Tristen

I would firstly add my voice to the chorus ruling out the Mormon fellowship. Whilst there are many disagreements within the Christian church, Mormonism disagrees with Christianity at such a fundamental level as to be considered a non-Christian cult - i.e. a belief system that sounds similar to Christianity (even using the Bible), but is, at its core, a different belief system. This is not to suggest you must abandon established relationships with Mormons (unless specifically directed by God) - but the Mormon belief cannot be placed in a position of influence over your Christian faith - as they are not Christians according to Biblical doctrine. That is, the Mormon members are probably mostly sincere, well-meaning people; however, the belief itself is a deception away from the Gospel of Christ. Pentecostalism is not a denomination, but a general descriptor of belief. Simply put, Pentecostal Christians that believe the gift of tongues is available to every Christian. Different Pentecostal churches can have as much doctrinal variation between them as any two groups of Christians - though all Pentecostals, by definition, agree on this one point. A common complaint against Pentecostals is that they can focus too heavily on spiritual experiences - and thereby neglect the importance of studying scripture. In my experience, this is sometimes true, but there are also many, very good Bible-focused Pentecostal fellowships. In your above quote you say you "just seem to feel more at-home" at one of the options. I'd consider that a good indicator of God's direction - at-least until otherwise led by His Spirit.

Colossians 3:15 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful. The Greek word translated "rule" (Gk. 'brabyu'o') means to act as a guide/umpire/arbiter. That is, "Let the peace of God guide your heart". Therefore, when making decisions, we should seek the answer that comes with God's "peace". As much as is within my power, I will not make a decision that feels pressured or confused (unsure). I usually find there is an option that just feels "right" (peaceful) - even if that peaceful option does not make complete sense to me at the time. I'd also run the options by trusted Christians (ideally a Christian spouse if you are so fortunate) - Not-so-much for their intellectual arguments (though these should also be considered), but rather for comments indicating a lack of "peace". For example, listen out for comments like "I'm not sure why but I don't feel comfortable about that option" or "something doesn't feel quite right" etc.

The Holy Spirit is both a Person (personally distinct) and a Spirit. Every human is also both a person and a spirit.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

English is a relatively new language that commonly appropriates terms from other languages. That means terms (such as "Orion") are English (even though the etymological origin is undeniably Greek). That is, the word "Orion" is technically also an English word - since it is the word used in English communication to describe this particular constellation. Therefore, if you are reading an English translation of the Bible, you find the English word (even though historically, the word's origin is Greek). As with the rest of the English Old Testament, the Hebrew terms have been translated into their 'English' equivalents.

Thank you @enoob57. Your encouragement is appreciated.

I generally agree with the sentiment and information provided in the link. My only disappointment is that the information is not properly or thoroughly referenced. There are too many people just presenting their own side of the debate. The most compelling evidence to support this information is found in the primary documentation. The reason the anti-Israel movement has so effectively enslaved the minds of so many is because of this lack of easily accessible primary evidence. Many people therefore simply choose which side to believe without a proper, fair examination of the evidence. Note: the evidence is out there, and is abundant, and overwhelmingly sides with Israel - but one has to dig for it. The article is well written, but I fear it will change fewer minds than it could have - for lack of proper referencing.

When I first quote you - and then say that you are "misrepresenting" me, that is a specific example of you doing this. Likewise, whenever I first quote you and say something like "I never said that" or "I didn't ever claim that", these are direct references to specific examples of you "misrepresenting" me. There are numerous such examples of this in each of my responses to you in this thread. Are you trying to be clever? You are failing. When you provide a rebuttal response to a post, simple logic suggests you are attributing your rebuttal to the argument of the one who made the post you quoted. Therefore, by you arguing against the abovementioned positions in responses to my posts, you are falsely (and deceptively) assigning these positions to me. This is rudimentary logic - and your repeated breach of this well-understood, universal thought convention amounts to deliberate dishonesty - as is your current attempt to pretend you were not attributing this position to me. Note: SPECIFIC EXAMPLE!!! Nothing whatsoever in anything I've written "implied", nor suggested, nor insinuated (etc.) that I condone "rejecting the authority of Scripture as the final judge". This is something that your "human reasoning" made up (i.e. read-into my position) - for the specific purpose of "misrepresenting" me - dishonestly painting me as someone who disrespects the authority of scripture so you can attack that lie instead of my true position. Since you are so determined to employ this overtly dishonest strategy, I see no value in further discussion - and will be disengaging.

Until all hostages are returned - I'm not sure there is any basis for a conversation. You can't presume to start a war, then try to call the war off when things don't go your way (all-the-while, keeping/murdering the hostages kidnapped during the terrorist attack). Yes, civilians get killed in war - that's why most of us are reluctant to start wars (unless you actually want your civilians getting killed as part of a propaganda strategy). Hamas is the elected government of Gaza. The elected government of Gaza staged an horrific terrorist attack against Israeli civilians - of such an atrocious magnitude that it left the nation of Israel with no reasonable option but to destroy Hamas. No sensible government could allow such a threat to continue to exist across a neighboring border. The fact that Hamas uses civilians as shields is a problem only Gazans can solve - if they are courageous and willing. The accountability for anything that happens in Gaza as a response to the still-unresolved 'October 7th' barbarity belongs exclusively to Hamas.

I did not ever say (nor even suggest) "both sides can be equally valid if they both sincerely believe their interpretation". Nor did I ever claim that sincerity equals truth. Are really you so eager to win an argument that you are set on repeatedly misrepresenting my provided position? In the context of sincere disagreement, the reason for discussion/debate is to test the rational quality of each argument. Nothing is tested or achieved from you simply claiming to be telling "the truth". Everyone thinks that what they believe is "the truth" (otherwise they wouldn't believe it). You use scripture to support your claim, and they use scripture to support their claim. You claim to be telling "the truth", and they claim to be telling "the truth". All such claims are wasted words - and only serve to stall the testing process. The point you "missed" is that there is no logical merit in simply declaring yourself the lone champion of "God's revealed truth". Nor is there logical merit in simply declaring that their disagreement with you is causing "divisions and offenses" (since they can also claim that your disagreement with them is causing "divisions and offenses" against "God's revealed truth"). The only logical merit is found in the rational quality of the provided supporting arguments. I never once claimed we should respond to "error" with "silence". That's not entirely accurate. What you have done in this conversation is present scriptures which don't say exactly what you need them to say. You thus read your interpretation into them to get to what you want from them. For example, the Bible says; "Test all things. Hold fast what is good". - Then, you say, "Hold fast what is good" means "reject falsehood" (which is 1 degree removed from what the verse actually says). Note that the verse says, "hold fast what is good". It does not say anything about rejecting falsehood. You therefore added information to the verse that does not exist in the text itself. Anyways - moving on. - Your argument continues: "reject" means condemn/accuse (degree 2 away from what is stated in the verse). - And furthermore, "falsehood" means any disagreement with our understanding of scripture - i.e. anyone who happens to arrive at a different conclusion to us (degree 3). Therefore, "Hold fast what is good" actually means we should be actively, hyper-critically, publicly condemning Christians who disagree with us. And that is how you rationalize your way to make the verse support your position that we should be readily denigrating Christians as "false teachers". Yet all the verse said was, "Hold fast what is good". OK - So here is where we stand: I encourage more caution against denigrating Christians as “false teachers”, and you slander me as being relativist. Having therefore done my due diligence, I have put your arguments to the test and found them to be not “good”. In this conversation you have: 1 – commonly employed a variety of logic fallacies. 2 – constantly misrepresented and mischaracterized my stated position. 3 – manipulated scripture beyond what it states – then claimed your position to be “straight from the Bible”. 4 – postured yourself as the inerrant arbiter of Christian truth (i.e. “God’s revealed truth”). And when challenged, you: 5 – resort to casting false accusations against the one who disagrees with you. As such, based on the standard of argument presented in this conversation, I have determined for myself that you lack the credibility/maturity to act as an authoritative judge over Christians (and/or Christian doctrine); i.e. with the authority to denigrate other Christians as “false teachers”. I would obviously not presume to castigate you as a "false teacher". I would, however, for the moment at-least, dissuade those under my care from accepting your accusations against other Christians at face value.

You have missed/dodged the point. If you have a sincerely-held view based on your understanding of scripture, and they have a sincerely-held view based on their understanding of scripture, then you cannot simply (legitimately) adopt the assumption that you are correct - and posture yourself as the grand 'Corrector' in the conversation. The correct posture for a Christian is humility: 2 Timothy 2:24-26 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. It is equally valid (or equally invalid) for them to interpret your disagreement with them as "stirring up contention" as it is for you to interpret their disagreement with you as "stirring up contention". Therefore, the argument you presented in that particular paragraph cancels itself out (unless you are suggesting a Special Pleading logic fallacy - where only you are permitted to use that reasoning). And they likewise could say to you, "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?". Using scripture this way (without consideration of the original context) therefore resolves nothing. It is simply you posturing to your opponents as the supremely correct one - i.e. the one whose view must be accepted without examination of arguments (i.e. without testing). And you don't think they could make the same claim about you? Or are you the only one who approaches scripture without any agenda or bias (or any other human corruption)? And BTW, your caring about what they think is irrelevant to the quality of your arguments. Or perhaps you are the one who is reluctant to hear "the truth". You continue with this specious strategy of equating your position with "the truth" (i.e. "God's revealed truth") in an attempt to circumvent rational arguments - that is, to claim my disagreement with you is tantamount to disagreeing with God (i.e. "what is written in God's Word"). The logic fallacy you are employing here is called Begging the Question. That is, you are assuming yourself to be holding God's truth as a premise to your argument - i.e. assuming the conclusion. But no-one who disagrees with you is obligated to adopt the assumption that you are correct (otherwise, how could they disagree with you?). There is no "humility" in this strategy - i.e. no hint of consideration for the possibility of you being wrong. You mean - if I "reject" your understanding of "His Word"? Or do we again assume that you are beyond reproach, as the chief arbiter of God's truth? Your constant reliance on logic fallacy is becoming tiresome. Here you employ an Appeal to Motive. If I were to play that same game, I could suggest that you are twisting scripture to justify your judgmental desire to point accusatory fingers at other Christians. Motives are ultimately irrelevant. All that is relevant is the rational quality of the arguments. Nor have I suggested we "remain neutral when truth is compromised". - Though you will no doubt ignore this and continue to argue against this false characterization of my position. I have not objected to "calling out false teachers". That is an oversimplification, and therefore, another misrepresentation of my position - which you will almost certainly ignore - and proceed to reaccuse me of the same in subsequent posts. My position is that there are too many Christians who, rather than spend their time and effort advancing the Gospel, think it is their job to go around judging other ministers without due caution, due diligence or consideration for God's involvement in the broader ministry (i.e. beyond the occasional preaching of a contestable doctrine). You are trying to support the idea that Christians should be publicly condemning other Christians as "false teachers" based on doctrinal disagreements. Whereas this verse simply says we should "avoid" and 'keep an eye on' those who "cause divisions and offenses" because they might be pretenders with nefarious intent. You are therefore massaging scripture to suit your argument (i.e. beyond what it actually says). Also, your last sentence here Begs the Question (fallacy). You don't get to simply provide a verse of scripture, then conclude your position is therefore "about obedience to God". Your opposition gets to examine (test) your use of scripture. Titus was specifically left in Crete to bring order to the disorderly, misbehaving Cretan church. Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city Titus was not instructed to disassociate from these misbehaving Christians - declaring them "false teachers". Titus was instructed to "rebuke them sharply". Why? "that they may be sound in the faith" (Titus 1:13). Therefore, yet again, you have made use of a scripture which does not support your desire to encourage Christians to judgmentally point accusatory fingers at other Christians. I didn't actually say that - but anyways ... Sure - the Gospel states: John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. Salvation is exclusively through the cross of Christ. Anyone who preaches a different 'gospel' is preaching a false 'gospel'. The specific false 'gospel' Paul was addressing was the idea that righteousness can be attained through obedience to Law. Galatians 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain. So then, 1 - Not every contested doctrine is a Gospel issue (no matter how important you personally think the doctrine is). 2 - Paul is not condemning anyone specific here. He is providing an argument - logically rebutting the merits of the false 'gospel'. Therefore, whilst a false 'gospel' should be confronted, this passage of scripture does not support your contention that Christians should be accusing and condemning other Christians as "false teachers" for mere doctrinal disagreements. Right - and if you, with due caution and humility, have evidence that a minister is intentionally undermining truth, then that is worthy of a conversation. But that is not what I observe in these 'heresy hunter' types. They pick a pet putative false doctrines - and anyone whose teaching remotely approaches that doctrine is publicly declared a dangerous and "false teacher". So then, "holding fast to what is good" means "rejecting what is false" which in turn means we are obligated to declare "false teachers" of everyone who arrives at a different conclusion to us. Can you see that you have taken what the verse actually says, then massaged its meaning, by degrees, until it supports your claim? Nothing in this verse instructs Christians to go around levelling accusations against other Christians on the basis of doctrinal disagreements. I made no such argument. I have used many words to describe accusing people of being "false teachers". I may have used "judging" or "judgmental" etc. once or twice to describe this same idea. "Paul publicly rebuked Peter" for Peter's hypocritical actions. Paul did not publicly declare Peter a "false teacher". So again, this passage does not directly support your claim that Christians should be hyper critical of other Christians who disagree with them - flippantly declaring them "false teachers". As a young Christian, decades ago, I was heavily exposed to some of those labelled "prosperity teachers". My experience was that they taught many things unrelated to "prosperity". And that many grew in faith from their other teachings. And that many came to Christ through their ministries. Also, I guarantee they can abundantly support their "prosperity" teaching through scripture. Now maybe its misapplied scripture, or out-of-balance, or eisegetical - but they can certainly provide plenty of scriptures to support their position. Therefore, your claim that the standard is simply about "what is written" lacks nuance; and assumes your understanding of scripture is, by default, correct; and potentially exposes you to speaking against a work of God. Paul directly addresses how to deal with contested doctrines (see verse 1) in Romans 14. Romans 14:4...10 4 Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. 10 But why do you judge your brother? Or why do you show contempt for your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. 12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. Paul also warned against the futility of sectarian divisions: 1 Corinthians 4:6 ... that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other 1 Corinthians 8:2 And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 2 Timothy 2:24-26 24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will. 1 Corinthians 10:12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. Galatians 5:15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another! The title of 'devil' means prosecutor/slanderer. Satan is also referred to as "the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night" (Revelation 12:9-10). There are therefore plenty of "Biblical" reasons for taking pause before making public accusations against Christians. 2 John explicitly warns against receiving those who "who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh" (verse 7) - i.e. those walking with the spirit of "antiChrist". The admonition to reject falsehood (with which I have no issue) is not the same as encouraging impetuous condemnation based on disagreement. This repeated instinct of yours to equate your personal understanding of scripture with unequivocal "truth" is very concerning. There is no evidence from your argument that you make any provision for yourself being incorrect.

Your claim that my disagreement with you "reveals a dangerous misunderstanding of what the Bible actually commands" carries no rational weight. It is more unsupported hyperbole - whereby you try to artificially posture yourself as holding a naturally superior position - giving you leave to adopt a patronizing tone. I did not "accuse" you personally of anything. I did suggest there is "arrogance" in anyone presuming to elevate oneself to a position of supreme arbiter of Christian truth. However, I would now note that your characterization of my disagreement with you as me having a "dangerous misunderstanding" of what the Bible teaches, is concerning (with regards to humility and "arrogance"). This is a misuse of "Scripture". Romans 16:17 is not about declaring "false teachers" over sincerely-held doctrinal differences. The verse tells us to "note" and "avoid" those whose fruit indicate insincere motives - e.g. causing "divisions and offenses" and are self-serving - i.e. "do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple" (verse 18). Nothing in any of my responses here have taken any issue with being weary of wolves in "sheep's clothing" (Matthew 7:15). And all who hold "God's revealed truth" therefore presumably agree on every aspect of doctrine. There is no room in your Christian worldview for disagreement? Either we all agree with "God's revealed truth" as determined by you, or we are "false teachers" - period. There is no place for Christians to disagree or debate. There is one "revealed truth", and it is the one you have determined to be true. No further consideration is necessary. No, I did not "claim" that. My "claim" is that the instinct of some Christians to posture themselves as a 'heresy hunters', with the sole capture of "God's revealed truth" - affording them the right/duty to prosecute, and flippantly condemn, those who disagree with their own understanding as "false teachers" - strongly indicates a lack of humility. Yet again, you misrepresent my position as advocating for the coddling of wolves. And yet again, you have misused "Scripture". This passage is not about "wolves", but unruly, poorly-behaved Christians. Titus is thus instructed to, "rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth." (Titus 1:13-14). He is, however, not instructed to declare them "false teachers". It's not a "distraction" at all. You are seeking leave to act as 'Accuser of the brethren' - yet you have provided no standard against which to measure your accusations (apart from the implicit standard that the accused disagree with your own understanding - which you have declared to be "God's revealed truth"). Where exactly does doctrinal imperfection end, and "false teacher" start? 1 Thessalonians 5:21 says, "Test all things; hold fast what is good." It does not say, 'Test all things - then declare anyone who arrives at a different conclusion to you as a "false teacher"' How many times can you misapply scripture in a single post? I would encourage you to read all of Galatians for context. The specific non-Gospel (Galatians 1:7) to which Paul was referring is the idea that Christian salvation requires a return to Mosaic Law. Salvation by grace through faith (apart from Law) is a central Christian tenet - and therefore absolutely an "essential" Christian doctrine. This distorted idea is not related to the "Gospel". The "Gospel" of Christ is that, while we were dead in the corruption of our sins and condemned to everlasting punishment, Jesus made the perfect sacrifice to satiate the just wrath of God - for those who surrender their lives to Christ in sincere faith. This is empty posturing. - And ironic - considering that you are the one who has been "twisting Scripture" to suit your arguments - as I have demonstrated in this post. I never claimed we should tolerate "false teaching". Nor have I claimed we should be inactive against "error". How many times do you need me to clarify this before you'll hear it? Why are you so determined to read this lie into my position? The problem is not that you don't use Scripture, but rather that you habitually misuse scripture (as I have demonstrated above for every verse you have presented). Therefore, more empty posturing about how you are the one with "God's revealed truth" lacks rational credibility. I have demonstrated that you have not "spoken in line with Scripture" - but have rather misapplied scripture in a manner that is inconsistent with a contextual interpretation of the relevant passages. Therefore, my argument is not "with the Bible itself", but with your repeated misapplication of what the Bible says when considered in its own context. This is technically a True Scotsman fallacy. The logical implication of this fallacy is that anyone who disagrees with you is not a "true Christian". But you have presented this false insinuation in the absence of a supporting argument. Nevertheless, I subscribe to "sola scriptura". However, subscribing to "sola scriptura" does not mean your argument is immune from scrutiny - just because you make use of scripture to support your argument. Scripture can be misused. Also, sincere people can arrive at different conclusions. It is my job to "test" what you have to say, as much as you want the right to "test" others - though I will not accuse you of being a "false teacher" for disagreeing with me. The standard of logic is one of the primary ways we "test" claims. Logic fallacies are breaches of that standard. My accusations of fallacy were made exclusively against your arguments - and not against what is "written in the Word of God". The fact that you are prone to equating your arguments with "the Word of God" has implications for humility and arrogance. In effect, you are trying to circumvent scrutiny of your position by jumping over arguments - straight to the claim God agrees with you (and therefore disagreeing with you is tantamount to disagreeing with God). I've only claimed concern for Christians who think it's their job to go around judging and condemning other Christians. For myself, I would hate to think I condemned someone, only to later find out God was working through their life and ministry. I am happy to provide arguments against doctrines I disagree with - remembering that I may also be wrong. If a preacher's actions undermine their claim to be Christian, then it is fair to point that out - however, making graceful allowances for repentance and restoration. Therefore, out of respect for what God might be doing, I will be very cautious about condemning Christians or their ministries. I did not find anything in your final paragraph that is relevant to the conversation - except for the possible insinuation that my disagreement with you is indicative of my motive to excuse darkness (as suggested in an earlier post). But I don't want to respond to something you didn't intend. Regarding this final comment, I'd also suggest that the person you condemn could legitimately interpret your condemnation as "pushback" and stirring up strife, contention and "opposition". That is, they could apply the same argument to discredit you, that you are using to condemn them.

Your tendency in this conversation has been to emotively mischaracterize my position – generating a Strawman Argument (logic fallacy) against me. My primary complaint is with those who consider themselves God’s supremely anointed arbiters of truth – presuming to tell everyone else who they should not listen to – based on the standard of whether-or-not the accused preachers teach something that the accusers disagree with. I consider that inwardly-judgmental focus to be a concerning distraction from the Gospel. You are also Equivocating (another logic fallacy) between, 1) contesting doctrine (with which I have no issue), and 2) presuming the right to forever publicly disqualify ministers as “false teachers” for daring to disagree with you over a particular doctrine. In my former posts on this thread, I did not suggest we shy away from confronting “error”. Nor did I claim that we should be unwary of those infiltrating the church with wrong motives Furthermore, I never claimed we should, “sit back and assume Jesus will clean up all error without our obedience”. That interpretive comment is simply you deciding to read absurd hyperbole into my stated position – so that you can rebut a position I don’t actually hold. Nowhere, in this conversation, have I postulated that we be inactive against falsehood. You also mischaracterize my position as ‘excusing darkness’ and ignoring “false doctrine”. I did not claim anyone was arrogant or self-righteous for simply calling out error (a continuation of your mischaracterizing my position – and thereby rebutting a position that I do not hold). Nevertheless, it absolutely lacks humility, and the fear of God, to proclaim that someone be forever disqualified as a Christian teacher because they hold (or once held) some doctrine that disagrees with your current understanding. A ministry does not have to be doctrinally perfect for God to be involved. Perhaps you were the one Christian who, upon conversion, understood all things perfectly – and thereby attained the right to act as a chief overseer of Christian truth. The rest of us required the grace to be wrong about some things – and to, over time, learn humility – such that we could be corrected by the Holy Spirit. That is, to undergo the process of sanctification. I strongly suspect I am still going through that learning process. The example mentioned earlier in this thread was the “prosperity” teaching. Whilst I agree that many aspects of this teaching are commonly presented out-of-balance with scripture, the "prosperity" teaching does not meet the standard of “essential doctrines”. Just because we personally have strong feelings about a doctrine does not make that doctrine “essential”. With regards to other contested doctrines, we would have to be specific about which doctrine we are addressing before deciding its importance to Christian theology.

The church should certainly be free to debate and discuss supposed doctrinal "error" (i.e. errant teaching). And the church should certainly "beware" (i.e. be wary) of those who seek to infiltrate the church for selfish, nefarious purposes. However, we should not be running around like scared chickens dodging pieces of falling sky. Jesus said that He will build His church, "and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). One Christian disagreeing with another Christian over a particular doctrine (or doctrinal focus) does not necessarily mean that one of the Christians is a "false teacher" - no matter how strongly each Christian feels about the supposed "error" of the other. That is, disagreeing with you over a particular doctrine does not forever invalidate their Christian credentials. Christians are permitted respectful disagreement over non-essential doctrines - without compromise to their "Christian" status. Points for consideration: - ‎We should all be afforded the grace to be wrong about some things. - ‎Is the wrong doctrine all that this supposedly errant minister preaches? My impression from the absurd 'heresy hunter' types is that these suspect ministers only ever preach one or two things. Whereas my experience tells me that most ministers preach on a vast variety of issues - most of which we would all stand in agreement. But the 'heresy hunters' seek to forever disqualify the preachers based on simple disagreements over non-essential doctrines - speaking against the ministry as a whole. - ‎What is the fruit of the ministry (see Matthew 7:15-20)? Are people being drawn into fellowship with Christ through the ministry? Are they feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick and elderly in the name of Christ? Is the church being encouraged to seek God through personal study of His Word? - Does the supposed "false teacher" still preach the errant doctrine? I know I once taught things that I now know were wrong. Furthermore, I also once defended a well-known minister who was accused of preaching (current tense) a certain doctrine. Having listened to that minister on-and-off for decades, I had never heard them preach that particular doctrine. I was then informed how easy it was to find the evidence - and was pointed to a 20 second video clip from the early eighties. Seriously??? Apart from spiritual discernment, I wonder how, from limited evidence, anyone can claim to be certain that God is not working His work in other parts of the ministry that we are not privy to - and that the supposed doctrinal "error" is something the Holy Spirit plans to correct in due course? (Whilst also recognizing that maybe we are the one whose doctrine requires correcting). Therefore, speaking flippantly against potential works of God wreaks of arrogance, self-righteousness, a lack of humility, and a lack of the reverent fear of God. Trust Jesus administer His church. Otherwise: Philippians 4:8 ... whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.

I do not consider it my job to judge the "teacher", but rather the teaching. I listen to teaching to hear and learn from God - and not to scrutinize the legitimacy of the one delivering the message. The Holy Spirit can speak to you though a message - even if the doctrinal intent of the preacher is wrong. Furthermore, a person can be 100% sincere in their faith - and at the same time 100% incorrect in some aspect of their doctrine. Only God knows the heart of the "teacher". I would encourage that we have sufficient humility and fear of God to refrain from speaking against potential works of God - simply because we disagree with some aspect of their doctrine. Or do we suppose ourselves to be the only Christian in history whom God has never had to teach and correct? We make utility of basic hermeneutical (interpretation) principles. For example, does the "teacher's" use of scripture conform to the meaning of the text when considered in-context? That means examining consistency between the "teacher's " use against the immediate grammatical context (surrounding verses, original language), local grammatical context (within the author's argument - e.g. letter or Gospel), and general grammatical context (i.e. the rest of scripture). Anyone who discourages you from examining the scriptures for yourself is a "red flag"- including irritation at you scrutinizing their teaching against scripture. Even then, we should employ humility, grace and discernment; remembering that this could be a sign of mere insecurity, and not necessarily insincerity of heart. We all, even our "teachers", have human weaknesses and corruptions to overcome.

Painting eggs for Easter has its origins in early Christian tradition. During the period leading up to Passover (Germanic: Oster or Osterfest - i.e. Easter), some Christians would abstain from consuming animal products. However, their chickens didn't stop laying eggs. The Christians would boil the eggs to preserve them and paint these eggs to distinguish them from fresh eggs - to consumed after the Lent period. "Ishtar" is an ancient Babylonian deity that has no direct evidential relationship to Easter - other than the fact that the two words sound a little similar. This error in reasoning is termed the Phonetic Fallacy. The fact that a word in one language sounds similar to another word in another language does not entail that the words are somehow related. Any English speaker can find many words in English that sound identical - and yet have no relationship in their definitions.

Hebrews 11:7 By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

There is not enough information in scripture justifying dogmatism about a putative "age of accountability" (one way or the other). Arguments can be made from scripture supporting or rebutting this idea. The concept of an "age of accountability" is neither directly, nor repeatedly, addressed by scripture. It therefore cannot be considered a settled matter by honest assessment. No one knows for certain how inheriting our sin nature works. It may well be that our "inherited" corrupted nature branches out like a vine growing from Adam's spirit - meaning there is a sense in which we were all in Adam, making the decision to sin with Adam. In that case, no-one is "completely innocent" - not even "newborns". My suspicion is that God left this issue ambiguous on purpose. What is completely clear is that the Biblical God is perfectly just - and will therefore make the fair, morally correct, decision; regardless of where we individually land in our assessment.

This is my response to the OP. My apologies if I'm repeating ideas. I think people, in-general, are fascinated with the idea of a post-apocalyptic world. I would suggest that fascination is what accounts for the graphical depictions. I am not personally aware that there is a volume of such work. Nevertheless, secular media is saturated with post-apocalyptic narratives. Likewise, in the church, so-called 'End Times' teaching is a very popular topic of discussion. I can see two potential benefits: 1 - We should always teach what we believe to be true in order to give hearers an informed perspective from which to make informed decisions. Informing the church of the tribulation may encourage some to take their faith more seriously - so as to avoid going through the time of God's wrath on earth. 2 - Getting information to those who happen to be "left behind" - so they know the truth when it happens - and ideally know to turn to God. I've heard suggestions that the world will try to explain the disappearance of Christians as God removing the evil Church. It is therefore beneficial to those who remain to have the knowledge that such an event was predicted in scripture - as an act of God removing His people to spare them from the coming wrath.

Fellowship with Christ through His Word is fundamental to the life of a Christian. However, we must be careful that our study of God's Word remains a matter of fellowship - and be cautious against reading scripture as a matter of legalistic obligation. That is, we don't need any new laws to guide how and what we read in scripture. We rather fellowship with God through scripture as led by the Holy Spirit.

Since there is no objective, agreed-upon method for measuring genome similarity, I find percentage comparisons between species to be logically spurious and overly simplistic - and heavily prone to bias. For example: - Are we doing a whole (base-to-base) genome comparison, or only comparing protein coding sections? And what about functional, non-coding, transcription factors? - Are different amounts of chromosomes between the compared species counted as differences, or are we only comparing genetic information content - and if chromosomes numbers are considered, how is this mathematically quantified - and if not, why not? - What if one species has one copy of a gene, but the other species has many copies of the same gene - is that a similarity or a difference? - What if both species have the same gene, but in different positions on the chromosome, or on different chromosomes - similarity or difference? - What if a gene that performs the same function is coded differently between the compared species? How much code variance is permitted before the distinction becomes a difference, rather than a similarity - and why this amount? - What if both species have the same functional gene, but in different versions (e.g. both have the same gene for producing hair color, but each species has different hair color options) - is that counted as a similarity or difference? etc. We can discuss variances of intron/exon structures, haplotypes, telomeres, antibody production, epigenetics etc., etc. There are simply far too many conflating factors for any percentage comparison claim to have any useful (rationally objective) implication.

Both sides of the debate employ the same logical method to investigate the past. Both sides invent stories with the explicit aim of reconciling the evidence to their preferred model of reality. There is therefore no objectively rational value in using disparaging language to characterize the explanations of the other side.

I already addressed two of the 4 questions you posited. And the secular narrative is "tied" to naturalistic explanations. The Bible leaves many aspects of history and science unexplained. There are therefore many, many aspects of the natural world that creationists are left to explain - that are not directly addressed in the Bible. Our job is to come up with a potential history that reconciles the evidence to the Bible. Since we can't go back in time to make the necessary observations, our explanations are also speculations - that may, or may not, be accurate representations of what really happened. The same logical limitation applies to all claims about the past; whether secular or creationist. Right - but what you (or I) "buy" is subjective. What is objectively true is that all claims about the past are stories that may, or may not, be true. Honesty demands that we acknowledge logical limitations. Normally, that has to be explained to the secularist - but the same rules of logic apply to us. They would (and often do) make exactly the same claims about their narrative and paradigm. That is why such statements are meaningless and time-wasting. I'm often asked by secularists why the universe looks old. It is the refusal to factor-in your own biases that leads you to the same rhetorical mistake as the secularists. You think their position is "guesses" and "fairy tales". They think our position is "guesses" and "fairy tales". To me, all such claims are fruitless, rhetorical bluster. Truth 1 - The Bible indicates that the universe was created around 6,000 years ago. Truth 2 - Even without direct measurements, we are happy to concede that light is reaching the earth from stars that are millions/billions of light years away. Conclusion: (i.e. Story/guess/explanation) - God created the earth complete/mature/"full-formed"/"ready-made" as would an "artist" finish their work-of-art. This conclusion is speculation/conjecture about what may, or may not, have actually happened. It is a story that was made-up to reconcile the evidence with the Biblical model. Please understand that I am not denigrating your explanation. I'm just pointing out that this is the logical nature of past claims - and the logical limitation of past investigations. There is therefore no logical value in either side rhetorically denigrating the explanations of the others - because we both, of logical necessity, utilize the same brittle method to defend our preferred models. It's not a "dodge". It's a valid attempt to answer the question in a way the reconciles the evidence to the model. But it is a "guess", a story, a speculation about what might have happened (how God might have created) - which is OK. But in honest fair-mindedness, it also has to be OK when the other side does it. These are Arguments from Ignorance - and therefore not logically valid rebuttals. Given the specific and rare requirements for fossilization, we cannot logically claim to know what would, or would not, have undergone fossilization. Any number of explanations (stories) could account for the disappearance of sub-populations of humans. Sub-populations of species routinely go extinct due to factors such as disease, or extreme weather, or predation, or interbreeding, or violence etc. They would explain the path from ape to human as occurring through small genomic changes over time. Your story about God completing His work like an artist is absolutely an invention. I'm explaining the logical limitations of the methods we both apply - for the explicit purpose of dissuading empty rhetorical arguments from our side. It's not "spinning in circles" to try and improve the logical quality of our arguments. The "fluff" is when we denigrate the opposing position's explanations as "guesses" and "fairy tales" - all the while we are using the exact same method and logic to support our arguments. I am not here to debate YEC with you - as I am already an affirmed YEC; and have been for over three decades. You say "easy" for your story. And they say "easy" for their stories. And ultimately, both sides have a bunch of stories that the other side calls "fairy tales". Your story is consistent with your model - guess what, their stories are also consistent with their model. So then, the conversation can, as you say, move on to more "concrete" issues - or both sides can continue to waste time on the rhetorical merry-go-round. "Your telling fairy tales". "No, your telling fairy tales". "your inventing stories". "No, you are the one who's just guessing". "I know you are but what am I" etc. etc. My purpose for engaging was to improve the rational quality of your creationist argument. If you want me to distinguish the facts from the stories as I did with your "painter" explanation, I'll happily do that with any argument you care to provide. But you should be able to do that yourself. As a creationist, I already know the creationist arguments. That debate is not why I'm here.

Agreed. Time becomes their god. That is, 'Given enough time, who knows what is possible?'. To be fair though, our preferred model of reality incorporates actual supernatural elements - which also vastly broadens the range of possible explanations. There is no way to directly "test" any past (or supernatural) claim. We can only indirectly "test" such claims through consistency between the available evidence and our respective models. That is, if the available evidence can be interpreted to be consistent with the model, then the model (objectively speaking) might be accurate - and is therefore a legitimate option for fair consideration (but also, there is a possibility that the available evidence may have been generated via a completely different story of history than what we are proposing). That is the ever-existing weakness with any claim about the unobserved past. Even new evidence that is consistent with model predictions only means that the model might still be accurate. Again, to be fair, we do a lot of guessing ourselves. The same logical weaknesses apply to both sides trying to investigate the past. I see no objective value in pretending (or posturing) that only the secular narrative has such weaknesses. Yes - there are many unanswered questions for the secular narrative of history. And again, there are many questions/challenges and gaps in the creationist narrative of history. They will respond to challenges by claiming, "That is just how science works; we don't know things - until we do". Unfortunately, by way of double-standard, they will rarely afford us that same grace; acting as though any challenge to our position is tantamount to the wholesale falsification of young-earth creationism (YEC). I agree that we often have to reveal to them that there are logical weaknesses in their own preferred narrative - before they'll hear anything we have to say about YEC. I guess my problem here is, that - even as a YEC, I think I can answer these from the secular perspective. The first two, for example, are technically Arguments from Ignorance - i.e. logic fallacies arguing on the basis of what we haven't observed - claiming to know what we should have observed. I think your earlier appeal to "the origin of life" is a much, much stronger challenge to the secular narrative. Absolutely - and that is (usually) the first obstacle we need to overcome in the conversation - to get them to even consider considering what we have to say.

Hi Retro, I have been a "Young-earth creationist" (so-called) for over three decades. My concern is our tendency to fall into the same time-wasting trap as proponents of the secular narrative. Consider: When the secularist claims creationists ignore evidence, are anti-science/anti-intellectual - or that we believe in "fairy tales" - does that ridicule sway your position at all? Do you think ridiculing the secular arguments as "fairy tales" sways your opponent's position? I'm simply trying to caution fellow creationists away from rhetoric that doesn't move the argument - and may even result in opponents becoming more defensive. I am aware that secularists like to exaggerate their conclusions as 'established truths' - and therefore often need reminding that investigations of the past logically implement more storytelling than observation. However, it is not fair-minded (or useful) to ridicule their conclusions - as though this logical limitation only applies to their conclusions about the past. Many of those we encounter in this debate do not respect the authority of the Bible - and have been raised to exclusively believe the secular narrative. Nothing is gained by simply retorting that their "worldview is the REAL "fairy tale."". Again, my issue is with us trying to win a rhetorical argument; forgetting that we are actually trying to reach people's hearts. It is perfectly acceptable to point out that their exclusive confidence in the secular narrative is not justified by evidence or logic, and that what they have been taught incorporates larger elements of speculation, conjecture, assumption etc. AND THEREFORE, that the creationist view is an equally-valid alternative to the secular narrative. Incendiary rhetoric is unnecessary - and potentially hindering to our ultimate goal. It is perfectly valid to expose the inherent "assumptions" in their arguments. However, to claim those assumptions are "faulty" exposes your own bias - given that we also have no way to verify/falsify the applied "assumptions". The weakness with regards to "assumptions" is that the conclusions are relying on logical elements that can not be verified/falsified. Therefore, no-one is logically obligated to those conclusions (as is often falsely implied). If the "assumptions" happen to be wrong, then the conclusions are untrustworthy. Since the "assumptions" can be wrong (and there is usually evidence to support that possibility), we are justified in distrusting (i.e. justified in not accepting) the conclusions. You can support your argument "with fact". But if your argument incorporates logical bias, then your argument loses credibility. You are failing to consider the paradigm of the secularist you are engaging with - and that not everyone you speak to automatically trusts the "testimony" of scripture. The first step in this debate is often an attempt to show them that you are logically/scientifically/intellectually permitted to question and disagree with the secular narrative. I find that to be the hardest part of the conversation, since they have been indoctrinated to think that only their position is valid - and won't take anything we say seriously until we unravel that lie. So, they say we are "ignorant" and "rejecting the evidence". Then we say we they are "ignorant" and "rejecting the evidence". So much time-and-energy is wasted on this type of rhetorical bluster.