Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Steve_S

  1. Please remember to keep it civil and not make unmerited accusations. If you feel someone else is out of line, please report it rather than attempting to handle it yourself in the thread.
  2. This thread has remained quite civil to this point. Things like this threaten that civility. Please remember to debate the subject and not the person going forward.
  3. I would not disagree regarding the bowling league either, of course. Regarding evolution, though, I would say that atheistic Tuesday night bowlers are not the ones making the decisions on what the children of Christians are going to be taught in schools and universities. I suppose my first question is what, specifically, constitutes the scientific community in this context? What sciences specifically? What level of education? Does this just involve researchers or also educators that rarely or never participate in research? Does this involve people only with graduate degrees? Does this involve any, some, or all MDs or DOs?
  4. We definitively agree on this. I understand what you are getting at here, but I am not so sure that I agree with it. You say the scientific community is anti-God, but not anti-Christian. Christians are the physical representatives of God on earth. There are certainly no shortage of scriptures that point to this fact and the concept itself is present basically throughout the new testament, particularly from towards the end of Christ's Ministry, into acts, and through the epistles. Perhaps the concept itself could even be said to crescendo in the Book of Revelation when we see massive numbers of Christians being martyred on account of their faith. The world itself, the non-Christian world, is complicit with many seemingly being active participants. I might even consider making an argument that any generation of non-Christians would be susceptible to participation in such a thing, given the circumstances and opportunity (though that argument would be based on an inductive inference and I certainly would not do so dogmatically). My ultimate point is that I'm not sure how easy it is to differentiate the spiritual state of the nonbeliever on a personal level (at enmity with God and, by extension, those who belong to Him) and their attitude towards God and his followers. I certainly would not make the argument that all nonbelievers harbor and unquenchable, burning hatred for Christians that they carry with them at all times, just that their spiritual state is likely to have a less than trivial effect on their personal outlook, particularly over time and even more particularly in what (I think anyone would agree) is a supercharged political atmosphere in our country at this time. I would not disagree (God hates all sin). However, I think this ultimately goes toward my point. Whatever one defines as "anti-God" - at the end of the day the most simple definition is "sin," but I would not reduce the context of this conversation down to that concept alone. My point can probably be best demonstrated by something Paul says when instructing us to put on the armor of God (and why it's important to do so!). Eph 6:12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against... In other words, Christians are in a state of struggle against these influences - the flesh, yes, but these things influence the flesh. Nonbelievers have zero defense. In short, they are at their mercy and under their influence in a total sort of way. No matter what our outward interactions are with them, we are apart from them and unless they become one of us, we always will be. Do we stumble? Yes. God will pick us up when we fall. You point out that Christians must admit to our shortcomings and we certainly should. That is an important part of our witness, even, and our witness is incredibly important. However, we also need to be realistic about the state of the nonbeliever and understand that they need Christ - that until they are reconciled to God through Christ, they are at enmity with Him (and because of this, to one degree or another, with us).
  5. I think this thread has ran its course, locked.
  6. Not really wanting to participate in the part of this debate about the age of the earth, but in perusing this thread (your typical late night, not much else to do sort of perusing) this post jumped out at me, mainly because, from a scriptural perspective, not being a follower of Christ basically puts a person automatically at enmity with God. In other words, until a person is reconciled to God through faith in Christ, they are most definitively, in a very real sense, anti-God.
  7. Comments like this have no place in threads on Worthy. Please remember to debate the person and not the subject.
  8. What you said here is personal. This is not something I'm really willing to argue about. Please just don't do it again. To answer your question, I'm a Servant here at Worthy. One of my many functions is moderation of the forums.
  9. Please refrain from attacks such as this in the future. This is debating the subject and not the person, which has no place on our forums.
  10. Me, George, and Omega can delete posts. I may have deleted them, but I do not remember it. Can you give me a time frame so I can check some stuff?
  11. Firstly, how do you know that happened? Secondly, Augustine was born 150 years after 200 A.D. and probably didn't adopt most of his theology for another 30+ years after that.
  12. Steve_S

    The Mirror

    Happy to see you back. Praying for you.
  13. These sorts of statements are unequivocally unacceptable here. This is the only warning that will be given in this thread.
  14. Can you please specify what verses in the scriptures have been modified and when?
  15. You should be able to access chat now. Welcome to Worthy!
  16. Steve_S

    Al Baghdadi.

    So if Babylon is Jerusalem and you say it has totally fallen prior to Jesus' return, it's like this: Rev 18:21 Then a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the sea, saying, "Thus with violence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be found anymore. But, in Zechariah we see this: Zec 14:14 Judah also will fight at Jerusalem. And the wealth of all the surrounding nations Shall be gathered together: Gold, silver, and apparel in great abundance. Zec 14:15 Such also shall be the plague On the horse and the mule, On the camel and the donkey, And on all the cattle that will be in those camps. So shall this plague be. Zec 14:16 And it shall come to pass that everyone who is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the Feast of Tabernacles. Zec 14:17 And it shall be that whichever of the families of the earth do not come up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, on them there will be no rain. So, Babylon, thrown down, found no more. But Jerusalem, suspiciously intact? Indeed, in the same Paragraph we see the same Jerusalem that was fought against mentioned as the Jerusalem that families of the earth will make pilgrimage during the millennium. I just don't see how this is possible if Jerusalem is also the Babylon of Revelation. This is the ultimate issue.
  17. Steve_S

    Al Baghdadi.

    What's confusing about this though is that you say that He doesn't completely destroy it until after He returns, if I'm not mistaken? I may have misunderstood. Could you clarify?
  18. Let's please remember to keep it civil. People are removed from threads because of getting personal.
  19. Steve_S

    Al Baghdadi.

    So the claim is that the angel saying this is Jesus? It, however, says what it says though. Approaching it with a predetermined outcome in mind requires it to be interpreted differently than what the text actual says. That is my primary issue with this theory overall. It starts with mystery and ends with confusion, rather than start with what is specifically known and going from there. The end outcome of starting with what is actually *known* with specifics and in concrete sequences makes it nearly impossible to definitively identify Babylon as any specific entity. The impossible thing with all of this is that the majority of passages being posted says Babylon repeatedly, both old testament and new. Again, I draw your attention to Revelation 19. Rev 19:1-15 After these things I heard a loud voice of a great multitude in heaven, saying, "Alleluia! Salvation and glory and honor and power belong to the Lord our God! (2) For true and righteous are His judgments, because He has judged the great harlot who corrupted the earth with her fornication; and He has avenged on her the blood of His servants shed by her." (3) Again they said, "Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!" (4) And the twenty-four elders and the four living creatures fell down and worshiped God who sat on the throne, saying, "Amen! Alleluia!" (5) Then a voice came from the throne, saying, "Praise our God, all you His servants and those who fear Him, both small and great!" (6) And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, "Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! (7) Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." (8) And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. (9) Then he said to me, "Write: 'Blessed are those who are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb!' " And he said to me, "These are the true sayings of God." (10) And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (11) Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. (12) His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. (13) He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (14) And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. (15) Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. (16) And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS. (17) Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, "Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, (18) that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great." (19) And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. If one reads that as an actual passage, just reads it how it is written, there is simply no escaping that Babylon is already a smoking, destroyed ruin when this happens. The more complicated the Jerusalem theory gets (and it is past the point of complicated), the less one can just read the bible and believe what it specifically says.
  20. Let's please remember to keep it civil. Getting personal is what results in people being banned from threads and them getting closed.
  • Create New...