fireof god98
Member
- Jul 24, 2013
- 674
- 34
- Faith
- Lutheran
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
- Politics
- CA-Liberals
for me its hard to answer being that i am a humanist and i don't believe in it meaning the holy spirit.
Upvote
0
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.
That doesn't answer my question.
Biblical christians don't seem to be clear on this.
Me: How do you know the bible is true?
Them: The Holy Spirit reveals it to me.
Me: How do you recognise the voice of the Holy Spirit?
Them: It is the Holy Spirit if it agrees with the bible.
Circular much?
So let's start again. How do you recognise the voice of the Holy Spirit WITHOUT resorting to a circular argument?
I can see why you say that.
You want to live a life based on reality, but at the same time you worship the cruelest god in the history of mankind, and will suffer the torment of having the flesh being burnt from your bones for all eternity if you don't adore him properly.
It must be a horrible way to live.
Haven't read the bible much, eh?
Wasn't the greatest commandment first to love your God with all your heart and then to love your neighbor as yourself? I am a creationist. Should we not love one another?My two greatest struggles in faith are loving creationists, and not damaging the faith of creationists.
You say that evolution is a fact, but the truth of the matter is that evolution is an unproven and unprovable theory.
You speak of deception, and yet I haven't seen deception at all from creationists
Yes, we should love each other. On this we agree.Wasn't the greatest commandment first to love your God with all your heart and then to love your neighbor as yourself? I am a creationist. Should we not love one another?
Scripture doesn't teach how God created. So I can't quote scripture to prove my understanding of how He created any more than you can. You can't quote scripture that doesn't exist. Also - I'm not an inerranist, nor am I a believer in Sola Scriptura. The bible is chock full of ancient near east cosmology. This doesn't mean ancient near east cosmology is correct - just that this was the prevailing understanding of cosmology at the time of writing.
You speak of "correcting" creationists. I would offer you the same question I've asked of theistic evolutionists for ten years; can you show me ANY passages in the Scriptures which support what you believe?
The evidence for young earth creationism is abundant, including the six day timeline in Genesis; The Fourth Commandment written by God Himself; the genealogies of the Bible; the mention of Noah by name by Jesus and the fact that the first three chapters of Genesis are referenced over 200 times in the New Testament. Jesus clearly believed the Scriptures as written and taught from them. How them, do we who are "of Christ" repudiate His teaching?
Uh whoa up a minute. I do believe in miracles, especially the incarnation and resurrection. But you have to differentiate between what is possible and what actually happened. I believe God could have created however He wanted, and hence a special creation a few thousand years ago would have been a possibility, but the evidence suggests He chose a different option - a long slow unwinding through evolution. The fact that He chose evolution over a faster more direct option speaks nothing of my belief in miracles or in His resurrection on the third day.
You say that evolution is a fact, but the truth of the matter is that evolution is an unproven and unprovable theory. Even if we could answer every single problem of how things could have happened, that still didn't prove that they did. We have to ask ourselves if a God who can create the entire universe could be so insecure and dishonest He had to lie about how He did it, or if we are merely using physical laws to try and explain a miraculous creation. Is it any more impossible that God became flesh, was crucified for the sins of man and was resurrected on the third day? And yet, if you don't believe in that miracle which is scientifically impossible, then you cannot call yourself a Christian. Belief in the sacrifice of Jesus for the sins of man is what defines Christianity.
You speak of deception, and yet I haven't seen deception at all from creationists. When God says he made man from the dust of the Earth and man says that he evolved from simpler animals, both of them cannot possibly be telling the truth.
So far, no theistic evolutionist has ever been able to fully justify what he claims with passages from Scripture. It doesn't mean I love them less, or consider them condemned like the atheists are.
Actually the problem is that he has.
Then why is he quoting things it does not teach or say?
41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; ...... 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
USincognito that link seems broken for me.
In fact here you go, a verse on the judgement of people who did not measure up in the afterlife Matthew 25:41-46:
They don't heed the warning, they'll be washed away in the flood. Or in this case, the eternal fire.
I don't see anything there about flesh being burnt from bones for eternity or anything about damnation because of the wrong type of worship. {/quote]
Really? I tell you what, why don't you try it yourself. You won't even need an eternal pit of fire. You can make a temporary one yourself. Get a small kiddy pool. Pour 5 to 10 gallons of gasoline in it. Strip yourself naked, lie in it, and light it on fire.
Getting naked will actually lessen the degree of burning since once you agree with me and jump out the flames can be extinguished quite easily. Clothing can keep reigniting and is not a good idea.
The whole of Matthew 24 and 25 should be read. It's like Noah and the flood. Those that will be separated from God are those that are just carrying on, satisfying themselves, ignoring God. They don't heed the warning, they'll be washed away in the flood. Or in this case, the eternal fire. The only person that can be blamed is themselves.
Doe it actually say that or is that merely your interpretation?
And please, when the evidence is so extremely poor only a cruel, unjust sadist would blame the victim.
And if they never hear the warning in the first place?
Obviously then they would be guiltless.
I don't see anything there about flesh being burnt from bones for eternity or anything about damnation because of the wrong type of worship. {/quote]
Really? I tell you what, why don't you try it yourself. You won't even need an eternal pit of fire. You can make a temporary one yourself. Get a small kiddy pool. Pour 5 to 10 gallons of gasoline in it. Strip yourself naked, lie in it, and light it on fire.
Getting naked will actually lessen the degree of burning since once you agree with me and jump out the flames can be extinguished quite easily. Clothing can keep reigniting and is not a good idea.
Doe it actually say that or is that merely your interpretation?
And please, when the evidence is so extremely poor only a cruel, unjust sadist would blame the victim.
It's not actual fire and there are no victims. Unless you are an advocate for unlocking every prison door in the world and letting criminals loose.
So wouldn't it be better not to tell anyone, then, and spread the message as little as possible?
First of all, people here regularly use quotes from Charles Darwin, though he died in 1882. Does that prove that any Darwin quotes published anywhere after he died are fraudulent? Are we to believe that nobody ever cites a reference from a previous source? Should we immediately accuse people of lying if they use a source that happens to be erroneous?About a week or so, a creationist on this site used a quote from Sir Arthur Keith, which he claimed was written in the 100th edition Origin of Species, in 1959.
Sir Arthur Keith died in 1955.
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?