Steve_S

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.

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I think he's parodying creationists.   Or maybe he's a creationist.  

Poe's law:

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied. The original statement, by Nathan Poe, read:

Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is utterly impossible to parody a Creationist in such a way that someone won't mistake for the genuine article.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

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.

2 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

No, I say that most individuals in the scientific community are not anti-Christian. We are all anti-God prior to our acceptance of His atonement and new life. The scientific community is not any more (or any less) anti-God than a Tuesday night bowling league.

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.

11 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

It is often erroneously believed and/or implied that the scientific community accepts evolution because it is anti-Christian. In my experience, this has not been the case.

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?

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I completely agree that this is true in an unsaved person's spiritual existence.

We definitively agree on this.

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

However, this is out of context. The topic of discussion was the claim that the scientific community is anti-Christian, perhaps a better phrasing than "anti-God".

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.

3 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Even those of us that are saved must admit to our attitudes, thoughts, and actions that certainly qualify as "anti-God" periodically.

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).

I think this thread has ran its course, locked.

On 11/30/2019 at 6:11 PM, one.opinion said:

That is a misconception. The scientific community, outside of a few highly vocal individuals, is not "anti-God". The scientific community, in my opinion, relies so heavily on methodological naturalism (the self-limiting of science to physical explanations) that it often spills over into philosophical naturalism (the belief that the only reality is the physical one), but the proportion of individuals that are "anti-God" is fairly small, in my experience.

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.

1 hour ago, Blood Bought 1953 said:

It’s obvious you do not care for me.......and that makes “ MY” day.......I welcome  the hatred of Leavenists.....it reinforces the fact that I am on to something good......shame on you for the smarmy reaction to a gesture of friendship...

Comments like this have no place in threads on Worthy. Please remember to debate the person and not the subject.

54 minutes ago, Abby-Joy said:

@Coliseum asked me about my experiences, and I replied to him. About 2 or 3 posts, including his, were deleted. @angels4u even asked me about it, and @ReneeIW replied to those posts (in reference to rituals that took place inside a church). 

I can't tell you word for word what I posted. No one contacted me about deleting those posts. If you have no clue and George has no clue...does someone besides you and George have ability to delete posts?

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?

39 minutes ago, Abby-Joy said:

@George @Steve_S ... why were my posts deleted without informing me? 

Which posts and when?

1 hour ago, Justin Adams said:

miatonsabbaton2.docUnavailable

Psalm 82 to begin with and Deut 32.. there are more if I have time. after about AD 200. Anything to promote the Sethite view which Augustine liked.  If you wish to find out more, listen to the eminent Scholar Dr. Heiser - and even Missler. Many others too... Most was with the intent to obscure the Divine Council and the (Gen 6) 'angels that sinned'... much supernatural info has been stripped from our scriptures.

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.

On 11/26/2019 at 3:40 AM, Justin Adams said:

Sadly that 'Sethite' view and much of the modified scripture has been used to inoculate us against such as the workings of the unpalatable truth.

Can you please specify what verses in the scriptures have been modified and when?

7 hours ago, wingnut- said:

 

 

To me, this represents the fall of Babylon, the city is taken, the false worship within it has been destroyed, and there is no more fight left.  The city is still there and burning when the Lord touches down on the Mt. of Olives, then we get the earthquake that opens the passage for the people to flee.  It also must align with the 7th bowl/vial according to John, and that is confirmed by Jeremiah as well.

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.

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion, it is really not complicated at all.  Considering we agree that Babylon is already attacked by the army from the north prior to His return I'm not sure what the issue is.  Babylon can only fall once, so it really comes down to accepting that fact and that all the mentions of its fall are speaking to the same event.

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?

8 hours ago, Roar said:

I have answered you just as Jesus answered the Pharisees of His time on His terms not theirs.

Removed from thread.

9 hours ago, Blood Bought 1953 said:

Your evade the question as all Legalists do.Your non- answer speaks volumes.Please answer yes or no as I was able to do.As a reminder— I gave a resounding “ NO”

Removed from topic.

Let's please remember to keep it civil. People are removed from threads because of getting personal.

9 hours ago, wingnut- said:

Revelation 18  After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was made bright with his glory. 2 And he called out with a mighty voice,

“Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great!
    She has become a dwelling place for demons,
a haunt for every unclean spirit,
    a haunt for every unclean bird,
    a haunt for every unclean and detestable beast.

Scripture tells us that the earth is made bright by the glory of Jesus at His return, and that is what the passage above from Revelation 18 displays, Jesus announces the fall of Babylon and it is at the hands of the armies from the north, His instruments for destruction.

So the claim is that the angel saying this is Jesus?

9 hours ago, wingnut- said:

I don't believe it does, the battle of Armageddon does come after as I said earlier, but the battle of Armageddon is after the 70th week and the beginning of the Millennial reign where He is ruling with the iron scepter.

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.

Let's please remember to keep it civil. Getting personal is what results in people being banned from threads and them getting closed.

Let's please remember to keep it civil. Things are trending towards getting personal.

3 hours ago, Seasoned by Grace said:

1st John 2:4 "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandment is a ">LIAR<", and the truth is not in him."

1st John 4:20, "If anyone says, "I love God, and hates his brother, HE IS A LIAR for he does not love his brother..............".

1st Timothy 4:2, "These people are HYPOCRITES and LIARS, and their conciences are dead.

Revelation 21:8, "....and immoral persons and idolaters ARE ALL LIARS".

PSALMS 101:7, " He who practices >LIES< shall not dwell within My house. He who SPEAKS LIES shall not maintain his position before me.

Romans 4:13, "Their throat is an open grave. With their tongues they keep LYING. The poison of >LIES> is under their lips"

Titus 1:12, 'Cretans are always "LIARS"( Whether this is true or not, God allowed these people to be called LIARS as He Himself did many times that's the point)

 Jer. 7:8, "Behold, you trust in >LIES< to no avail. Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, and TELL LIES....."

                                                                                       The word hypocrite or hypocracy MEANS >LIAR OR LIES<

Matthew 23:27, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES (LIARS)"

Matthew 23:29, "WOE to you scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES (LIARS)"

 

If God Himself sets the example of calling people liars, to get their attention, are we to do no less for others sake who have traveled the wrong path???????????

 

SERVANT>>>>>>>>YOUR ADMONISHMENT IS NOT ONLY UN-BIBLICAL, BUT UNGODLY AND CALLS GOD A LIAR.

Maybe you should re-think your position as an administrator beings your not WELL VERSED IN SCRIPYURE OR GODS TRUTH.

 

If you decide to "BAN ME" from this forum I will  praise God that I was PERSECUTED for DEFENDING HIS TRUTH>.

 

Thank you lord that their are haters of the truth, and at any cost you allow us to stand for that truth---PRAISE GOD. 

 

I am here because I love all of you. If my message seems harsh or even beligerant it's because over a 2000 year period much of God's truth has been peeled away or twisted until there isn't, in my opinion, enough of the GOD"S truth left to call it Christianity

I FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO HEAR THE TRUTH, not all the doctrines that confuse and distract people from knowing the BEAUTY and INCREDIBLE REALITY that has been God's kindness to reveal 2000 years ago.

The REAL CHRISTIANITY is BEYOND WORDS the most amazing GIFT GOD could have ever have given us. IT IS INCREDIBLE and POWERFULL and REAL.

Give me a chance to be here for a while and at least listen to my words and if you judge me as an IDIOT or worse then BLOCK me and PITY ME.

Removed from thread.

10 hours ago, Seasoned by Grace said:

No........but the way you have chosen some verses and rejected others to fit your false doctrine makes you one.

Please don't call other members a liar.

52 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

This being the final event written in Revelation as far as wrath is concerned, and being connected to when God remembers Babylon, narrows down the timing a bit.

Revelation 19 disagrees with this. The smoke of Babylon is rising before the final battle:

Rev 19:1  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! 
Rev 19:2  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." 
Rev 19:3  Again they said, "Alleluia! Her smoke rises up forever and ever!" 

Rev 19:19  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. 
Rev 19:20  Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 

So that leaves two options.

Babylon (or whatever city it represents) is entirely destroyed before this and this is a commemoration of that fact:

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath.

I admit that it doesn't totally read that way.

Option two, Babylon has already been destroyed by a military attack of some sort and receives a final supernatural judgment as Jesus returns:

1 hour ago, wingnut- said:

and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath. 20 And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found. 21 And great hailstones, about one hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on people; and they cursed God for the plague of the hail, because the plague was so severe.

The final part of the verses you posted above cannot be relegated to only Babylon (or whatever city it represents, even if it's Jerusalem) because there are no islands there (or real mountains to my knowledge).

It seems that whatever the case, Babylon is a smoking Ruin as Jesus is still in heaven prior to His return. That is inescapable with a plain reading of Revelation 19.

2 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

I think when we break them down and look at them line by line it is clear they are about more than one nation.  I have no doubt that the Lord is going to judge the land of the Chaldeans just as He will judge the whole earth, but the passages themselves speak to something bigger than just the land of the Chaldeans.  In response to our other conversation here I am going to touch on some of what I mean.

That's fair enough of course, however, I still want to narrow it down. I certainly expect that you will inspect it in a further post. However, the question, is do they apply specifically to Jerusalem. Other nations, etc., is fine, but I wish to get at the root. Are they about Jerusalem specifically?

21 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

I am having a hard time understanding your view of things here.  You indicate Babylon is long gone by the time the Lord sets down on the Mt. of Olives, so you believe He destroys Babylon before He returns to earth?

Absolutely it is gone (I don't know by how long, though). Why would God need to be physically present to destroy something? Who was responsible for the destruction of Sodom? Two angels carried out the destruction, but Who was judging it? I think Babylon is definitely destroyed towards the end, but it certainly does not seem to be the final act.

26 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

I specifically said the Babylon of Revelation.

This is what is confusing me. I may be taking it incorrectly, but it seems that you are making an argument that old testament prophecies regarding Babylon apply to Jerusalem, as well as the prophecies in Revelation 17-18. Before we go forward and I spend a lot of time answering your other posts, my primary question is:

Are you asserting that the prophecies (that we have discussed thus far) in the old testament that pertain to Babylon are in fact in regard to Jerusalem at the time of the end? This is incredibly important to the conversation.