Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Consider This About Jesus........

I dont know how old the earth is. I dont know when He said a day to Him is as a thousand years really meant a thousand years to us or if it meant that to Him time meant nothing and was irrelevant. It may have been symbolism.

When He talked about the 4 and 10 headed beasts He was not meaning He would make a critter with 4 heads running around eating people.

I think He was referring to the modern Babylon that includes the educational system, financial system, government, and religious factions that are working to control and destroy a civil and ordered society of families.

I think i have seen this 4 headed beast in action.

Anyway. Its Sunday. Ive argued too much for it already.

Have a nice day and may God bless you as your needs may be. Jag.

Never answers anything, always runs back to this premise...

Always wants someone to define the undefinable.

Are you saying you reject all science that contradicts your interpretation of scripture?

I reject science that has a BS agenda. Good day.

How apropos, Deer.

AS,

So, are you running away again?

You, challenged me and said "I asked you first." I answered and you have done nothing but bob and weave.

So, again, I put to you:

"C'mon Man!

What if Jesus is real and he is who he says he is? What happens to you?"

You have answers for everything else, why not here?

Some cat in TX would choose to see that as prophesy fulfilled.

Starman,

You were easily outed.

TF

AS,

You are still avoiding the issue. More bobbing and weaving from you.

So, you inserted yourself in a Risen Lord thread and you cannot answer one to the most basic questions in Christianity?

No, I think you are afraid to answer.



btw, here is an excerpt from the Salon article:


White is discrediting hitchens.

“In discussing the exodus, Hitchens dogmatically asserts: “There was no flight from Egypt, no wandering in the desert . . . , and no dramatic conquest of the Promised Land. It was all, quite simply and very ineptly, made up at a much later date. No Egyptian chronicle mentions this episode either, even in passing. . . . All the Mosaic myths can be safely and easily discarded.” These narratives can be “easily discarded” by Hitchens only because he has failed to do even a superficial survey of the evidence in favor of the historicity of the biblical traditions. Might we suggest that Hitchens begin with Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai? It should be noted that Hoffmeier’s books were not published by some small evangelical theological press but by Oxford University—hardly a bastion of regressive fundamentalist apologetics. Hitchens’s claim that “no Egyptian chronicle mentions this episode [of Moses and the Israelites] either, even in passing” is simply polemical balderdash.”

This is a very interesting article. Worth a read. Anyway, notice the criticism that hitchens fails to do even a superficial survey of evidence in favor of the historicity of …..” and later that hitchens claim is “simply polemical balderdash.”


AS pretty much says that hitchens speaks for him and he apparently admires hitchens. One cannot miss how both AS and hitchens ignore certain historical evidence that does not support some biased thesis and that both are guilty of “polemical balderdash.”


Yep, AS and hitchens. Brothers in that spirit of polemical balderdash.

Dawkins is an intellectual lightweight. Filled with "polemical balderdash."

For those who care to get more info, check this article:

http://www.davidsinclairmc.com/christianarticles/THE%20DAWKINS%20DELUSION.pdf


Oh, and you are still diverting, bobbing and weaving and avoiding the issue.

AS,

I have said that Dawkins is an intellectual lightweight.

Notice that he never addresses the question. He avoids it entirely and runs away. He is a good jokester but the joke is on those poor souls that buy into this bs.

Seemingly, Dawkins, like you cannot address the question.

I really do wonder why. It is a simple answer; well to me it is simple, maybe not for you.




Edit to add: From a previous post:

There is also the problem with the initial "origin of life" situation. Here is a quote from an avowed evolutionist:

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis


Dawkins said pretty much the same thing. I suspect there is no model for explaining this origin of life thing.

But like Dawkins says; paraphrased: There is no God and the universe just is here, maybe forever, with no cause and although it is very, very unlikely, life just happened. So, the universe is just here and life is just here but I am sure that there is no God that had anything to do with it.

Sad joke played out before our eyes.

That is about as silly as statement as an evolutionist can come up with.

You have trouble with the God of the Bible because you can't conceive of Something greater than yourself. The God of the Bible is Infinite Intelligent Energy. The God of the Bible is Spirit filling every space and non-space in this small toy of His we call the universe.

You loose! Time was established for humans, not God. The Verse in Peter you are referring to reference His patience toward sinners wanting them to come to Him and be saved. God is not in time or space like we know them. He fills them in all directions at the same time. His Word is very clear. He established a day from the first dark / light cycle. And since He is in charge He called it night and day. On the forth day He gave us an indisputable reference even for the slowest of us. He recorded for us in Genesis 1:14-19,

"Then God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth'; and it was so. God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also. God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day."

Following scientific principles can never lead a man to become an Atheist. BTW, a man has to BECOME an Atheist just as he becomes a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or any other religion.

A man adopts a religion in response to a prompting from within himself.

He becomes an Atheist by denying that prompting, probably because he interprets it as a threat to his Self, which it is.

Any Scientist worthy of the name knows there are things which can only be experienced and are not suitable for scientific investigation. Such as Love, for instance. It is real and it's effects are observable, but it can't be quantified or analyzed.

So, demanding "evidence" for the existence of a Higher Power is a cop out.

You might as well demand dehydrated water when you are thirsty.

The PHD Biologist I referance is a light weight, so you counter with a Christian Aid worker?

NO...

Love is absolutely studied via the scientific method. We've even been able to determine what parts of the brain it stimulates and what chemical releases are caused. So this is an experience for which we have evidence.

RM,

Thank-you.

We may disagree upon much, but at least you are honest about the actual words in the scriptures.

And you might be a Young Earth Creationist who disagrees with any scientific finding contrary to your interpretation of the Bible, but at least you are honest about it, and own it full stop.

Yep. Chitt gets smeared. Take care.