tdrehfal

Praise the LORD...

LOL

I was just thinking... is not the way that we behave in my country, America, a stench to GOD? We watch television and get lulled to sleep. People come into our land and we have to respect foreign gods and pretend like everything is OK... I understand that we should be respectful to other people of other faiths and we shouldn't be judgemental but we should not compromise to the point that we disrespect God... It is not about what we do but about our hearts. Our hearts SHOULD be set upon the LORD God of Isreal, America was made for HIM. We should not bow down to Satan or foreign Gods but HIM alone. We should not become slaves as Isreal were slaves in Egypt, we should be free as Christ has made us free in HIM. The Lord our GOD is a mighty GOD. I just get the impression that we have compromised ENOUGH now. NOW it's time for people to rise up and HONOR GOD. His face has been spit upon, his image denigrated by witchraft and adultery and fornication in the name of worship of the Almighty Television and Cinema and Marcus Theatre, we idly stand by while disgusting images of fornication and lust DEVOUR our children and devour our loved ones and NOTHING is done while we stand by and let it happen! Well I think its about time SOMEONE STARTED GETTING ANGRY AND SAYING ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! PEOPLE ARE DYING because of the junk that SATAN is doing and God expects US TO MAKE A STAND and be mighty warriors for CHRIST!

Enough Bread and Circuses! Enough entertainment. I'm sorry if you don't like this message... there is a place and a time for entertainment but not when we sacrifice our morality and God's respect that he rightfully deserves...

I just think its time for Christians to turn off the TV and believe God's word rather than the negativity that the news portrays. The News and the media don't dictate the truth, GOD DOES.

i have had several dreams of late about the when the rapture is called in my dream i am always left behind and now i know why......after weeks of praying meditating and fasting the LORD revealed to me in a dream HE said "Dennis i have showed you what is to come, you will be left behind to minister to those who do not believe and you will guide them to me so that they maybe saved when I come". .....all i could do was say yes LORD i am your humble servant and i will do as YOU say for YOU are my LORD. i praise the LORDS name most high and i thank HIM for answering my prayer and for giving me a chance to minister HIS word to those who dont believe.........oak

What is your reaction to this dream? Does it make you feel that God has very, very special plans for you here on earth?

Hello all! God bless you!

It's wonderful believe in God and hope for his promises, 'coz they're truth.

Jesus loves you! sorry for my english, it isn't my native language, but i can say Jesus is the reason of my life for I accepted him im my heart 12 years ago. He's the unique!!!! Read I Peter 5.7

Rejoice in the Lord

Kisse & hugs

Very good English considering its not your native language!

Great post

ALL these objections--and the "documentary" itself--have been THOROUGHLY debunked. This is all very very old nonsense, that the devil's minions trot out periodically, but which has been answered by genuine scholars for ages on end.

A good starting place is to pick up Josh McDowell's classic: EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT.

I can give you stats, facts, historical data, etc, until the cows come home, and I have done so MANY TIMES, right here in this forum. Forgive me for not repeating myself just now, as it is Sunday, and I'm getting ready for Mass.

I'll come back later and respond more thoroughly if others have not yet taken up the task, as some here can so admirably do.

Agree here. You don't need to do much study at all to "defeat that toxic movie". The only reason the movie exists is to generate income from people who want to hear

what they want to hear. There's a market for it, so even though it's total trash, you can't really "defeat" something that people WANT to hear even its a complete

lie.

This is just a case of people heaping up teachers for themselves to tickle their itching ears, or turning aside to myths and fables...

Just because we don't see God does not mean he's not there.

It's not logical to deny God's existence. If you deny His existence, you are also saying that you have seen everything, heard everying, and know every fact and can say first-hand that there is no God; this does not work because this would make you omniscient, which would then make you God, so then God would exist.

Exactly.

Ohhh. As an ex-christian, I know the comfort that not having to think about it gives but to me it was just a false hope.

It's lazier to believe their isn't a God because then you excuse yourself from the obligation to do what's right as well as seek Him out. When you search for God, you will find Him. When you live for God He will bless you for it and show Himself to you. If you DON'T search for God, you're going to meet up with Him anyway, whether you wanted to or not.

"It's lazier to believe their isn't a God because then you excuse yourself from the obligation to do what's right as well as seek Him out."

So you're saying that without God you would stop doing the right thing? I don't need faith to make me do the good and charitable thing. I have never felt the urge to steal or kill or adulter even if I knew I could get away with it because there was no strict guideline that tells me not to. As a matter of fact I volunteer at a soup kitchen once a month, something most christions are supposed to do, but don't.

"I have never felt the hurge to steal or kill or adulter"... You've never once in your life hated, lusted, coveted, wanted to take something that wasn't yours,

been cruel to someone...

This seems to be a recurring issue that is never settled. Likewise, I'm sure it won't be settled here either.

A while back, on one of my previous posts, I was asked to provide examples of Biblical and scriptural contradictions. I failed to do so then. Sorry I'm so late with these. It takes a lot of time and research, but it cane be done.

Here

The way I see it, we have 3 choices:

1. The universe is self-existing and eternal

2. The universe is self-created

3. The universe was created by something outside of it that pre-dates it. That something is self-existing & eternal or was, itself, created

Do you believe there are any other choices?

#2 doesn't seem to be a rational choice. "Self-created" ? It[self], as in, already existing [created] to bring into existence?

#3 appears to be and infinite regress unless you remove the "was, itself, created" (because then who or what created the creator of the universe, and then who created that?)

#1 is believed by many, but is can neither be proven nor disproven...

Can you please advise me on this

Psalm 66v18 NLT = If i had not confessed the sin in my heart the Lord would not have listened

Isaiah 59v2 = Its your sins that have cut you off from God, because of your sins he has turned away and will not listen anymore.

Im living with a partner, not married, I dont go to church anymore just read my bible and go to bible classes. I know that if I dont repent my sins (move out or get married) I will go to hell as I am deliberately sinning. I know exactly what I have to do but its hard to make that choice (Romans 7v14). Romans 7v24 describes how I feel about this situation.

I pray to God for help in this situation but after coming across those verses in the bible I dont know if he listening to me?????

If you are truly in love then getting married would solve the problem... I know that's a huge decision and i'm not trying to trivialize the situation but it would certainly solve

the problem (you'd no longer be sinning)... Guess i'm not the best at advice here and really it's all up to Jesus since he knows perfectly your situation and what you should

do. It is hard to give advice on such a serious matter since only God can judge the heart and I can't. This is tough.

I will begin with a question:

Is it POSSIBLE that there is no supernatural being? I'm not saying that is what you believe, I am asking if it is -possible- that you are incorrect?

A man moved into a small town, at the edges of which was a small, broken down shack. He pondered about it. The residents of the community told

him that the place had been there for years, unoccupied. He moved into a residence right next door to the broken down old shack. Once in a while

he could've swore he saw some movement through the windows in the place. He talked to others about this but they just sort of laughed at him.

He had already been told noone had lived there for years. He thought perhaps he was seeing things, yet every so often there were slight clues

given that someone DID in fact live there. He could've even swore he saw a light flicker on and off during the night. He thought of going to

the place and knocking on the door, but that would be rediculous. Knocking on the door of a house where noone lives? I must be insane.

Still, he couldn't shake the feeling that there was the possibility someone was inside. Finally he got up enough courage to go and knock on

the door. Miraculously, a small old man answered. There was now no doubt whatsoever that the community was wrong. He'd personaly

MET the occupant and there's no way to deny that he was real. He asked the man why he never came out of the house. He said he really

loved the people in the town very much but there were serious problems. Years ago everyone knew him. He was the one who had the

entire built in the first place and he was the chief official there. The place was wonderful, too. Unfortunately some of the residents there

were quite jealous of his position and decided they'd rather take over the place and run in themseves. They shut him up in this old shack

and over time he was forgotten. The man went around telling everyone that they were wrong about the unoccupied status of the structure,

but the people scoffed at him, laughed at him. He INSISTED that he was right. They INSISTED that he was delusional. Who was he to

go around insisting that the entire community was wrong about something so OBVIOUS and well known. The house was empty. The people

really thought this guy was arrogant for insisting that he was 100% correct and there was no possible way he could be wrong, but how could

he deny that he was right when he'd MET the man?

What constitutes porn? Is a picture of a naked woman on the net any different then the same picture in a medical book?

Anytime the human body is used and expressed in such a way so as to induce lust in the receiver of the images, it's porn. There is a difference between appreciating

beauty... Nude art for instance, in my opinion, isn't "porn"... it's not disgusting raunchy filth designed to stir up lust in your spirit that will eventually consume and

destroy you. (Well, ok, im talking about classic type of art here, not some of the disgusting things we have today that we call "art")... Basically, the key element

is lust.

Has anyone seen the movie Requiem for a Dream? It's rated R, and certaintly isn't a "christian safe" movie, but it is an excellent one nonetheless. It shows how three young kids and a mother's lives change in 1 year through drug use, in different ways. It is EXTREMELY depressing and very vivid and ugly, but it shows how terrible drugs are for people, and how they can destroy everything one holds dear. I reccomend it for the strong of stomach, it seems like a perfect example of this situation made real. Truly sad

Well if it helps people stay off drugs then I guess it could be a good thing. I think there can be rated 'R' for REALITY, and rated 'R' RUBBISH. Haven't seen this one though

so I can't make a judgement on it

Yes, most everyone wants to learn the absolute truth. Depending on what you want to believe determines which text book you read. In either case, the reader will likely be convinced.

That's not a search for absolute truth. That's just looking for someone to tell you what you want to hear. If you want to search for truth, you will not turn a blind eye

to evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. You must, however, try to VERIFY everything that you read. You can't just pick up a book called The God

Who Was Never Ever There Even if He Appeared To You Right Now and Told You So, And He Can't Exist Just Trust Me On This I Know You Want to Hear This, and

then say that it's some sort of scholarly work. That's just tickling your ears.

This is called placebo effect.

People experience changes, because they sincerely believe, that they must experience a change.

The christianity per ce has little to do with this change - there are just as many personal testaments to entirely similar change after converting to Islam, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Judaism, Krishnaism, Paganism, Atheism, Agnosticism, Polytheism (any you`d like), etc.

In short, any philosophy/religion has very similar accounts of converting people experiencing life-altering epiphanies.

This leads one to conclude, that there is no specific tie with any particular religion, but rather, with psychological effect of placebo. Quite similar to seriously ill people being "miraculously" healed by sugar pills, which are presented to them as powerful medicine.

Modern medicine and pharmacology are garbage then, because if this is a placebo effect that these people have experienced, it's 100000x better than

what 'treatment programs' and drugs can do. The people are describing instant deliverance from addictions. I would suggest that people either accept

that it's God, or if you can't, then doctors ought to throw away lots and lots of prescriptions and dole out sugar pills because the placebo effect can

account for every one of thesse miraculous transformations.

I'm sure that SOME of what people experience, even Christians, is the placebo effect. You can't just throw out the baby with the bathwater though.

Within 25 million years, why does the frong look like an average frog? shouldn't it be less evolved?

Josh, this is what's called common sense. I don't know if we're allowed to use that in science anymore

And how about the prophecy that "the virgin shall be found with child". How could anyone know for certain that Mary was a virgin? (I'm not saying it's true or it isn't. I'm just pointing out that it can't be known that Mary was a virgin.) Some say virgin should simply be translated "young girl" and not necessarily in the way we currently think of virgin. However, there would be nothing remarkable about, "...and behold, a young girl will be pregnant..."

You say that you are not saying it's true or isn't yet you laugh. What purpose would it serve for this to be an untruth? God does not lie.

Many,many so-called prophecies are incredibly imprecise and vague. Not all have been fulfilled, for example, Jesus was not called "Immanuel" by Mary. The prophecy about the destruction of Tyre is often used to prove the Bible's "remarkable prophecy", but it was not at all fulfilled "100%", as in your criteria of prophecy. So, if it was a partial fulfillment, it is a false prophecy.

Much of science is all based on man's falliable theories, logic, thought etc...

Prophecy is still in the process so claiming it to be false is false in itself. We haven't seen the end yet and it is finished when "It is done." So sayeth the Lord.

Sorry if i'm quoting the wrong person here but for a response to the "virgin" issue...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

And how about the prophecy that "the virgin shall be found with child". How could anyone know for certain that Mary was a virgin? (I'm not saying it's true or it isn't. I'm just pointing out that it can't be known that Mary was a virgin.) Some say virgin should simply be translated "young girl" and not necessarily in the way we currently think of virgin. However, there would be nothing remarkable about, "...and behold, a young girl will be pregnant..."

You say that you are not saying it's true or isn't yet you laugh. What purpose would it serve for this to be an untruth? God does not lie.

Many,many so-called prophecies are incredibly imprecise and vague. Not all have been fulfilled, for example, Jesus was not called "Immanuel" by Mary. The prophecy about the destruction of Tyre is often used to prove the Bible's "remarkable prophecy", but it was not at all fulfilled "100%", as in your criteria of prophecy. So, if it was a partial fulfillment, it is a false prophecy.

Much of science is all based on man's falliable theories, logic, thought etc...

Prophecy is still in the process so claiming it to be false is false in itself. We haven't seen the end yet and it is finished when "It is done." So sayeth the Lord.

Sorry if i'm quoting the wrong person here but for a response to the "virgin" issue...

Fortunately, I already know how it originated.

Do you?

Did God create the first organism ex nihlo or from previously present compounds? What was the first genome? What was the first organism God created?

Interjecting God into the equation might make the explanation more palatable, but it still does not tell us anything about what physically happened.

I wasn't dealing with an over-specific definition of the word "how". "How" in the general sense. The words you're using in this sentence are all

recently invented and thus the argument cannot be answered because God doesn't speak about things in the "overly specific" sense. From

a scientific standpoint these questions seem important, but from a theological standpoint they're really not important at all.

Your question should have been "do you know EXACTLY how, according to modern science?"...

I have said many times that we don't yet know how life originated. We're trying to find out, and current hypotheses are the best explanations based on the available evidence.

Invoking divine intervention gets us nowhere closer to understanding the physical processes that led to the origin of life. If you'd like to use God to explain "why," please do, but the "how" is what I want to know.

Please keep in mind that just because we do not yet know, that does not mean we will never know.

Fortunately, I already know how it originated. But thank you for admitting that you don't know. The "how" would be hard for anyone to understand, if, God, being divine

is quite a bit more intelligent than we are, so the "how" may or may not ever be figured out. Those hypotheses are not good explanations at all, and I don't know what

available evidence you're referring to. I think people that believe abiogensis need to listen to Yockey's arguments because they are scientifically sound.

Why I weep for Thadius, Systenstrike 7, runner's high, youngidealist, Shiva82, Observer of dreams, SaturnV, hatsoff, and Seanport.

All Know The Truth but try their worst to outdo each other in mocking and in pushing Jesus away.

I see the end but still I cry to The Lord for Mercy and for Grace.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

But all a skeptic does is chooses to not believe in something without a great deal of clear evidence. People have the right to be a little skeptical in life, even before God. If choosing not to believe until a descent amount of evidence is shown is unacceptable then God's not worth the value of the reasonable skeptic.

This just breaks my heart!

I can hardly type for the tears!

Hosanna Lord, Hosanna!

(Luke 16:22-24)

[22] And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

[23] And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

[24] And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

(Luke 16:31)

[31] And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

And, then they get just one final look at our precious Lord Jesus.

(Revelation 20:11-15)

[11] And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

[12] And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

[13] And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

[14] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

[15] And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Love, Joe

I'll be the first to admit a scientific theory is what you stated if people will admit that abiogenesis is merely a hypothesis.

Abiogenesis isn't just one hypothesis-it's several different ones. There's plenty of argument out there as to whether RNA was formed before plasma membranes, whether metabolism originated along with the first genome, what conditions were present when life first emerged, and so forth. When you refer to Abiogenesis as a hypothesis, I'm almost tempted to ask which hypothesis you're referring to. They all have their evidence and their flaws, which is why there's still little consensus about the origins of life.

I subscribe largely to the "RNA world" model since RNA has been shown to autocatalyze in the laboratory, and many viruses have RNA-based genomes instead of DNA-based ones. But, I'll probably end up changing my mind in some way once more experiments are done on the matter.

Yeah, i've read about the "RNA world" a little bit. No matter how you try to justify abiogensis, however it is not a theory it is still a hypothesis even if there

are many. Bascially abiogensis is garbage. Evolution at least has some scientific evidence to back it up, but abiogensis is simply rediculous. You can't

get information, like DNA, from nothing. It's not possible. We should not throw out Information Theory or the Law of Biogensis because of biased views.

Even someone studied in evolutinoary biology would probably back me up if he's not biased. Scientists simply do not know how life could ever come from

non-life ...

Ummm.... Well this is quite awkward.

I must say that I find it quite necessary to come out of the Christian closet on this forum.

I just recently lost my faith. I had been having trouble with alot of things concerning faith. I watched a video today called "The God Who Wasn't There" and it was the same ole athiest attack on Christianity. Nothing I haven't seen. Well I was thinking while watching and realized that I have been ignoring these arguments, instead of trying to answer them. I would come up with fanciful imaginations that wouldn't get close to being an answer. And I was content....for a while.

I don't know what you have to do to get your thing changed to "nonbeliever" but I guess it should be done. I see no god, I feel no god, and I certainly can't smell one.

Runners High, I just wanted to tell you that you are the one who convinced me that god isn't real....just kidding....I wouldn't give you that much credit. But seriously, I lost faith. I'm kinda shaking right now, but I feel somewhat relieved. I was so blind...so blind...

Once again, I might be wrong about turning to agnostocism(or athiesm or whatever you wanna call it), but the evidence scale has tipped, actually it dropped, and god's side is way up in the air.

Who knows? Maybe I will be "born again" for the millionth time sometime in the near future. But I don't see it happening...of course, I didn't see it happening in the first place, but oh well.

Well, if you've lost your faith I really do hope you find it again. We have this funny notion that in today's society you just say a prayer, get all kinds of faith

and I think it's not quite that simple the way your average televanglist would tell you. Child-like faith is very difficult and we must also be intellectually honest

and evaluate arguments. We can't just stick our heads in the sand about everything that challenges our faith, however, we always need to do LOTS of research

before we would ever conclude that our faith is invalid. Christian testimonies are a good example of re-inforcing that God really can do miracles and he really

is there and there are just some things we can't explain.

God Bless.

Darwin was indeed a racist. (Nearly) all whites were back then. By your standards, we can compare most contemporaries of Darwin to be Hitler. Countless Christian Hitlers. Hitlers in the preisthood. Hitlers everywhere. What's worse, many of these people used the Bible to justify their racism. Slaveholders all over the antebellum South drew on Bible to "morally" justify their trade. Do you want to see some of their favorite passages?

I could go on, but I don't think it would be respectful to you or your faith. Just like it's pretty disrespectful of you to liken a dead man to Hitler, ignoring the fact most people in his society held such views. And it's even more ridiculous to use such insults to discredit his work in science.

Read up on your history. And show a little respect for the dead.

I will concede that bad Bible Study has been used to justify their racism/slavery. If they read what Jesus taught at all it should not have happened

that way. But we must also say that evolution has been used to justify racism. Hitler thought that the Jews were "pure ape" and I think he considered

black people to be "mostly apes"... Not that he had any proper understanding of evolution, he was, however, using an improper understanding of it

much like an improper use of the Bible.

The gaps are there not "because of" the naturalistic explanations, but because there's simply not enough information to draw a conclusion. To say that we don't know how species A might have evolved is not the same as conceding it could not have or did not evolve. We weigh the lack of evidence against the evidence we do have, and decide which tips the balance. Assigning any explanation (IE, ID) where the evidence is lacking is irresponsible from a scientific standpoint.

God, by very definition would not be considered nauturalistic and therefore the ONLY explanation is that there is some as-yet-to-be-discovered naturalistic explanation

because defining the "scientific method" or the "system of science" as that which can only deal with the natural, you "close the system" to any other explanation, so

naturalism of the gaps would kind of have to occur in a closed system which doesn't allow for any other explanation by the way the word "science" is defined.