Why do Christians procreate?

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Yes, I'm not disputing that. But 48% is a far cry from 75%.

Agreed

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[DogmaHunter]

We cannot really control whether one will be conceived or not.

??

You never were told the story about the flower and the bees, or....?

 

[rockytopva]

The first reign of man will be 6,000 years...

The first earth age...

The second earth age was between the time of Shem and the time of Christ.... About 2644 years....

"So then the time times & half a time are 42 months or 1260 days or three years & an half, reckoning twelve months to a year & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calendar of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of lived kingdoms, the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end A.C. 2060.”" - – Isaac Newton

The third earth age are the church ages in which I will go with Isaac Newtons end date prediction of 2060AD..

Ephesus - Messianic - The Apostle Peter (Apostle to the Circumcision) launched this church age
Smyrna - Martyr - The Apostle Paul (Apostle to the Un-Circumcision) launched this church age.
Pergamos - Orthodox... Pergos is a tower... Needed in the dark ages
Thyatira - Catholic - The spirit of Jezebel is to control and to dominate.
Sardis - Protestant - A sardius is a gem - elegant yet hard and rigid
Philadelphia - Wesleyism - To be sanctioned is to acquire it with love.
Laodicea - Materialistic - Rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing?

I get 6,360 years, a little over 6,000, signifying that we are in the days of grace? Could it have been that the days were longer in the first world?

But.. There will be a final millennial, in which Christ will reign 1,000 years.

Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. - Isaiah 56:3

So according to Isaiah 56, it is possible for eunuch's to have children. In which I imagine happening in the last millennial. It would be safer to have kids in the millennial with the devil locked away for 1,000 years. If you have kids during this time I do believe you will put the children at risk of being attacked by the children of Cain, who will reign and dominate this world in this last day...

In John Bunyan's Exposition into the first ten chapters of Genesis he compares Adam's two sons as such...

Cain- The children of this world
Able - The children of the next world

And he goes on to say that it is the business of Cain to persecute Able. So we who are children of light will be at odds with the children of darkness, or the evil seed of Cain. This will remain true until the millennial reign, in which the tables will be turned.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

So according to Isaiah 56, it is possible for eunuch's to have children. In which I imagine happening in the last millennial. It would be safer to have kids in the millennial with the devil locked away for 1,000 years. If you have kids during this time I do believe you will put the children at risk of being attacked by the children of Cain, who will reign and dominate this world in this last day...

Do you believe it is physically possible for a eunuch to have a child? Are you saying that Christians shouldn't reproduce?

 

[rockytopva]

Do you believe it is physically possible for a eunuch to have a child? Are you saying that Christians shouldn't reproduce?

That must be because God is going to recreate the eunuch's body in the after life. Possibly in the millennial? I am saying that if Christians have children they are going to be at risk for bullying and violence in this last day.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

That must be because God is going to recreate the eunuch's body in the after life.

Ah.

Possibly in the millennial? I am saying that if Christians have children they are going to be at risk for bullying and violence in this last day.

Well, I think that's true of any child born in these days, Christian or not. Or do you mean that risk is increased simply because they are Christian?

 

[rockytopva]

Christian or not. Or do you mean that risk is increased simply because they are Christian?

"So then the time times & half a time are 42 months or 1260 days or three years & an half, reckoning twelve months to a year & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calendar of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of lived kingdoms, the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end A.C. 2060.”" - – Isaac Newton

My stab on the coming of the Lord Jesus is with that of Isaac Newton, 2060 AD. I would think 12.15.2060, 800 years after the coronation of Charlemagne King. As the Lord Jesus said that day would be as the days of Lot and Noah, and as the bible speaks of violence and partying during those times, so I would imaging the same thing 44 years from now.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You have a point. What AM I doing here?

Well you are on the apologetics forum but from what you said to me elsewhere it is apparent that you understand this to be a losing game for Christians, and that miracles (or faith?) are required for belief. So it would seem to follow from this that even if you defeat an atheist in debate your honest nature will compel you to disclose that your position cannot actually be properly defended and that atheism wins, at least in the cases where we discount miracles. Right?

 

[Vicomte13]

Well you are on the apologetics forum but from what you said to me elsewhere it is apparent that you understand this to be a losing game for Christians, and that miracles (or faith?) are required for belief. So it would seem to follow from this that even if you defeat an atheist in debate your honest nature will compel you to disclose that your position cannot actually be properly defended and that atheism wins, at least in the cases where we discount miracles. Right?

I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "wins" is. The First Century Christians who went with their children to the lions in the Colosseum actually won, and the Emperors who sentenced them, the soldiers who drove them into the grounds, and the jeering crowds who enjoyed the spectacle lost quite catastrophically, but they did not realize the magnitude of their loss until they crossed over to the other side of the grey curtain and found themselves the convicts, not the judges or guards or spectators. The living never saw the victims win, and never saw the "victors" lose, but they did.

Through miracle, I have seen past the grey curtain and know, first of all, that there IS a "past the grey curtain", and second, that we actually already do know, through other people who have been there, some of what is beyond it. So, if one has "defeated" me in a debate among mortals, with a person who is erroneously certain (based on the evidence of his eyes) that he is right prevailing in the court of opinion over me because I cannot persuade him or the judging audience that my testimony of what I have seen is true, have I really "lost" anything, and has he or they really "won" anything at all?

If anything, by their blinkered "victory" they may become more certain than ever of the correctness of their erroneous position. It didn't matter how many times Cassandra was right and her visions were true - all those listening disregarded them, and were therefore destroyed as she prophesied. What did they gain?

This is why I ask myself what I am doing here. Does what I say enlighten anyone? The atheist is unpersuaded by my recounting of things that, were he to see for himself, he would only then know were so...and find himself in the same dilemma as I do. And the religionist is all too prepared to accept visions and miracles to the extent they correlate to and confirm his pre-existing beliefs. If they show something different, he will call them dreams, hallucinations or the work of demons.

So on the one hand when I see discussions on subjects for which I actually know the real answer, I am practically compelled to say what I know, because of the immense power of knowledge. But then the reality hits that I'm trying to teach colors to coyotes, who only see black and white. It isn't even necessarily their fault, and maybe it's my own when they don't learn their colors, but I get bit. Shouldn't I rather expect to get bitten?

Still, in the final analysis, we die and whatever debate we "won" is lost utterly. We die, we pass through the grey curtain and we wake up. And we CAN know what is on the other side, but only through what others who have been there tell us. Which is altogether too much for some. And what's more, seeing miracles doesn't make men trustworthy in recounting them. Judas Iscariot saw Christ raise the dead too.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "wins" is. The First Century Christians who went with their children to the lions in the Colosseum actually won, and the Emperors who sentenced them, the soldiers who drove them into the grounds, and the jeering crowds who enjoyed the spectacle lost quite catastrophically, but they did not realize the magnitude of their loss until they crossed over to the other side of the grey curtain and found themselves the convicts, not the judges or guards or spectators. The living never saw the victims win, and never saw the "victors" lose, but they did.

Through miracle, I have seen past the grey curtain and know, first of all, that there IS a "past the grey curtain", and second, that we actually already do know, through other people who have been there, some of what is beyond it. So, if one has "defeated" me in a debate among mortals, with a person who is erroneously certain (based on the evidence of his eyes) that he is right prevailing in the court of opinion over me because I cannot persuade him or the judging audience that my testimony of what I have seen is true, have I really "lost" anything, and has he or they really "won" anything at all?

If anything, by their blinkered "victory" they may become more certain than ever of the correctness of their erroneous position. It didn't matter how many times Cassandra was right and her visions were true - all those listening disregarded them, and were therefore destroyed as she prophesied. What did they gain?

This is why I ask myself what I am doing here. Does what I say enlighten anyone? The atheist is unpersuaded by my recounting of things that, were he to see for himself, he would only then know were so...and find himself in the same dilemma as I do. And the religionist is all too prepared to accept visions and miracles to the extent they correlate to and confirm his pre-existing beliefs. If they show something different, he will call them dreams, hallucinations or the work of demons.

So on the one hand when I see discussions on subjects for which I actually know the real answer, I am practically compelled to say what I know, because of the immense power of knowledge. But then the reality hits that I'm trying to teach colors to coyotes, who only see black and white. It isn't even necessarily their fault, and maybe it's my own when they don't learn their colors, but I get bit. Shouldn't I rather expect to get bitten?

Still, in the final analysis, we die and whatever debate we "won" is lost utterly. We die, we pass through the grey curtain and we wake up. And we CAN know what is on the other side, but only through what others who have been there tell us. Which is altogether too much for some. And what's more, seeing miracles doesn't make men trustworthy in recounting them. Judas Iscariot saw Christ raise the dead too.

But why should we believe your claims of miracles when other people of other religions have miracles to confirm their religions as well?

 

[Vicomte13]

But why should we believe your claims of miracles when other people of other religions have miracles to confirm their religions as well?

I went long in my first answer, but that was unneccesary. The better answer is go work it out for yourself. Good luck. Either on this side or the other side of the grey curtain you will discover that you could have known a lot more all along. You control your own filter. For my part, I don't care whether you believe me or not.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I went long in my first answer, but that was unneccesary. The better answer is go work it out for yourself. Good luck. Either on this side or the other side of the grey curtain you will discover that you could have known a lot more all along. You control your own filter. For my part, I don't care whether you believe me or not.

Work it out for myself? Are you encouraging me to invoke Satan? Because if I recall your testimony correctly, the miracle you experienced was demonic.

 

[Vicomte13]

Work it out for myself? Are you encouraging me to invoke Satan? Because if I recall your testimony correctly, the miracle you experienced was demonic.

Yeah, work it out for yourself. You asked me, in your last post, why you should listen to me, instead of any of the other religious claims of miracles. I started to answer you, but it went quite long, and I just don't think that the game is worth the candle.

You do not recall my testimony correctly. I was saved from drowning through paralysis at the bottom of a lake - that was not demonic. I blew up a Soviet naval base. Whether or not that was demonic is an open question. I was embraced by Jesus. I had God grab my face and my arm and talk to me, show me the City, from below and afar, push me into the black abyss. I saw a demon, and had it driven away by the Dove plunging into my head in an explosion of light.

There is dark and light there. I don't recall whether or not I recounted all of that before (and I'm not too terribly interested in going to look it up).

Encouraging you to invoke Satan? It is not possible for a person of goodwill to get to that question from anything I have said to you before or since. But for clarity: No, don't invoke Satan. Because you may very well get what you ask for if you do.

Why would you do that anyway? You don't believe Satan exists!

If you find what I have said before so very confusing that you think I've sent you straight to the Exit Ramp marked "Satan - 3 mi." then obviously I am not someone who should be talking to you about religion. You really misunderstand me, and that isn't going to get better. Since I haven't seen anybody else talking with you about actual miracles, I'd say you're on your own, and you should work it out for yourself. I really can't help you: you just can't seem to understand what I am saying, and you go horrible places with it. So it's better for me to be Hippocratic about this and "first do no harm".

 

[anonymous person]

But why should we believe your claims of miracles when other people of other religions have miracles to confirm their religions as well?

And would our claims be made necessarily true by the absence of a claim that contradicts them?

Obviously not.

Likewise, our claims are not necessarily rendered false by the presence of claims that contradict them.

Believe that Christ has been raised because there is good evidence that He was. Plain and simple.

 

[brinny]

Well, there is a chance that anyone's child would die. Why have children at all and risk them being still born or falling in the pool? This is a ridiculous question. I am almost ashamed at myself for even responding to it.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

LOL!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And would our claims be made necessarily true by the absence of a claim that contradicts them?

Obviously not.

Likewise, our claims are not necessarily rendered false by the presence of claims that contradict them.

Believe that Christ has been raised because there is good evidence that He was. Plain and simple.

Good evidence for the resurrection? Wow, I'd like to see that.

 

[SeraphimSarov]

[deleted by author]

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yeah, work it out for yourself. You asked me, in your last post, why you should listen to me, instead of any of the other religious claims of miracles. I started to answer you, but it went quite long, and I just don't think that the game is worth the candle.

Not worth it? Not worth it to convert an atheist who, by your own reckoning, knows all of the "rough seams" of Christianity and would be able to reach out to the rest of the atheist community? Do you plan to reach the growing population of atheists with claims of miracles or do you simply not care if we all burn forever in the bowels of hell?

You do not recall my testimony correctly. I was saved from drowning through paralysis at the bottom of a lake - that was not demonic. I blew up a Soviet naval base. Whether or not that was demonic is an open question. I was embraced by Jesus. I had God grab my face and my arm and talk to me, show me the City, from below and afar, push me into the black abyss. I saw a demon, and had it driven away by the Dove plunging into my head in an explosion of light.

You said this:

"Did you communicate with the being in the flame or with Jesus before, during or after the event?

What was communicated?

Specifically, was the demon at the foot of your bed holding you in a mind lock and pressing images into your mind, that you were unable to resist, until you called upon Jesus for help? Was the nature of those images quite lurid - such that you would blush to tell them and would tell of them only in euphemism? Were those images very much within the realm of things that you know are evil but desire anyway.

Was there anyone else in the room with you? Was that person sleeping? Had that person been awake, do you believe that s/he would have seen the flame and the being, or do you believe that you were seeing with spiritual eyes and not physical ones?

At the moment you invoked Jesus (by what name, specifically?), did you experience something as the demon's lock on you was broken?

I know of what you speak. I have seen it."

Post #209 in my thread "Hi/Bye". You are clearly describing a demonic encounter. Now here are the facts I've gathered from you on this issue:

1. Your main reason for converting from "pantheism" to Christianity is the occurrence of miracles.
2. The only miracle I've seen you recount is the demonic encounter. I've never heard of this drowning incident until now.
3. You told me to "figure it out for myself" when I inquired about your miraculous experiences.
4. I concluded that you wanted me to invoke Satan.

There is dark and light there. I don't recall whether or not I recounted all of that before (and I'm not too terribly interested in going to look it up).

No, you didn't recount any of that before.

Encouraging you to invoke Satan? It is not possible for a person of goodwill to get to that question from anything I have said to you before or since. But for clarity: No, don't invoke Satan. Because you may very well get what you ask for if you do.

You certainly did encourage that unless you're simply not keeping track of what you've said in front of me.

Why would you do that anyway? You don't believe Satan exists!

OK. So you've just rendered the prayer of salvation as utterly pointless. Why would I ask Jesus into my heart if I don't believe he exists? Or is the "Asking Jesus into your heart" just a Protestant thing?

If you find what I have said before so very confusing that you think I've sent you straight to the Exit Ramp marked "Satan - 3 mi." then obviously I am not someone who should be talking to you about religion. You really misunderstand me, and that isn't going to get better. Since I haven't seen anybody else talking with you about actual miracles, I'd say you're on your own, and you should work it out for yourself. I really can't help you: you just can't seem to understand what I am saying, and you go horrible places with it. So it's better for me to be Hippocratic about this and "first do no harm".

I didn't misunderstand you. You're simply misrepresenting your own beliefs.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And would our claims be made necessarily true by the absence of a claim that contradicts them?

Obviously not.

Likewise, our claims are not necessarily rendered false by the presence of claims that contradict them.

Believe that Christ has been raised because there is good evidence that He was. Plain and simple.

Dude, it wouldn't matter to you if there was good evidence that his body was stolen and re-buried elsewhere. You've made that abundantly clear. You don't care.

 

[Vicomte13]

Do you plan to reach the growing population of atheists with claims of miracles or do you simply not care if we all burn forever in the bowels of hell?

The latter.