Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Christ at the Campfire Kent Hovind

Blaine,

Satan quotes Scripture but that doesn't save him.

You need to repent and ask to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Presently you don't seem to understand God's Word or the simplicity of it. The Holy Spirit will guide you into all Truth. Right now you fall into the catagory of "Professing to be wise they become fools."

I'm sure glad some of you boys found Christ before your hearts became so hardened as Christians. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Ringman,

So now I am comparable to Satan? And you claim have the ability to judge whether or not I am saved and filled with the Holy Spirit?

I repented of my sins and accpeted Jesus Christ as my Personal Savior in April of 1967, about a month before I turned 7. I was filled with the Holy Spirit at that time, as are all people at the moment of Salvation when the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in them.

Even as an almost 7 yr old I knew in my spirit, my emotions, and my mind that Christ was living within me. I have walked with God since, never backsliding or falling away, because God is faithful. God kept me far beyond what I deserve, and my never backsliding or falling away has nothing to do with me but everything to do with Him.

God has chosen to use me in my imperfection in everything from: leading others to Christ, ministry to folks involved in the occult, defending and debating the literal approach to interpreting scripture with liberals, and even ocassionally taking on knuckleheaded fundamentalists hiding their lack of faith in God behind dogmaticism. My most important ministry is being the spiritual head of my family and leading them to a closer walk with Jesus. I have hardly accomplished these things with perfection, but God has worked through me in spite of my flesh.

Because I know the Bible, I know I cannot judge as to whether you are saved or not. That is God's job and His job alone. Regardless, I encourage you to seek God to find out why you are quick to insult and belittle others when they disagree with you.

Ricky,

I am glad Christ found me and saved me period! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Amen, Blaine! Me too! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

I like it better when they chuck mud at each other. It's easier on the brain. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

You're Satan.
No, I'm a liar, and you're Satan.
No, I'm not but you are not Spirit filled.
Sure I am, but you're not saved.
I've been saved since 7 seconds after my 8th birthday, and I am so filled with the Spirit.
Are not.
Am too.
My Dad's bigger 'n your Dad.
Yah, but my Dad has a bigger gun.
My Dad was a marine.
So! Mine was a Democrat.

Boys, boys boys! Be nice, or I'll send you both to the corner.

You better be sure you can handle the crowd, Keith. I think there's more than a couple ready to throw down over how God tells time. Not that He does. Certainly not like we do. Seems I read His ways are not my ways. Now there's somethin' to shout about! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Blaine,

Jesus says, "And many will say in that day I did all these wonderful things in Your name." And Jesus will say, "Depart from me, I never knew you."

Apostle Peter says by the Holy Spirit, "They distort the Gospel to thier own distruction."

"Certainly not like we do."

that's fer stinkin' sure.

yet we are made in His image.

aarrgghh! my headache is coming back ...

I make a motion that we get some serious narcotics for fish280's poor headache. I got a better idea.

Let's dump this thread, as it is kinda like a derailed train -- it ain't goin' nowhar! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

ah, relief!

I have never understood why some of us get so defensive and truculent when discussing issues involving faith and belief, when as RickyD always says, "just love one another" and all else becomes secondary. I hope I will never judge another professing believer's walk with Christ or his personal salvation. If Paul thought he was chief of sinners, what would my multitudes of sin look like to the Almighty? We can try to reprove, correct and instruct in righteousness, but it must be done with love and humility. There are none among us that don't have the stain of sin in our lives. Thank God for the grace of the Lord Jesus and his great mercy and salvation!

Amen! That's the one thing we can all agree on, can't we now my Brothers? Like my friend the Shootist said, let's leave it at that!

Ringman,

You left out the first part of that passage that begins in Matt 7:15. Let me complete it for you.

"Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistle, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me "Lord, Lord," will entwer the kingdom of heaven, but [/b] he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter[/b]. Many will say to me on that day "Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name did we not cast out demons, and in Your name cast our demons, and in your name perform many miracles? And then I will declare to them "I never knew you; depart form me, you who practice lawlessness."

Gal 5:22-26 tells us what these fruits are. It is the exact same Greek word as is used in the above section in Matthew, and the context is somewhat similar:

[/i]"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with it's passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. let us not become boastful, challenging one another, envying one aniother."[/i]

So how many of those fruits have you exhibited toward me on this forum? How many of them have you exhibited toward ANYONE who posts here?

The Bible tells us not to judge each other:

Rom 14:4 "Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or fall; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

However, we can judge each other's behavior: "You will know them by their fruits."

I am judging your behavior, not your salvation. Much of your behavior on this thread defies the very Bible you say you belive in.

Rom 12:3 ".......I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think....."

Col 3:8 " But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, mailice slander, and abusive speech from your mouth."

When all is said and done, the Master will say to me "well done though good and faithful servant." I do not know what He will say to you. However, YOU will not be able to stand in that day and accuse me of not telling you what God placed on my heart to tell you.

To all,

I am sorry this thread has turned into an attack by Ringman on my faith. However, Paul was willing to defend himself, so as much as I hate to do it, I must defend myself.

Ringman appears to thinks he can judge the salvation of others. He seems to think his understanding of the Bible is perfect and anyone that disagrees with him is not saved.

A Christian who holds those views has some serious problems, and I just cannot see letting that go.

Ringman has always been unwilling to agree to disagree, which is in direct violation of Rom 14: "Now accept the one who is weak in the faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgement on his opinions."

I have hinted that I think his faith is weak, and I think that is why he is so quick to retreat into dogmaticism and start the character attacks and name-calling. However, I have not judged his opinions. While I may disagree with his interpretation of Genesis, and certainly judge his behavior as against the Biblical standard, I have repeatedly said his opinions are not anti-Biblical.

Almost everyone else here at "Christ at the Campfire" can argue points of Christianity, disagree pointedly, but not cast judgement as to each other's salvation. I have no doubt many of you think my faith is weak <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />, but you still apply the standard Paul gave us in Rom 14. This approach allows us to disagree without being divisive.

Does anyone have any ideas how we can help Ringman?

How do you know These Passages mean What They say anymore than Genesis means What It says? You are amazing.

You tell me in one line we are not to judge and in the next tell me you are judging me. I stand on God�s Word to judge those who are in the Body; or claim to be. We learn that from 1 Corinthians 5. We learn from Jesus that we speak from that which fills our hearts. Or in this case type from that which fills our hearts.

You constantly want to distort God�s Word and yet claim to be one of God�s children. You quote Colossians 3:8. I am not angry, exhibiting wrath, using slander or abusive speech in my posts. I am not the one trying to convince folks God does not know how to say what He wants said. We are commanded by God�s Word to �preach the Word in season and out of season, reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction� because �All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteous.�

You were rebuked by the Truth of God�s Word and don�t like it.

The recipe is always the same no matter who and no matter what: prayer and loving kindness. How can something so simple be so hard? One word: pride. Defeat pride and you defeat self, defeat self and Christ shines through. Brothers, I'm preachin' to myself, not to ya'll.

Dear Lord, help me to destroy the pride that captivates me and make me more like You. Take the me out and put the You in.

Amen!

Sanlen,

Sorry I missed this. I have said nothing about using intellect to prove there is a God. I have said we are to use our intellect to understand the things of God.

I am also not trying to prove God exists via science. While I certainly see evidence of God in science, the proof of God, for me, is that he lives in me.

Statements like those you made above are puzzling to me. Now I am only trying to get a grip on our talking past each other here, and do not presume to know this for sure. However, it almost seems as if you are trying to fit my views in a predetermined "box", because such "boxes" help us understand views better and debate against them better. For example, if I said I was an ID advocate, then you would expect that I believed in A, B, and C, and you have already studied A, B, and C and know how you to answer. Another example is if I was a theistic-evolutionist, I suppose it would not be illogical to assume I believed science can help prove God.

Maybe this will help. I don't fully accept ANY of the views in their entirety, whether they be theistic macro-evolution, ID, or YEC. However, I find good things in all those philosophies. It's not that I am confused, it's just that a given view or idea must meet a very high personal standard before I'm willing to pronouce as unquestionably true. The only thing I know for sure is God did it, and if I never unravel this mystery to my own satisfaction, just knowing God did it is good enough for me.

My standard in determing what ideas to accept is to ask:

What does the Bible say and what does it not say? Is this idea clearly anti-Biblical, or is it just against "church veneer"?

When I am evaluating the claim of an evolutionist vs the claim of a creationist, I ask the above questions to see what the limits are, then look at all the scientific evidence to see which view is best supported. After all, since we all know that science is performed by scientists who are fallible humans, we have to look at creation science with the same skeptism as we look at evolutionary science.

Please understand challenging an creation-science idea is no more challenging to the inerrancy of God's word than challenging an evolutionary-science idea. In both cases, it is the science that is being challenged.

Ricky,

Amen!

"Like my friend the Shootist said, let's leave it at that!"


Now, wouldn't that depend on what you mean by the word "that"?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

You guys surprise me. You let the mis-quote of Ephesians go by with no nuclear weapons launched.

But I ran across this tonight and wanted to "share" it.



-----------------------------------------------------------

Ker Than
Staff Writer
SPACE.com
Thu Mar 16, 3:00 PM ET



Scientists announced today new evidence supporting the theory that the infant universe expanded from subatomic to astronomical size in a fraction of a second after its birth.

The finding is based on new results from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellite, launched in 2001 to measure the temperature of radiant heat left over from the Big Bang, which is the theoretical beginning to the universe.

This radiation is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), and it is the oldest light in the universe.

Using WMAP data, researchers announced in 2003 that they had pieced together a very detailed snapshot of the universe as it was about 400,000 years ago, and that they had determined things like its age, composition and development.

The previous data showed that the universe was about 13.7 billion years old. It also revealed that it wasn't until about 200 million years after the Big Bang that conditions were cool enough for the first stars to form. Scientists were also able to conclude that the universe is composed of about 4 percent real matter, about 23 percent dark matter, and about 73 percent dark energy. Nobody actually nows what dark matter or dark energy are, however.

The new WMAP observations, announced at a NASA press conference today, reveal what the universe was like in the first trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. From the microwave background, researchers teased out a new signal called the "polarization signal."

"This new signal is roughly 100 times weaker than the signal we analyzed three years ago and about a billion times less than the radiant warmth we feel from the Sun," said Lyman Page, a WMAP team member from Princeton University.

The researchers collected observations of this polarization signal to create a map of the early universe, allowing them to test a sub-theory within the Big Bang theory, called "inflation."

Inflation theory states that the universe underwent a rapid expansion immediately following the Big Bang.

"During this growth spurt, a tiny region, likely no larger than a marble, grew in a trillionth of a second to become larger than the visible universe," said WMAP researcher David Spergel, also from Princeton University.

The new observations reveal that the early expansion wasn't smooth, with some regions expanding faster than others.

"We find that density fluctuations on the 1- to 10-billion-light-year scale are larger than density fluctuations on the hundred-million-light-year scale," Spergel said. "That is just what inflation theory predicts."

These fluctuations are thought to have led to clumping of matter that allowed the formation of galaxies.

Brian Greene, a physicist from Columbia University who wasn't involved in the research, called the new findings "spectacular" and "stunning."

"A major question that people have asked for decades is where do stars and galaxies come from? The answer coming from WMAP data supports the idea that quantum fluctuations are the answer," Greene said. "WMAP's data supports the notion that galaxies are nothing but quantum mechanism writ large across the sky."

The new findings brings humanity closer to answering one of its oldest questions, that of where we come from, Greene said.

"WMAP certainly doesn't answer this question, but its data is taking us one giant step closer to the answer by giving us a precise quantitative look at the universe's earliest fraction of a second," Greene said. "It's a tiny window of time, but it's a critical one in our quest to learn what happened at time zero itself."

The new findings have been submitted to Astrophysical Journal.

----------------------------------------------------------

Now, let's see......

"Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), and it is the oldest light in the universe."

(Can you tell the difference in age between the light of a flashlight 5 feet away, and the light of one flicked on by "someone" on a far off planet, the light of which is just now reaching earth? Do the photons have gray beards?)

"Dark matter"?

"Dark energy"?

"Nobody actually knows what dark matter or dark energy are, however. "?

(Can anyone say 'right'?)

"researchers teased out a new signal called the 'polarization signal.'"?

"Inflation theory"?

"During this growth spurt, a tiny region, likely no larger than a marble, grew in a trillionth of a second to become larger than the visible universe,"?

(That one is so good I ought to say it twice. So, it's okay for things to start still and suddenly move a near infinite distance - obviously crossing the light barrier -, and then suddenly slow down, both starting and stopping for no apparent reason. But, of course, it's completely neurotic to believe God spread the stars in the heavens by the Word of His power, or that He did it in six days.)

"Using WMAP data, researchers announced in 2003 that they had pieced together a very detailed snapshot of the universe as it was about 400,000 years ago, and that they had determined things like its age, composition and development."

(Now, is anyone else asking questions, such as how 400,000 years could possibly matter when we're looking at 13.7 billion? And why does 400,000 years ago let us piece together one trillioneth of a second that "occured" almost 14 billion years ago? Isn't that like saying that examining a Wal-Mart parking lot from the 1990's and the moon's tidal effects on it can give us what we need to define (or is that divine?) how the moon came to orbit the earth? Also, did anyone notice that the "evidense" was pretty subjective? How many other things could account for this same "evidense"?)

I have a different idea. I believe that the Bible tells us that some 6000 years ago, God spread the stars in the heavens, and that this action, by its very nature, gives the appearance of, but not the proof of, age. I also believe that God knows better than anyone, as He was the only person there.