history as the very best explanation of their similarities is irrefutable. Especially if you have to convince anyone that instant creation is the best alternative. It just would not do. It does not make any sense.
Got it?
Dennis said
- Denies faith in Self is an unorganized religion
: Once again...what do you mean "faith in self?" I know I exist. I don't need faith. Every time I stub my toe my existence is re-confirmed.
What I mean is that you have to have a whole lot of Faith and Trust in your own intellect, abilities and spirit (Self), to determine that You are all there is.
Whereas I openly admit to being an idiot and do not trust my abilities to guide my life, you have to be unbelievably secure in your own Self to say that you alone control your future and don't need any other god other than yourself to guide you.
Whereas I turn to the Bible and prayer (both forms of worship) for guidance, you turn to yourself and introspective thinking for guidance. That is Self Worship.
God controls the future. So whoever controls your future, is your god.
Bothered by others trying to LEGISLATE their faith on others who don't share it.
I actually agree with you one this one! Using the law to enforce Christian values upon society is the opposite of Christian values. Jesus said 'love your enemy', and love 'does not demand its own way'.
Kiwiinoz said.."Hey fellow atheists, the heavy intellectual lifting is now up to you. Sorry. I have real science to get on with. There are people out there who know that they can benefit here and now from the work that I do, not in some mythical future."
Kiwi,
Best wishes & stay strong! ;)
Dale said -
"This is the sickest, most vile statement I have seen..."
Is that because you think this life is so precious and is so dear to your heart Dale?
Why don't you come down off your self-righteous high horse? You wouldn't recognize evil and vile if it was starring at you in the mirror. In fact, anything you consider Evil is obviously Good.
I know my daughter will Live regardless of how she Dies here on earth, as long is she is not deceived by your lies. Stay away.
Rando said -
"If you would really prefer that she burns to death in a real-life fire instead of get pulled out by an atheist, you are psychotic."
Thanks for twisting and distorting my words.
I said "...then be deceived by your lies."
I also said that you are delusional and arrogant to think you can pull my daughter or anyone else from the fire.
Atheist firefighters don't exist.
Dale said-
"I care far more for my daughter then your callous heart will ever dream possible."
Oh, the arrogance. I rest my case.
Easy, Brent. That type of accusation is going to get you, like, nowhere."
Ok Dale, what do you say we examine the love you have for your children???
Do you want to go there? Do you want to compare who has a greater love? As a father, would you not understand such a statement? Is it arrogance?
We can bring your children into the conversation if you would like to display your arrogance for a while.
Brent,
You said,
"Atheist firefighters don't exist."
Of course I knew that Firefighters would be represented as any other sampling of a population, if fact I personally know a firefighter that is totally atheist and he is a Fire Chief to boot. He also fought in Vietnam.
However, it took about thirty seconds to find several different sites/ support groups/ etc, specifically dedicated to atheist firefighters.
Oops, you did it again!
AMEN Brother Brent!
An atheist Fire Fighter is a contradiction in terms. To be a fire fighter you require a deep devotion and value of Life.
I fought fires on a ship and I know first hand it takes a good man with courage.
Atheists have no such thing as they have no concern for their own Eternal Life, and are primarily concerned in self serving interests.
How can a man ( with his head stuck in the sand ) fight a fire?
Praying for you Dale! Call me sometime! We will pray on the phone. (305) 831-4548
Brent,
You said,
"I know my daughter will Live regardless of how she Dies here on earth, as long is she is not deceived by your lies. Stay away."
The remarks on this site are academic.
You brought up the subject of your daughter. Noone else did. And in spite of the emotional fit you are spinning yourself into, I hold no animosity toward you.
You might wanna be careful though because kids will often rebel against things that their parents obsess about.
It is totally irrational on your part to think you must tell me to "stay away." That is pathetic.
If this discussion throws you into that kind of emotional turmoil, perhaps you shouldn't take part in the discussion.
I am beginning to start to feel sorry for you.
@ Rando -
[Rando]"Atheists don't think they are gods, we don't worship anything, and are comfortable with the reality that death is unavoidable."
[Brent] Deny, lie, deny... another common tactic and trait
[Rando] I'm not pompous enough to tell you what you really believe in your own mind. It's too bad you are."
You are right Rando. It is probably unfair of me to assume that you are knowingly doing it on purpose.
Oblivious to worshiping yourself or anything else is probably more accurate. That's the way your master likes it and wants to keep it.
"We know that we are children of God and that the world around us is under the control of the evil one."
Dale said -
"Of course I knew that Firefighters would be represented as any other sampling of a population, if fact I personally know a firefighter that is totally atheist and he is a Fire Chief to boot."
Sorry Dale, Atheist firefighters do not exist.
You are mistaken to believe your Ah-theist friend is saving anyone from fire, regardless of his job title.
No such thing.
@guitar425
So the possibility of those bones being just an extinct creature is non existant. There should be millions, if not billions, of transitional forms to even come close to proving evolution. One bag of bones doesn't bare any weight against any scrutiny the scientific community should have.
Fossilization does not happen frequently and we can not hope to dig up the remains of every single animal that lived on this planet. Fortunately, we do not rely solely on fossil evidence. In fact, what fossil research primarily does is provide us with timelines. The main evidence for the relationships between the species is genetic. The fossil evidence is useful to corroborate the data and give us an idea of the forms of life that have evolved and when they appeared. Just a few skeletons is sufficient to give us an idea of the common parent. We already have the genetic evidence that such a parent existed.
You can scoff all you like, but you can not use the lack of fossil evidence for the transitions among the amphibians as a weakness of the Theory of Evolution. We have the genetic evidence.
The transition between lizards and mammals is well documented with fossil and genetic evidence. If the evolution of mammals and lizards from a common ancestor is not macro-evolution, what is?
@ Dale,
"You brought up the subject of your daughter. Noone else did."
You have not been paying attention to the conversation. Howdy brought it up from a thread weeks ago (even then, I did not bring it up). So if you are going to chime in late in a conversation, I would appreciate it if you would at least take the time to know what you are talking about.
Btw, thank you for your pity...I'm in desperate need of it. So much so, THAT MY GOD, WATCHED HIS ONLY SON BE NAILED TO A CROSS AND DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH SO THAT I WOULD NOT BE DECEIVED BY YOUR LIES. Where is your self-righteous indignation over that act???
Is that also the most Vile and Evil thing you've ever heard? It should be, considering that in no way did my evil ever deserve that kind of love. So yes, I appreciate your pity upon my wretched soul, and especially the Lords'.
Brent:
Rando said -
"If you would really prefer that she burns to death in a real-life fire instead of get pulled out by an atheist, you are psychotic."
Thanks for twisting and distorting my words.
I said "...then be deceived by your lies."
I also said that you are delusional and arrogant to think you can pull my daughter or anyone else from the fire.
Atheist firefighters don't exist.
I twisted and distorted nothing. Your viewpoint makes you appear pyschotic. You are the delusional one, with a highly irrational fear of atheists.
(deep breath) Please read this question closely, and think before you answer it.
What makes you think that after an atheist firefighter pulled your daughter out of a REAL-LIFE FIRE they would then try to make her an atheist? Just pulling her out of the REAL-LIFE FIRE would not "deceive her with lies". You probably wouldn't even know if the firefighter was an atheist in the first place. Or do firefighters from your neck of the woods make a habit of jamming their worldviews down the throats of everyone they rescue? How can I make it any clearer to you how irrational you are being?
Stop being ridiculous. Fence-sitters reading this conversation are going to think Christianity rots your brain. You want converts don't you? You're doing it wrong.
I know my daughter will Live regardless of how she Dies here on earth, as long is she is not deceived by your lies. Stay away.
I'm going to pull a reverse Pascal's Wager on you. What if you're wrong? Then you've just let your baby daughter burn to death in a fire for the incredbily stupid reason that you don't want an atheist to touch her for the brief period of time it would take to pull her out. Are you so sure of yourself that you would risk your daughter's life on it? If you answer "Yes", you are psychotic.
Twerry,
You said,
"I fought fires on a ship and I know first hand it takes a good man with courage."
Terry,
If you did everything you said you did even one time you would have to be at least three hundred seventeen years old. :>
Brent said,
"We can bring your children into the conversation if you would like to display your arrogance for a while."
When my kids get out of prison I will show you!
Easy does it, man.
Can someone who disblieves evolution explain:
The difference between microevolution and macroevolution in terms of both genotype and phenotype?
Also, from a genetic perspective, what prevents variation in heredity from leading to speciation over successive generations?
Nope. Jesus was saying that the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem would happen before that generation had passed away.
I agree. The references were made to the destruction of the temple. The gospels were written after the Roman siege of Jerusalem, so it would be analogous to people writing the story - sometime between 2000 and 2030 or later - of a man who died in the 1960's and who had predicted the fall of the Twin Towers.
As to Paul's advice, terrible persecution was about to come upon the people he was addressing; in fact, it was already beginning. Not a good time to be starting a family.
What terrible persecution was coming to the people of Corinth? His letter seems more concerned with addressing divisions which were rising within the church that he founded there. Surely "the present distress" refers to the problems within the church that he discusses in the first four chapters.
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.
I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;
And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;
And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away." - 1 Corinthians 7:25-31
@ Rando -
"What makes you think that after an atheist firefighter pulled your daughter out of a REAL-LIFE FIRE they would then try to make her an atheist?"
Your problem Rando is that in your infinite wisdom you’ve decided that Hell is not a “REAL-LIFE FIRE”. I will tell you once again as plainly as I can… You Are Incapable of Saving Anyone.
You my friend will be guilty of throwing children into a “REAL-LIFE FIRE” if you deceive them with your Ah-theistic lies. If you don’t stop bowing at your own feet and humble yourself before God, you will be held responsible for the deaths of all those you deceive.
"Are you so sure of yourself that you would risk your daughter's life on it? If you answer "Yes", you are psychotic."
I think I’ll let Rufus’ words speak for me on this - "Brent is for real. That's what is so scary about him. Pure fanatic. True believer."
rando said--
Are you so sure of yourself that you would risk your daughter's life on it? If you answer "Yes", you are psychotic.
And the answer's YES as I recall, isn't it burnt?
Sorry--brent.
Since I was brought into this, I'll contribute. I do think Brent is a fanatic. A true believer. I think there is a coin. One one side is someone like the man in Iraq who killed his daughter because she had become infatuated with a British soldier. On the other side is someone like Brent. The only real difference I see is that Brent hasn't yet acted on his fanaticism.
Brent; would you kill your daughter to keep her away from atheists, and save her from Hell?
John Doyle said...
"Jesus said He would be back before the generation passed, and Paul was telling virgins not to bother getting married as time was short. People have been asking Christians when this final judgment is coming and the answer for the last thousand years is that the signs are clear and it is going to happen very soon. It never does. The next generation convinces itself that the last generation were deluded and read the signs wrong, but this time the signs are clear. And so it goes on."
Yes, John, in a sense you are right. Regarding the Apostles' expectation of Christ's imminent return, C.S. Lewis wrote, "And, worse still, they had a reason, and one you will find very embarrassing. Their master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'This generation shall not pass till all these things be done. ' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else."
Apparently, C.S. Lewis, like so many, thought Jesus made a mistake. But Jesus did not make a mistake. Neither were the Apostles mistaken in their anticipation.
The answer is found in letting Scripture interpret Scripture. You can read my above comments on the meaning of generation. Yes, it did mean 40 years. Yes, Jesus did predict that the Gospel would be preached to all the known world, there would be a great tribulation, Christ would "come on clouds", stars would fall, etc. And they did.
Huh?
In Isaiah 13, the Prophet predicted the fall of Babylon to the Medes. Notice the language he used:
"Behold, the day of the LORD comes,
Cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger,
To lay the land desolate;
And He will destroy its sinners from it.
For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not give their light;
The sun will be darkened in its going forth,
And the moon will not cause its light to shine." (v. 9, 10) Sound familiar? Later in chapter 34, he predicted the fall of Edom:
"All the host of heaven shall be dissolved,
And the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll;
All their host shall fall down
As the leaf falls from the vine,
And as fruit falling from a fig tree." (v. 4)
When Amos predicted the fall of Samaria, he said,
"And it shall come to pass in that day," says the Lord GOD, "That I will make the sun go down at noon, And I will darken the earth in broad daylight." (8:9)
Ezekiel predicted the fall of Egypt:
"When I put out your light,
I will cover the heavens, and make its stars dark;
I will cover the sun with a cloud,
And the moon shall not give her light.
All the bright lights of the heavens I will make dark over you,
And bring darkness upon your land,'
Says the Lord GOD." (32:7,8)
Did the sky really roll up like a scroll? Did the sun and moon go out? Or is this prophetic, poetic language? Yes, God really did "knock their lights out." And that is exactly what He did to Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
I believe the old KJV did the best job of translating Matthew 24:30, "And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven." The destruction of Jerusalem was the sign that the Son of man sat enthroned in heaven. As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:25, "He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet." The destruction of Jerusalem was the first symptom of the reign of Christ.
In Daniel 7:13, 14, the prophet said,
"I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed."
At the Ascension, Christ came through the clouds to receive the Kingdom from the Father. (Notice that Daniel said He came through the clouds "to the Ancient of Days", not from the Ancient of Days). So, He came through the clouds 40 years earlier, but the destruction of Jerusalem was evidence that He had received the Kingdom.
Throughout the Old Testament, God is described as coming, but it is always a coming in judgment. In 70 AD, Jesus did come in judgment. But this was not His Second Coming. That phrase does not mean the second time He came, but the second way in which He will come.
70 A.D. was a coming of Christ, it was a day of the Lord, it was a judgment. These were called the last days, because they marked the end of the Jewish age.
But there still remains the coming of Christ, the day of the Lord, which includes the resurrection of the dead, the rapture of the living, and the last judgment. And that will be the end of history.
Read the Old Testament, especially the Prophets, and when you understand their vocabulary, you will be able to understand what Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse and in the Revelation.
Okay, Brent.
Nevermind. You clearly aren't from this planet, if you haven't figured out we are discussing two completely separate things. I guess psychosis does that to a person.
I hope your wife isn't ready to so cavalierly throw away your daughter's life as you seem to be. You probably consider yourself pro-life too, don't you?
Brian:
Could cite where C.S. Lewis wrote And, worse still, they had a reason, and one you will find very embarrassing. Their master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'This generation shall not pass till all these things be done. ' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else."
I find that interesting. I also don't know how someone could be a Christian and think that Jesus got something wrong.
Rando said -
...if you haven't figured out we are discussing two completely separate things.
That's the thing Rando. We're not.
You wish we were, only talking about earthly fire. You have been trying to push the conversation that way from the very beginning, even though that was not the context of the original post at all.
What this post is about and has always been about, is something infinitely more important than any earthly fire.
Hopefully, by now, you finally realize that if you ever steer anyone away from Jesus Christ, you will not only be the arsonist responsible for torching the building, but you will have done it while you yourself are in it. That's not saving anyone.
Rufus asked -
Brent; would you kill your daughter to keep her away from atheists, and save her from Hell?
Great question. In your words I am a 'True Beliver' and I am in total agreement with you on that. So, to answer your question we should turn to the Bible for guidance as a true believer would.
What did Abraham do with Issac? Why?
Answer these questions and I'll answer yours.
Brent said "I actually agree with you one this one! Using the law to enforce Christian values upon society is the opposite of Christian values. Jesus said 'love your enemy', and love 'does not demand its own way'."
Brent, you are the first Christian on this blog that I have ever seen actually write this. I applaud your honesty.
@brent--
Rando said -
...if you haven't figured out we are discussing two completely separate things.
That's the thing Rando. We're not.
You wish we were, only talking about earthly fire. You have been trying to push the conversation that way from the very beginning, even though that was not the context of the original post at all.
What this post is about and has always been about, is something infinitely more important than any earthly fire.
No, that's not true at all. This whole topic of letting children burn started during the 'burning fertility clinic' thread, which was based on a question I posed to Ray. You answered by saying you would rather see a 2-year-old girl burn alive than be pulled out of the burning clinic by an atheist. If you really feel this way, you're as much of a religious fanatic as David Koresh or Mohammed Atta were. You just haven't gone off yet.
@ Brent:
What did Abraham do with Issac? Why?
Ho-hum. I could answer this one in my sleep. God told Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, and Abraham, despite his trepidation, complied. Happily, God was just testing Abraham to see if he'd go along with it, and caused Abraham to stumble across a ram caught in a thicket, which he sacrificed instead of his son. And they all lived happily ever after (except, of course, for the ram).
This particular episode used to unnerve me a great deal, even when I was six or so and saw no reason to question this "God" thing all the grown-ups were so hung up on. What if God told my parents to sacrifice me? Granted, this didn't seem likely to happen - the God of the late 1980s was a remote presence, not the chatty neighbor He'd been back in Abraham's day - but the possibility discomfited me nonetheless.
The story of Abraham and Isaac upsets me somewhat less now that I've realized it's pure fiction, but Abraham's behavior remains morally dubious. I like to think that he'd had some experience outsmarting the irrational and almighty being that stopped by his tents to demand a cup of goat's milk and some groveling - that however unequal the relationship between God and Abraham may have been, Abraham was not without a certain passive-aggressive power of his own. Perhaps, by leading Isaac up the mountain, he was making a calculated decision to call God's bluff.
Of course, this is not the sanctioned reading; the story is supposed to teach the virtues of absolute obedience, not clever manipulation. If this is the case - if Abraham really did mean to go through with it - I cannot be anything but horrified by his decision. I have no sons, but if God told me to sacrifice my brother, or my mother, or the stranger standing on the corner, I would tell God, in no uncertain terms, where he could stick it.
captain howdy said -
"This whole topic of letting children burn started during the 'burning fertility clinic' thread, which was based on a question I posed to Ray. You answered by saying you would rather see a 2-year-old girl burn alive than be pulled out of the burning clinic by an atheist."
See, again, a mis-characterization of what I said.
What I said originally was that you Captain Howdy are Incapable of saving anyone from Fire. (obviously referring to real eternal fire)
I then said that it would be better for the child to die (knowing Christ, which would result in Life) then to be DECEIVED by your lies (which would result in eternal burning in flames).
You, Rando and Rufus are all high and mighty about your ability to save a child from a burning building here on earth. Yet you're willing to have a child believe lies that condemn them to a place of burning if they believe you. Which means you can not save them from anything ultimately.
That is why, atheist firefighters do not exist.
I deeply care about the well being of children both here and eternally. I only wish you did as well.
Irukandji said -
"What did Abraham do with Issac? Why?
Ho-hum. I could answer this one in my sleep............
....I would tell God, in no uncertain terms, where he could stick it."
But what was Abraham's reasoning for doing so?
P.S. (I'm pretty sure it was Rufus that originally poised the question. It's hard to have a discussion with Rufus when other people step in espousing their opinion to someone else's question.)
@ Brent:
I'm sorry if my participation in this discussion offends you. However, I find myself so put off by the fractured logic underlying yout holier-than-thou fanaticism that I simply can't refrain from adding my two cents.
As for Abraham's motivations . . . I tried to address this in my previous comment, but once more for the record: the Bible doesn't give us any real insight into Abraham's thought processes, but the most obvious reading is that he was willing to sacrifice his son because his obedience to God was absolute.
Irukandji said -
"I'm sorry if my participation in this discussion offends you."
I actually confused you with Iago, who had just finished telling me that he does not "espouse his opinions" on this blog. Kinda looses it's punch when it's direct at the wrong person. Sorry for the confusion. Your participation does not offend me, but it is kind of hard keeping track of everyone that wants a piece of me.
"...the Bible doesn't give us any real insight into Abraham's thought processes, but the most obvious reading is that he was willing to sacrifice his son because his obedience to God was absolute."
Indeed the Bible gives us very accurate insight into Abraham's thought process. And it's not the absolute obedience that you stereotypically assume.
It might help if you stop trying to answer the question in your sleep. :)
@Brent
Indeed the Bible gives us very accurate insight into Abraham's thought process. And it's not the absolute obedience that you stereotypically assume.
The way I see it, God had promised Abraham that this son would be the father of many nations, so Abraham knew that whatever God had in mind, his son was not going to die. However dale is also correct, for God immediately commends him on his faith and obedience.
The message of the story is that God has given his covenant to the Jews so as long as they do what He tells them to do, no matter how difficult, He will keep his promise. Or something to that effect.
John Doyle said -
"The way I see it, God had promised Abraham that this son would be the father of many nations, so Abraham knew that whatever God had in mind, his son was not going to die."
John you are close, but not exact. Abraham expected Isaac to die, but he reasoned that God was able to bring his son back from the dead.
Here’s what the Bible says about it Hebrews 11:19:
“Abraham reasoned that if Isaac died, God was able to bring him back to life again. And in a sense, Abraham did receive his son back from the dead.”
Since you answered my question, I will answer Rufus’ question;
I have faith that God is capable of bringing anyone back from the dead. I have no doubt that if my daughter was to die as a believer in Christ that she would live again. However, my job on this earth is to protect her and guide her, not harm her. Protecting her and guiding her means not only in regards to earthly matters but eternal as well.
Jesus is a God of choice and free will. Unlike Islam, we can’t demand people accept or physically force people to love Jesus, daughters included. They have to want him.
If she ever became deceived by one of you, the only thing I could do is pray to God that he extends her life long enough that she may have time to realize her enormous error and to bring her back from the dead as Isaac was brought back to Abraham from the dead.
God has graciously given all of you time to recognize your error and now is the time for you to come back from the dead as well.
@brent--
What I said originally was that you Captain Howdy are Incapable of saving anyone from Fire. (obviously referring to real eternal fire)
I then said that it would be better for the child to die (knowing Christ, which would result in Life) then to be DECEIVED by your lies (which would result in eternal burning in flames).
You, Rando and Rufus are all high and mighty about your ability to save a child from a burning building here on earth. Yet you're willing to have a child believe lies that condemn them to a place of burning if they believe you. Which means you can not save them from anything ultimately.
That is why, atheist firefighters do not exist.
Yeah, but then again, you are an idiot. You admitted that yourself. Only a creep would let a small child to die in a fire rather than risk having her convert away from your religion. You've admitted you'd be willing to do that too. That makes you an idiot and a creep.
@ Brent:
Indeed the Bible gives us very accurate insight into Abraham's thought process.
Oh, really.
1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."
3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you."
6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?"
"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.
"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!"
"Here I am," he replied.
12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."
13 Abraham looked up and there in a thicket he saw a ram caught by its horns. He went over and took the ram and sacrificed it as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called that place The LORD Will Provide. And to this day it is said, "On the mountain of the LORD it will be provided."
15 The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, "I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me."
19 Then Abraham returned to his servants, and they set off together for Beersheba. And Abraham stayed in Beersheba.
Okay. Please tell me where we are given any unambiguous indication of what's going through Abraham's head during this specific episode. Aside from the simple statement that he loves Isaac, I certainly don't see any discussion of his thoughts, emotions, etc. - just an account of his actions.
I still maintain that, based on what we see here, Abraham could have been thinking any number of things as he led his son up the mountain. Did he suspect all along that God was just testing him? Was he angry at God for asking this of him? Did he obey out of fear or love? The text doesn't clarify any of these points.
@ Captain Howdy -
Only a creep would let a small child to die in a fire rather than risk having her convert away from your religion.
So why do you actively lead children into fire? Are you Ok with being a creep? Is Howdyism really so important that you would rather see children burn forever than follow Christ?
I merely said the child would be better off to die in Christ then to burn forever. However, you would rather see the child burn forever, than die in Christ.
I will with hold from calling you names, but one thing is for sure, one of us is evil and leading children into a terrible fate.
"But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea."
@ Irukandji
"Indeed the Bible gives us very accurate insight into Abraham's thought process."
"Oh, really.
……Okay. Please tell me where we are given any unambiguous indication of what's going through Abraham's head during this specific episode. Aside from the simple statement that he loves Isaac, I certainly don't see any discussion of his thoughts, emotions, etc. - just an account of his actions.
I still maintain that, based on what we see here, Abraham could have been thinking any number of things as he led his son up the mountain. Did he suspect all along that God was just testing him? Was he angry at God for asking this of him? Did he obey out of fear or love? The text doesn't clarify any of these points."
I answered this question in a reply to John Doyle, but I will go ahead and reply to you as well.
Here’s what the Bible says about Abrahams thinking in Hebrews 11:19:
“Abraham reasoned that if Isaac died, God was able to bring him back to life again. And in a sense, Abraham did receive his son back from the dead.”
@brent
Here’s what the Bible says about Abrahams thinking in Hebrews 11:19:
“Abraham reasoned that if Isaac died, God was able to bring him back to life again. And in a sense, Abraham did receive his son back from the dead.”
The Epistle to the Hebrews was written sometime in the first or second century CE. It was a letter from a Jewish-Christian to a group of Jewish-Christians. Why should their interpretation of Abraham's motives carry any authoritative weight?
If God was planning to physically resurrect Isaac, why did He stop Abraham from killing him?
@ Brent:
What John Doyle said.
Paul (or whoever wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews) was interpreting an already-extant text, many centuries after the events it describes supposedly occurred. This looks to me like early apologetics and nothing more.
I will with hold from calling you names, but one thing is for sure, one of us is evil and leading children into a terrible fate.
Wow. You and reality must have gone through one epically nasty break-up. It's pretty clear that you two didn't just shake hands and agree to stay in touch - it must have been one of those change-your-locks, change-your-phone-number, make-a-life's-work-out-of-avoiding-each-other type of affairs, am I right?
. . . So, how's that working out? Any regrets? Ever look over at the crazy fundamentalism you've shackled yourself to and wonder what could have been, if only you and reality had given it one more chance?
John Doyle asked: "If God was planning to physically resurrect Isaac, why did He stop Abraham from killing him?"
God had no intentions of letting Abraham kill Isaac in the first place. It was Abraham who had such confidence in God's promise to give him descendants through Isaac that he didn't question God's request, because he believed that God would even raise Isaac from the dead just to keep His promise. Abraham believed this, because God had made a baby in a 90-year-old woman with sperm from a 100-year-old man--just as He had promised.
His reasoning was this: God who has been so faithful so far will not let me down this time, either. And, personally, I have found this to be true in my own life--so long as I am counting on actual promises from God, not just wishful thinking.
Irukandji & John,
Whether the Bible is true or not is a completely different subject and a fundamental difference between us. I believe the Bible is God's words spoken through men. Much like you might use a translator to communicate with someone in Chinese. When God communicated the message and through whom He did it does not invalidate the message. You obviously do not.
I do not have the time to have a debate with you over the authenticity of the Bible at this particular time.
Regardless if you accept the validity of the Bible or not, the Bible clearly states Abraham's reasoning. John, you were fairly close but not quite accurate. Irukandji, you were dead wrong to say "The text doesn't clarify any of these points." It would be nice if you guys would at least have the intellectual honesty to admit when your assumptions and pre-conceived notions about what the Bible says are wrong.
@ Dale -
Did you delete your post about "clinical studies" of Abraham's reasoning???
I can't find it anywhere and I see that a post was deleted from the discussion. I wanted to respond to it. Was that yours???
It seems quite unfair that you would delete your denial that the Bible gives us any insight into Abraham's reasoning.
brent said--
I merely said the child would be better off to die in Christ then to burn forever. However, you would rather see the child burn forever, than die in Christ.
I will with hold from calling you names, but one thing is for sure, one of us is evil and leading children into a terrible fate.
--------------------------
I was going to reply with a point, but then I remembered: We both already agreed that you're an idiot. So that's okay; thanks for the tract, and see ya in the funny papers...
@ Brent,
I do admit that I had forgotten about Hebrews when I said that the Bible offered no insight into Abraham's motivations. You were right, and I was wrong.
Still, the fact that we don't get this clarification until the New Testament looks really, really suspicious to me - frankly, it makes me think that someone was faced with the same questions I asked and wanted to answer them in the most pro-God way possible. (If the word "retcon" means anything to you, I think it applies here.)
I understand that if you believe every single word in the Bible is divinely inspired, the fact that Abraham's thinking isn't explained until Hebrews becomes a non-issue - no matter where it is in the Bible, it's perfectly true. (Of course, your assertion that the Bible is inerrant strikes me as ludicrous and logically indefensible - but as you said, let's not get into that; it's not as if we're going to change each other's minds, anyway.)
God who has been so faithful so far will not let me down this time, either. And, personally, I have found this to be true in my own life--so long as I am counting on actual promises from God, not just wishful thinking.
I'm sure that in hindsight, it's very easy for you to distinguish between "promises from God" and "wishful thinking" - you credit the former when things work out for you, and blame the latter when they don't. But, if you don't mind me asking, how good are you at distinguishing between the two before the fact? How many times has something you thought was a "promise" turned out to be "wishful thinking"?
(As I see it, it's all wishful thinking; sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes you don't, but in either case, God had nothing to do with it. But you probably don't want to hear that, do you?)
Irukandji said -
"I'm sure that in hindsight, it's very easy for you to distinguish between "promises from God" and "wishful thinking" - you credit the former when things work out for you, and blame the latter when they don't. But, if you don't mind me asking, how good are you at distinguishing between the two before the fact? How many times has something you thought was a "promise" turned out to be "wishful thinking"?
(As I see it, it's all wishful thinking; sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes you don't, but in either case, God had nothing to do with it. But you probably don't want to hear that, do you?)"
Ok, now we're even. I attributed something you did not say to you earlier and now you have mistaken someone else's comments for mine.
All I have to say is that God is very specific in the Bible about what his promises are to us. I think that is what Josh Black is referring to, but don't let me speak for him.
Post a Comment