Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
By all means do my friend. After all by sincere debate we may all learn from each other and possibly agree too. After all Jesus never said "shut up listen and if you don't like what I am saying then go fly a kite"!I won't spoil your point by disagreeing with your eye-of-the-needle example --
Fair enough.By all means do my friend. After all by sincere debate we may all learn from each other and possibly agree too. After all Jesus never said "shut up listen and if you don't like what I am saying then go fly a kite"!
Deep down we all believe that our views are for the good.
The eye of the needle was a small access door on the main gates, used just for human traffic.I am sure that Jesus did not mean it literally when he said: "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven".
Fair enough.
You said this:
The eye of the needle was a small access door on the main gates, used just for human traffic.
When the gates were shut on the Sabbath, those who were caught outside the gate, and didn't make it in in time, would have to try and force their camels through this access gate.
They could do it, but it wasn't easy.
The eye-of-the-needle is also a popular rock formation.
I won't spoil your point by disagreeing with your eye-of-the-needle example --
I found this explanation on a Bible studies site and it makes sense. I as many Christians also understand it the way it is explained below. Your explanation however has no reference in the Bible itself:
This is a quotation of Jesus which is found in Matthew 19:24 (parallel passages in Mark 10:25; Luke 18:25). The camel was the largest animal that most of the people Jesus was speaking to would have known about. The eye of a needle is the tiny hole through which the thread goes.
The saying can be understood quite literally. It is as hard for a rich person to enter Gods kingdom as it would be for a camel to go through the tiny eye of a needle. In other words, it is almost impossible. There are at least three reasons why having money can make it difficult to be a Christian.
When the apostles heard this saying of Jesus, they were amazed because they mistakenly thought that riches were a sign of righteousness. They said Who then can be saved? (Matthew 19:25). Jesus replied With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26). So with Gods help, the rich can overcome the dangers of wealth and enter Gods kingdom. But it is much easier not to have the problem in the first place.
- Riches can make you feel that you can deal with any situation that may arise. They encourage a false independence. Jesus referred to this in Rev 3:17.
- Riches can take your attention away from God. Jesus said Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also (Matt 6:21). You can be so focussed on maintaining what you have, that you neglect to pay attention to the things of God.
- Riches can make you selfish. It is a paradox that the more you have, the more you want. Rich people can fall into the trap of worrying about protecting their possessions, and to collect even more for security. Jesus mentioned this danger in a parable in Luke 12:16-19.
Answers in Genesis???????? These people are not qualified to delve in any scientific matters.
You want scientific answers then go to a site that has answers given by scientists: An Index to Creationist Claims
Answers in Genesis is a joke!
BBC report on Creationist Museum - YouTube
there is sufficient evidence to believe that the tiktaalik did not support itself upright in the article I posted. So it was a fish.
Are you a credible critic?Source criticism, Grady. Answersingenesis is not a credible source.
Are you a credible critic?
I may be wrong with this, but I don't think you have the education to spot them.How difficult could it be to spot obvious frauds like Answeres in Genesis?
Are you a credible critic?
Well, I'm sure you guys get as much enjoyment out of critiquing higher academia as I do, eh?Depends on the subject. But as far as Answers in Genesis Poe said it well. It doesn't take much to spot that one. It's sort of like another of my favorite laughter sources: Conservapedia. That one's actually worse though.
Well, I'm sure you guys get as much enjoyment out of critiquing higher academia as I do, eh?
Critique? Does that mean to destroy, discredit and do everything you can to ruin their reputation?we critique one another's work at times.
Critique? Does that mean to destroy, discredit and do everything you can to ruin their reputation?
And boy, he keeps going at it with the same quality level. That opening alone is not worth a passing grade in high-school. Much less a university degree. Least of all a PhD!Kent Hovind said:Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time.
Well, I'm sure you guys get as much enjoyment out of critiquing higher academia as I do, eh?
Critique? Does that mean to destroy, discredit and do everything you can to ruin their reputation?
Source criticism, Grady. Answersingenesis is not a credible source.
and you tube is a credible source? because that was what was used to relay the information about tiktaalik.
Did I link you YouTube? No. So... Straw man much?
Furthermore while YouTube in itself is a service operated by anyone who wants in, and as such necessitates thinking users - some of the videos are decent. You need to see where they are from. For example you can find videos of Walter Lewin physics lectures on YouTube. Those are definitely worth the time spent on them, and are quite good study supplements which could conceivably be used as decent sources. So, it depends, doesn't it? Saying "YouTube is not a credible source" is in a sense true, but it is a little like saying "Videos are not credible sources". It's true for most, I suppose. But some - if you know where to look - are quite good.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?