Deadworm

Dr. Kennth Miller was chosen as the lead witness in the Kitzmeyer-Dover trial for teaching evolution in public schools. In this video Miller provides the fascinating legal history of the evolution vs. religion debate, He also lays out the best single argument for human evolution based on human vs. chimpansee chromozones. https://www.bing.com/search?q=kenneth++miller+youtube+evolution+god&form=ANSPH1&refig=49EA51E2FC17483BAC43D7BE07FAD74A&pc=U531&adppc=EDGEESS&pqlth=0&assgl=37&sgcn=kenneth++miller+youtube+evolution+god&qs=HS&sgtpv=HS&smvpcn=0&swbcn=10&sctcn= Perhaps most fascinating of all, Dr. Miller is a devout Roman Catholic; and he brilliantly explains in this video how he reconciles his Catholic faith with the tory of evolution. J was shocked to learn that secular biologists would choose a devout Catholic as the ideal spokesman to defend teaching evolution in public schools.

Jesus appointed Judas the group's treasurer and would authorize financing of their many expenditures. For example, the disciples speculate that Jesus asked Judas to leave and buy things for the upcoming Passover festival (John 13:29). Jesus had well-heeled female disciples like Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, who traveled in Jesus' entourage and provided financial support (Luke 8:1-3). Beyond that, we know little about the itinerant lifestyle of Jesus and His disciples. He notes that He sometimes has nowhere "to lay His head" at night. But we can't assume that He and His disciples were permanently homeless with no place to stay. I mean, imagine what poor shape their robes would be in if they slept outside every night! Remember, His disciples abandoned their careers as fishermen to follow Him. From second century Jewish skeptics we hear that "He made His living shamefully as a beggar." But I think it more likely that, as needed, He asked His supporters for donations to pay for new clothes, food, and other supplies. Then there were the travel supplies and expenses for the various supplies needed for His regular trips to the various Jewish festivals. Then there were onerous Roman and Temple taxes that all Jews were required to pay. As the group leader, Jesus no doubt had to rajse and handle a lot of money just to perpetuate His ministry travels.

The best measure of a charismatic church that submits to the Spirit is their willingness to endure the discomfort of regular exercise of the gift of discernment for prophecies and the gits of message tongues and interpretation. In my experience, no one ever dared to question such manifestations displayed by a pastor or respected church leader. Yet as a boy, i had one of 2 reactions to such manifestations--either I was immediately moved to tears, thrilled by the privilege of hearing from the Spirit or I froze as if confronted by a cobra! I had the gift of disernment, probably because in my youthful innocence I was so hungry for a word from the Lord. But most of the time, my negative discernment reacted to a prophecy or interpretation of tongues from the pastor or our district superintendent, authority figures that no one dared challenge. For this reason, most of our charismatic manifestations were of the flesh.

This just in: preaching anti-gay messages almost never puts them under conviction of sin. If they come to church, they already know what the Bible says on this subject. Drawing attention to anti-homosexual acts in preaching only drives gay people away from the church and they need to hear the Gospel like everyone else. One church I pastored attracted a lot of gay people. I was urged to preach against their presumed lifestyle. Why? So that I could feel righteous? By refusing to address gay marriage from the pulpit, gays had a chance to learn about the requirements and riches of the Christian life. There is good reason for "seeker sensitive preaching." Nor is there any place for preaching politics from the pulpit. People vote for different parties for a complex array of reasons. Why drive supporters of "the other party" away with judgmental preaching?

In 1882 Alexander Tulloch, an English general and scientist in Egypt, witnessed the parting of a a reedy lake adjacent to the former Goshen, where Israelite slaves worked on building projects for Pharaoh Rameses. After a strong wind blew all night, Tulloch saw a large path through the lake where fishing boats had floated the day before. In Hebrew "Yam Suph" can mean "sea of reeds." So the mracle mgiht have been that this rare windset event happened at precisely the moment the Israelites were fleeing their Egytpian captors. There is also evidence shortly after the death of Raameses, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, (e. g. the Merneptah Stele) that Israelites suddenly were massively -present in Palestine, whereas they had previously not been present in any significant degree.

The OP's question is particularly acute in the case of Hitler because Hitler was extremely "lucky" to escape Von Stauffenberg's assassination attempt through an explosive case that someone in the room moved simply to get it a little more out of the way--and that saved Hitler's life!" Biblical theology teaches that at creation God brought order out of chaos, but never took total control of the forces of chaos: e. g. "Under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful: BUT ALL ARE VICTIMS OF TIME AND CHANCE (Ecclesiastes 9:11)." So here are 3 crucial questions: (1) To what extent can and does God intervene in human affairs? After all God has a plan for our lives and for the future of our world and the church. (2) To what extent can God circumvent His deliberate lack of control over free will? (3) Can answers to petitionary prayer violate or overcome the laws of nature and the forces of Chaos? To what extent should the forces of chaos limit our expectations for the power of prayer (whether for physical healing or stopping Putin's aggression? I like the analogy of a Grand Master playing a novice in Chess. Early in the game, the Grand Master can't control the novice's choices in moves, but he can counteract the novice's moves to gradually impose limitations on those choices and thus make the game conform to his overall plan for victory.

The phrase is best translated "I will be whatever I will be." This nuance has 3 implications: (1)''I will be whatever I will be for you" but I reserve the right to be expressed in different imagery for peoples of other cultures." "Are you not like the Ethiopians to me, O people of Israel, says the Lord? Did I not bring Israel up from the land of Egypt, but also the Philistines from Caphtor (in Crete) and the Arameans from Kir (in Iraq)?" (2) "Naming me can be trap because it might create the impression that you understand my essence." ''Why do you (Jacob) ask me my name (Genesis 32;29)?" "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are my ways thoughts are not your ways, says the Lord (Isaiah 55:8)."(3) "Know me not as an abstract concept but by my gracious acts I have performed for my people throughout history." (3) "Know me not as an abstract concept, but in terms of what I have done for my people and what I can do for you" So God tells Moses to tell the Israelites: "The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob has sent me to you (Exodus 3:15)."

Tony, you apparently are unaware of the biblical basis cited by Catholics for prayer to deceased saints. Do you even want to learn what this evidence is? Are deceased saints still members of the Body of Christ? If so, why assume that they can no longer pray for us in response to our request that they do so? That doesn't make them "mediators" in any sense different from our intercessory prayers, now does it? A Catholic told me his wife had congestive heart failure. So he took her to the tomb of a saint in Italy and asked for prayer for her healing and the requested miraculous healing occurred! So, Tony, have you or any evangelical you know experienced healing of congestive heart failure in response to prayer?

When I was a pastor, our church hosted a monthly potluck dinner and movie night on Fridays. So we saw a lot of movies with Chrisitan themes and discused each briefly afterwards. Three of my favorites are: (1) "The Mission" starring Robert De Niro Based on the true story of Jesuit efforts to convert Amazon Indian tribes at the same time the Spanish and Portuguese were enslaving them. This movie won the Palm D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It contains my favorites conversion scene in any movie of all time. I rank it my 2nd favorite movie of all time, Christian or secular--2nd only to "Schindler's List." (2) "Les Miserables" starring Liam Neeson (3) "The Shadowlands" starring Anthony Hopkins and Deborah Winger Based on the true story of famed Christian author C. S. Lewis falling in love late in life. It is the best movie on grief ever produced. The most moving story put to film I ever saw was "Beyond the Next Mountain," the true story of a young Thjungle boy in northeast India, who left the jungle to track down a missionary who suddenly abandoned his work there. The boy wanted to find out why he abandoned them. But the missionary had been fired for his inability to bring the natives out of the jungle to mission headquarters. The boy grew up and created the first Bible translation in his native language. The story is incredibly moving, but the movie's production values are substandard.

There is a more serious aspect of the modern slight of the dynamic role of the Holy Spirit. Many evangelicals believe they are saved by grace through faith in Christ's atoning death, but they don't believe in the need for an intimate personal relationship with Christ. Other evangelicals blindly accept that they must have a personal relationship with Christ, but it is merely a doctrinal tenet, not a lived experience.

ny translation but the highly corrupt KJV and NKJV which are based on the latest and most error-filled manuscripts!

Nothing is worse than Catholicism at its worst. But no spirituality is better than Catholic spirituality at its best. My friend Dick was miraculously healed of torn tendons and bad arthritis in his knee by pouring water on it as a dare from the healing spring of the Virgin Mary at Ephesus, this despite his scorn for the healing efficacy of this spring.I know a Catholic who took his wife to the tomb of a Catholic saint in Italy and she was miraculously healed of her congenstive heart failure. I'd wager you guys don't see miracles like these in your fundamentalist churches. btw, have your seen the "Jesus Revolution" movie? It's based on the testimony of Greg Laurie and is largely factual about the Jesus revolution in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

There is a measure of the Spirit in the sense that there are different measures of faith given to us: "Think with sober judgment, each ACCORDING TO THE MEASURE OF FAITH that God has given to us (Romans 12:3)." Some believers with the Spirit are not actually "filled with the Spirit."

Jayne: "[2] The Bible says that the spiritual gifts are the Holy Spirit's business. In other words, He decides what gifts we should have. The two verses you cited don't say "seek" in my Bible - they say "eagerly desire the greater gifts". That's different than "seek". I also looked on biblehub.com and can't find any Bible that says "seek"." I know Greek and you don't: the Greek in 1 Cor. 12:3 [3] How to walk in the Spirit and be led by the Spirit? It's not rocket science, Deadworm. Start by obedience. "Walk" mean your daily life. Live out the fruit of the Spirit that the Bible clearly defines. To say that the Bible leaves us dumbfounded as how to obey the Holy Spirit's direction just wrong.

The Bible is most incomplete. (1) The Bible contains verses about the sanctity of human life, but never directly condemns abortion. That omission is striking in view of the first-century condemnation of abortion in Didache 4:2: "Thou shalt not procure an abortion." (2) The Bible urges us to seek "spiritual gifts (1 Cor.12:31; 14:1)," but gives us no specific guidance on how to do so. (3) The Bible instructs us to "walk in the Spirit" and be "led by the Spirit," but does not offer specific instructions on how to do this? Countless other important examples could be given. This problem illustrates why Catholics reject Sola Scriptura in favor of reliance on both Scription and Tradition guided by the Spirit.

You refuse to give specifics here on the grounds that you have done this in many other posts. Could you identify threads where you do this? I will read those specific posts carefully and try to offer helpful replies.

The day after I received the first Pfizer jab, I felt prompted by the Spirit to walk into a believer's office and urge him to get the jab. He vehemently refused to do so. Shortly thereafter his wife got Covid and it took her life!

Beliief in Christ's deity is no excuse for ignoring God's Word on prayer. Nowhere in Scripture are we advised to pray directly to Jesus. To do so is to trivialize Jesus' role as our divine mediator and advocate. Perhaps this is one reason why your prayers generally go unanswered. The Lord's Prayer is Jesus' model for prayer and it teaches us to address "Our Father!" More specifically, Jesus teaches that after His resurrection we are to pray to the Father in Jesus' name: "On that day (i. e. after the Resurrection) you will ask nothing OF ME. Truly I tell you, if you ask anything OF THE FATHER IN MY NAME, He will give it to you (John 16:23)."