Do scientists believe in unicorns?

[Subduction Zone]

I never claimed that a person is not forgiven if he repents or that I would go out of my way to challenge such a claim.
Neither did I claim to know who will or who will not ultimately attain salvation.
That is for God to decide, not me.

I merely said that the Bible provides criteria upon which we as humans are allowed to judge whether a person is sincerely trying to please God or is not and whether the person meets the behavioral requirements of being a Christian or not.

Obviously a person who knows that adultery is wrong and engages in it anyway isn't meeting the behavioral requirements of being a Christian. Neither is a habitual unrepentant thief. Not because I say so-but because the Bible plainly tells us so. If indeed that is against the forum rules to say as you keep reminding me, then maybe I am at the wrong forum.
According to Paul to say otherwise is to deceive ourselves:

Those are warnings to possible sinners. None of those offer support for judgment of others.

 

[Radrook]

Those are warnings to possible sinners. None of those offer support for judgment of others.

They are descriptions of behaviors that can lead to death and are not Christian.
I already provided scriptures which show that habitual unrepentant sinning doesn't lead to life/.
You say that behavior doesn't matter?
OK. But I prefer to listen to what Jesus and the Bible clearly say instead.
So let's just agree to disagree.

BTW
Judging isn't prohibited:

Although God alone is the Judge, this does not mean that only God judges. In fact, the Word of God says that God enables man to judge, commands man to judge, and is pleased with those who seek to judge righteously.

Scriptures clearly show that throughout time God has imparted to man the authority to judge (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:16; Deuteronomy 16:18; Judges 2:16-19; II Chronicles 19:5; Ezra 7:25; Isaiah 1:17; Ezekiel 23:45; John 7:24; Romans 2:27; I Corinthians 2:15; I Corinthians 6.
http://www.jesuscult.org/judge.htm

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are descriptions of behaviors that can lead to death and are not Christian.
I already provided scriptures which show that habitual unrepentant sinning doesn't lead to life/.
You say that behavior doesn't matter?
OK. But I prefer to listen to what Jesus and the Bible clearly say instead.
So let's just agree to disagree.

BTW
Judging isn't prohibited:

Please no strawman arguments. I did not say that behavior does not matter. The problem is that you are using a rather skewed judgment. You are ready to say someone is not a Christian simply because you do not like their actions. I do not know you but there are probably actions on your part that other Christians would not like as well. Simply because someone does evil in the name of Jesus does not make that person not a Christian. You are perhaps the last person that should judge one way or another.

 

[Radrook]

Please no strawman arguments. I did not say that behavior does not matter. The problem is that you are using a rather skewed judgment. You are ready to say someone is not a Christian simply because you do not like their actions. I do not know you but there are probably actions on your part that other Christians would not like as well. Simply because someone does evil in the name of Jesus does not make that person not a Christian. You are perhaps the last person that should judge one way or another.

I am merely telling you what the Bible says. I have not brought you personally into the issue. What you are doing is against the forum rules.

BTW
If this is about my having said that I find a claim of being a Christian and a declaration to the effect that the Lord Jesus Christ is a liar incompatible, yes, I do find the two claims totally incompatible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am merely telling you what the Bible says. I have not brought you personally into the issue. What you are doing is against the forum rules.

BTW
If this is about my having said that I find a claim of being a Christian and a declaration to the effect that the Lord Jesus Christ is a liar incompatible, yes, I do find the two claims totally incompatible.

Actually you are telling me your personal interpretation of the Bible and I am trying to gently remind you that there are other interpretations of the Bible.

And who has claimed that Jesus is a liar? At worst I have only seen creationists claim that, but they did not realize that they were doing so.

 

[AV1611VET]

I've got to say they seem to pose more of a problem for the creationist, ie no evidence of their existence exists outside of the bible ( though given that the Unicorn is almost certainly a rhinoceros, that can be crossed of the list)

You mean no testable evidence?

Like these guys?

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

Why is "no evidence" supposed to be a problem for us, when we're dealing with things that don't register on radar?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well some of the animals on that list are probably the bible authors names for animals that are already known, ie unicorn = rhino. Or supposed, for example on finding fossil dinosaur bones naming said animals dragons. Dinosaur bones were not suddenly found only in the 19th century, and are likely the origin for the idea of the dragon.

When the Bible calls things one thing, and we call them another, that's when confusion sets in.

It can even lead to murder: as in calling "child in the womb" a "fetus."

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but he was a Christian. You can't say who and who is not a Christian, in fact if he was a member here you would have to acknowledge that he was a Christian by the rules of this forum.

Just like if Kent Hovind was here, they'd have to stop calling him a liar ... right?

 

[AV1611VET]

That quote does not show that any particular person is not a Christian.

IMO, anyone who calls himself a "vicar of Christ" is a false [NT] prophet.

 

[Ophiolite]

IMO, anyone who calls himself a "vicar of Christ" is a false [NT] prophet.

I'm not aware of any current bishops, and certainly not all bishops, even the pope, making prophecies. Do you have examples?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Just like if Kent Hovind was here, they'd have to stop calling him a liar ... right?

Unfortunately yes, even though it is blatantly obvious the he is a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

IMO, anyone who calls himself a "vicar of Christ" is a false [NT] prophet.

What does having the title "vicar of Christ" being awarded to someone have to do whether or not they have made any prophecies?

 

[PsychoSarah]

They are descriptions of behaviors that can lead to death and are not Christian.
I already provided scriptures which show that habitual unrepentant sinning doesn't lead to life/.
You say that behavior doesn't matter?
OK. But I prefer to listen to what Jesus and the Bible clearly say instead.
So let's just agree to disagree.

BTW
Judging isn't prohibited:

I don't know, my life was the result of some... debauchery.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not aware of any current bishops, and certainly not all bishops, even the pope, making prophecies. Do you have examples?

A New Testament prophet is a preacher.

As we put it:

An OT prophet foretold the Truth.
A NT prophet forthtells the Truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

What does having the title "vicar of Christ" being awarded to someone have to do whether or not they have made any prophecies?

Basic doctrine allows for a difference between Old Testament prophets and New Testament prophets.

Since God gifts us "prophets" ...

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

1 Corinthians 12:10a To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy;

... a distinction has to be made between OT and NT prophets.

Since the completion of the Scriptures in AD 96, there are no more OT prophets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Basic doctrine allows for a difference between Old Testament prophets and New Testament prophets.

Since God gifts us "prophets" ...

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;

1 Corinthians 12:10a To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy;

... a distinction has to be made between OT and NT prophets.

Since the completion of the Scriptures in AD 96, there are no more OT prophets.

Sorry, but this does not answer my question. I am totally unaware of any attempt by the various popes to make prophecies. They would not be either New or Old Testament prophets.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A New Testament prophet is a preacher.

As we put it:

An OT prophet foretold the Truth.
A NT prophet forthtells the Truth.

Still failing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but this does not answer my question. I am totally unaware of any attempt by the various popes to make prophecies. They would not be either New or Old Testament prophets.

Then try looking at it this way:

Anyone today claiming to be the vicar of Christ is considered to be a false vicar of Christ.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still failing.

That doesn't surprise me.

 

[PsychoSarah]

When the Bible calls things one thing, and we call them another, that's when confusion sets in.

It can even lead to murder: as in calling "child in the womb" a "fetus."

In most countries that allow abortion, at the fetus stage of development, they are only performed if the mother is medically compromised and unlikely to deliver the baby to term without serious injury or death to one or both of them.

Furthermore, just a personal statement, but would you want someone willing to kill their own offspring to raise them? Because not every unwanted kid can be reasonably put up for adoption and be expected to not experience severe abuse thanks to that. Think of how common neglect and starvation are amongst those that go unadopted in many countries. Think of the antipsychotic abuse that occurs in more well off countries; I kid you not, it is so easy to obtain those medications that federally funded institutions for children will often force them upon the kids because it makes them quieter and easy to control, and the medications are not addictive. In fact, their side effects are so unpleasant, that most people will resist taking them as much as possible. Yet, those medications have long term psychological consequences, especially if taken by children that don't have the conditions that they are intended to treat. If ADHD medications will actually cause long term ADHD symptoms in college students that abuse them or take them but don't have ADHD, what do you suppose antipsychotics ment to treat schizophrenia will do to a baby in the long run? I wish I was kidding; in the United States in particular, it is more common than not for foster children to have these drugs forced upon them than not, even though most of them given the pills don't have the conditions the pills are meant to treat.

Until the core problems that make unwanted children often become so damaged are solved, until the core problems that make abortion seem like the best solution are solved, outright banning abortions will only increase human suffering. And, if you solve the problems at their source, you won't need to take legal action. Abortions will become so uncommon that any facilities that cater to it will likely shut down.