Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire For Christians,non-Christians & Atheists

If born again Christians are not Christlike--that is too their shame...but we will never be Christlike unless we are truly born again.

How is the existence of a creator more complex? We recognize design as evidence of designers in our daily lives without puzzling over the novelty of that concept.

There you go again...making excuses for contradictions that you say don't exist.

Nobody knows anything about an afterlife. But rereading "Rainbow Bridge" can help ease the lost of a beloved pet.

There are fundamental truths of scripture that everyone can understand and believe at an early age--there's no real debate among true Christians on the great truths of historical Christianity--such as the Apostle's creed. There are other portions of the Bible that will challenge and engage our understanding and learning till we die. Within the boundaries of fundamental truth vigorous discussion is healthy. The Bible is an inexhaustible book. Some of the greatest men of the world and of our nation have been believers. People who believed in God have given this world the best form of government it has ever seen. They have even protected the rights of those who will spit on their God. Because of the God given rights of liberty of conscience established by God-fearing men, skeptics can freely make lists of alleged contradictions in the Scriptures which guided the lives of these great men--and in the end its truth will stand like the anvil which breaks all hammers.

“no real debate among true Christians”

Translation: even if you believe in God, if you don’t agree we’ll classify you as ‘other than a true Christian’.

Look at this logically for a moment ... if you can cite scripture to show alleged contradictions and yet the use of more scripture will make it all reconcile--why would this be an excuse? Any document that explains itself, when considered in context and then in the full scope, does not have a conflict. This is standard protocol for interpreting any document. All we are asking of the skeptic is to make an honest inquiry, examine the immediate context and the full scope, and then use some common sense and good reasoning. Is that too much to ask of a skeptic?

How do you logically make that translation when I gave an example of the apostle's creed as a unifying Christian document? What I would take exception to is redefining historical Christianity and then being asked to be considered a Christian.

That's what separates humans from other animals, they have no souls.

I’d classify a number of humans in that category as well.

So if nobody knows anything about an afterlife--this would also include you--meaning that you cannot disprove it either. Furthermore you would not be convinced even if someone rose from the dead and testified of the truth of an afterlife would you? The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the indisputable proof that life does not pass on into an after of nothingness. No one here on this thread has been able to advance one good argument to dispute the facts of history that Jesus lived and was crucified. I presented 4 Roman witnesses -- 3 historians and 1 emperor -- none which were favorable to Christianity. They testify of His life and death. No one has from ancient history or modern times have been able to provide evidence that the body didn't rise. That was the only thing the ancient world needed to do to disprove the Christian claim. The resurrection of Christ will stand as a testimony for all times that when a man dies he does not pass into nothingness but will be called back to life to stand in judgment for his deeds and belief.

Men with far greater legal credentials than all the skeptics on this thread combined, have thoroughly researched the evidence and have concluded that the evidence supporting the resurrection of Christ is unassailable when honestly employing recognized and standard laws of evidence.

Some of these great men were instrumental in the founding and early development of our nation. The ones who have since been tearing our nation down are those men who are skeptical of the moral foundation on which it has stood.

Its for certain, certain geniuses cant distinguish the difference between truth and proof of fact.

Rimfire, i farted this AM. That is the truth, but yet a fact i cant prove.

Re carbon 12: Qualifier; it is not my ”faith” or what my faith in God would allow that is important on this issue. What matters is what a God said...what the Bible has to say about it.

Seems there is not much said about it but it seems the majority of bible scholars believe that indeed there are animals in Heaven. That they are created seems right. I am not sure about our beloved pets. It may be that pets have “souls” but it may be that they do not have eternal souls.

Having said that, it would seems to me...speculation only....That if we wanted our beloved pet with us and asked the Lord to make it happen, I would not be surprised if He would do exactly that.

Sorry for the inconclusive answer but that’s all I’ve got.


Btw.... I did have a lady pose a question similar to that.... she knew the dog had loved nothing more than chasing rabbits and did in fact catch a couple....hence her question....I chickened out and told her that dogs in heaven can chase rabbits and the rabbits love to be chased and enjoy the race but the dogs just can’t seem to catch them. Oh well...best I could do at the time....

A creator must be able to think and act. These are not simple things. To create a universe is not a simple thing to do. To propose a Creator is not a solution to complexity, it just moves the goal post.

People fart. Everybody farts. People make claims that may or may not be true.

Um, ontologically that is wrong by definition

That just simply explains why the Creator must be all wise, all powerful, and all knowing like the Bible says. You can't escape the logic that a Creator is required and must be greater than Creation, and as such, doesn't need your permission or belief to exist.

Your claim that you farted is a very ordinary claim. As a result, the standards of evidence for such a claim are low.

In contrast, a universe making super natural being is a extraordinary claims, and this claim requires extraordinary evidence, yet you cannot offer anything that even qualifies as good evidence, let alone extraordinary.

jaguartx now you are in the "I know you are but what am I" playground mode. Sorry to see that.

Again science demands it on the basis of the need for an uncaused first cause, the anthropic principles of life, and the biological irreducible complexity of life. To reject God as the Intelligent designer is unscientific and based purely on prejudice.

The problem with atheism and skepticism is that the mind becomes enslaved by the will and emotion of the heart and cannot honestly examine the evidence. The skeptic and atheist refuse to believe that which their passions wish to reject and their cover is that they need more evidence. Yet they cannot produce any credible proof that God does not exist.