Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Question for the holy guys

And after a lotta discussion at the Council of Jerusalem in about 50 AD when this issue was formally addressed and decided upon by Jesus’ handpicked Apostles and church leaders, Apostle Peter stood up and had a few things to say about it. He made it clear to all of em’ that some time ago God had decided that the Gentiles should hear from his lips the message of the Gospel and believe.

And Peter…who knew Jesus…then said that God knew the Gentiles hearts and accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them just as He’d given it to the Apostles and the other Jewish Christians. And the point he was making was that the Gentiles clearly received the Holy Spirit without them having or following the Law of Moses at all.

And then, Apostle Peter asked all of these Jewish Christians why they’d want to place on the necks of the Gentiles a yoke that none of them and none of their Jewish ancestors had been able to bear — clearly and specifically a reference to the Mosaic Law.

And then Apostle Peter declared to all of these Jewish Christians at this very important Council that it is through the grace of Jesus that they are all saved, just as the Gentiles are. And the point he was making was that the Jewish Christians as well as the Gentile Christians clearly received salvation through the grace of Jesus, and not by having or following the Law of Moses at all.

I've got 2 comical paradigm shifts that happened to me that I'd like to use to demonstrate a point:

1. I've always been told (since younger than I can remember) that I looked exactly like my Dad. He was almost 6' tall with a very large bone-structure and the muscle to go along with it. I'm 5'6" and smaller structured (I'm not "small" by any means, just smaller than he was). Yet, because of what everyone said, I guess I just assumed that my head was as big as his (again, this began very young) and I just never questioned it. I bought a sweet sport bike when I was 37 (a blue and white Yamaha R1) and I was absolutely shocked that a large helmet that came with the bike could almost be turned all the way around with my head installed... it was huge on me. My older brother then pointed something out that I'd never heard before: "You've got a tiny head"... HUH? The very next morning in the shower while washing my hair, I noticed how small my head was... for the first time in 37 years I didn't have the over-sized cranial structure of my father, even though it was never there to begin with! hahahaha

and 2. I've never liked gambling. I work - and always have worked - very hard for my earnings and never even bought lottery tickets (except once when the power ball got over $1 billion and my wife wanted one... I still did not want it). Then I went to a seminar for investing in the stock market... long story short, over the next 4 years I'd blown over $40,000 and realized - to my own horror - that I displayed every single symptom of an addicted gambler and most of them of an addicted drug abuser. I had to investigate all of the information from all sides to intelligently evaluate my "truths" in both of these examples, though the latter was a much larger blow to mentally absorb... okay, maybe this one wasn't "comical".

With those examples, I'm postulating that for several generations, schools have not just been teaching, but *indoctrinating* the very similarly susceptible minds of the youth that the only possibility of truth is in their version of "science" and any discussion otherwise would be dealt with by immediately shaming the intellecutal acuity of those youths, thereby "teaching them lessons" against ever practicing true science with the exploration of all possible information... these also are lessons that won't soon be questioned.

I've seen many of Richard Dawkins' debates. One in particular was with Frank Turek who cited dozens of absolutely indisputeable scientific facts who then earnestly requested that Mr. Dawkins present any evidence that could refute these facts. Dawkins wasn't even listening (or he was ignoring)... not one morsal of evidence cited for refutation (even though Turek had soundly addressed each of those posed by Dawkins); only harsh criticisms of how "dumb" Christians were for believing the impossibility of God. The very same science proves them wrong on every front.

Ray Comfort (a simple New Zealand street-preacher who now lives in California) made a few videos in which he interviewed several other giants of evolutionary theory: P.Z. Myers, Craig Stanford, Gail Kennedy, Peter Nonacs and yes, Penn Gillette. He *stumped* them with the most simplistic of questions and truths. He was *not* there to badger them into accepting Christ or even accepting the possibility of Him. He was sincerely (and lovingly) trying to lead them to the Truth by pointing out the most basic of scientific facts espoused by all genres of study. He was using the same science to prove them and their conclusions to be at the minimum suspect and in reality, not even possible. Not one had even a smidgeon of a retort and many had long pauses of incredulity (like my helmet experience!) Penn Gillette even threatened to sue him if his reactions were put on the internet.

A third shift occurred to a good friend of mine. He was a black belt in Karate before he was 16 years old. He professed it was like, "fighting inside a box" and didn't like it even though he was state champion at the time (about 17 or so). I was just beginning in a Chinese art that was much more fluid and which he was very intrigued by when I demonstrated it to him... but he was so invested in his rank, that he couldn't allow himself to be freed from his own "box" that he had helped to build.

Romans 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things"

I really want everyone who believes in evolution to ask themselves 3 questions:
1. Am I positive that evolution is true?
2. Do I feel disgust or even pity for others who don't believe in evolution?
3. Do I vehemently defend evolution to those who believe otherwise?

If you answered "Yes" to these questions, understand that just as I had no idea that I was gambling (I wasn't "gambling", it was the *stock market* for Pete's sake!), you haven't yet realized that evolution is absolutely your religion. You answered "Yes" to those questions and if you replaced the word "Evolution" with "Christ" I would've answered "Yes" to every one of them, also. Yes, you are religious, and you should be scientifically evalutaing your "truths" just as I have mine (and continue to). Again, the Smithsonian Institution spent years trying to prove The Bible wrong. There were things they couldn't prove or disprove (a talking donkey?!!!), but for everything that could be verified ...it was ...every time. That's science that I can take comfort in.

If I'm wrong what have I lost? If you're wrong, I'm praying sincerely for you.

Thanks for directing the thread back to the actual topic. Your response gives a strong nod to the reason that I started this thread. Most Christian’s gag if they say that they are sinners. I’d say that your view of being real is center of target.

Billy Graham, "Sin is the most powerful force in the universe, for it sent Jusus to the Cross.
Only one force is greater-the Love of God."

I haven’t found that “most Christians gag if they say they are sinners.” Bein’ a sinner seems to be pretty much of a core and universal belief among the professing Christians that I’ve interacted with. But I have noticed that many of em’ seem to view certain cherry-picked sins of others as being worse than their own, and they’ll usually trot out the “God says it’s an abomination” rhetoric pertaining to that one sin that they’ve cherry-picked while completely ignoring ALL of the other sins that the Bible also describes as an “abomination” as well.

It makes sense to me that if an “abomination” is something that is offensive to God and His character, and an “abomination” separates people from God, that ALL sin (missin’ the mark of God’s perfection) can be considered an “abomination”. SO much so, that that’s the reason that He sent Jesus.

The truth of the Gospel is that the law never did, never will and never can bring reconciliation. From the beginning of scripture to the end the teaching is that salvation rests in one thing alone. Faith in the promise of God that He would do through Christ for mankind what mankind was incapable of accomplishing. The law was added to increase the offense.

Most people who say that they are Christian’s will agree that they sometimes sin. The vast majority do not view themselves as active sinners. I don’t know if that is the distinction that you are making but that’s what I was taught and the line that I observe most people to hold.

We are saved By Grace, nothing we did, or could ever do.

Yep. I agree. Wholeheartedly.I think that all of us are active sinners. We can try not to be, but we still are. If we say we’re not, then we’re liars, which is another “abomination”. Modern-day Pharisaical hypocrisy clearly still exists though among many self-professed Christians. That is the distinction that I am making.

I definitely agree in the modern day Pharisee. I guess that they have always existed and always will. I think that it was Luther who described the Christian life as being in a gutter trying to continually find a balance between the Law and legalism on the one side and disregard of the law on the other hand.

The Bible Belt and it would seem much of America was influenced by Revivalism and Wesleyan Christian Perfectionism and have never separated from the error. The Fundamentalist movement found the lowest common denominators remaining between the major denominations and dumbed down the rich history of the faith into something gutteral. The end result is moralistic therapeutic deism.

I know that you hold a different line than me on that but this is why I think theology matters. We are at a point where everything and anything is acceptable as long as someone mutters the name of Christ and a few religion cliches.

If anyone can disprove evolution, they should go for it.

Well, the Law was given by God…. The provisions He made in the Law allowed for the shed blood of any innocent animal to be a temporary covering for sin…. The message of the Passover in Egypt is also clear….

Then the Law was fulfilled by the shed blood of an innocent…. the perfect man…. For all of mankind….the Law finally and permanently fulfilled…..

We’re it not for the Law……?

A more lively topic would be the “proof” of evolution….. why don’t you start a new thread with the “proofs” of evolution?

And don’t in with that weak ass fruit fly nonsense…. That is not evolution, that is just evolutionist renaming normal genetic variation….this was done, presumably as there is little…. Perhaps…no…evidence for evolutionary change.

May start with the evolution of the horse?

Had to accept it

It's been done to death. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, it is proven, it is readily available in journals, textbooks and online....it has been quoted and cited countless times....but of course rejected out of hand by those who prefer special creation, which has no evidence.

While that is true the application is the problem.

Paul goes into great detail in Roman’s to demonstrate that the Covenant with Abraham, the covenant of salvation, preceded the law. It was faith/belief that was counted. Not adherence to Law.

Salvation has never been attained or maintained by the law.

Why do you guys keep debating these guys? They are material evolutionists. You aren’t going to change their views. They have made their choice. Be at peace with their choice.

It's a question of not what is believed, but what does the evidence support? Evolution or special creation?

Is evidence a choice?

It is absolutely a choice. You certainly appear to have chosen to put absolute faith in science.

There is nothing wrong with that but it is definitely a choice.

Evidence either exists or it doesn't regardless of belief. The world works the way it does regardless of our belief, lack of belief, what we may happen to choose or not choose. Science doesn't 'choose' evidence, it observes, acquires evidence and rigorously tests it.