Fraught

You ARE wrong. Most atheists are not trying to convert everyone over to atheism. We are not evangelical atheists. Thats not what I said. Your not trying to convert me. You are only trying to take Christ out of Christmas, In God We Trust off the money, the The Ten Commandments off the courthouse wall, and the manger out of the public square. So please don't put words in my mouth. Thanks Rick yes were trying to take christmas out of the multi religous public squares..were trying to make our money constitutional, and put the constitution in court houses..not the ten commandments... OUr nation wasnt founded on christianity..most of famous founding fathers hated christianity and our nation in no small debt owes its existance to a french atheist where did you come up with that nonsense?

i hope you all will join me in watching this unfold. i was particularly struck by this quote from the article: how would this be 'termed rewriting of history'? either the words are there or they are not. the following is a good response, tho. let's have both, as befits a democracy. but do not suppress one over the other. how does this bill favor anyone? it is a recognition of something that exists, not a support of it. see the following:

this used to be considered a no-no topic here. one of the few conspiracy theories that actually turned out to be true. i have mentally and emotionally accepted it for some time now. i read somewhere that the goal for completion is 2010. most likely, it's a done deal.

There's only one small problem: you have changed the word "day" to "time". Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night. 2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. no. see the following: Daniel 7:25 'He will speak out against the Most High and wear down the saints of the Highest One, and he will intend to make alterations in times and in law; and they will be given into his hand for a time, times, and half a time. Revelation 12:14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent.

So defend it! The positions of "pre-, mid-, or, post-" TRIBULATION depend on there being a "seven years great tribulation." There is no mention of any "seven years great tribulation" in the Bible. All it takes is for you to find one verse to prove me wrong. When it's not written nobody (following Jesus) is under any obligation to believe it! How to implement the authority of Scripture: Confine your expression of faith to the actual words the Holy Spirit chose to make His revelation known. Through the use of concordances it can authoritatively be established whether something is written or not. The original language should be consulted to verify things of importance. i was actually addressing the pre-tribbers who have their own defense thread. i did not see a no-trib. you should start one.

this thread is supposed to be a defense of post-trib, i thought. no persons should be defending the other. here's my defense of the post-trib: assuming a pre-trib, we will be at the marriage supper with Christ. a time of celebration and rejoicing. we the bride rejoicing and also Christ, reunited with his bride. since His main goal was to save the world, would this be a good time to celebrate? not for me.

so am i. but not getting much input here, i guess.

hey, that sounds like me! we are incredibly lucky to have so many internet resources now that those skeptics out there can look anything up by keywords if they care to take the time.

i had a conversation similar to this last week. it seems contradictory doesn't it. on the one hand, be angry. on the other, sin not. i believe anger is only right when it has nothing to do with our own self-interest.

wonderful! thank you

this is beyond terrible. that some muslims who have been so horribly deceived would willingly die fighting their savior, whom they truly believe is the anti-christ. an appalling situation to say the least.

an excerpt from a book i ran across today called 'behold the beast': (especially note the part i have bolded) what say you? 1. (KJV) Daniel 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing [was] true, but the time appointed [was] long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision. You can Yahoo confirmation of the first year of Cyrus in Babylon to be 536 BC or the third year of Cyrus to be 533 BC Toward the end of this prophecy we read: (KVJ) Daniel 12:7 And I heard the man clothed in linen, which [was] upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that [it shall be] for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these [things] shall be finished. Jews - both Messianic and non-Messianic - translation of the Hebrew idiom "time, times and an half" is somewhat different than most of us Christians may have been taught. Below is the above verse from a version of the Tanach: Daniel 12:7. And I heard the man clad in linen, who was above the waters of the river, and he raised his right hand and his left hand to the heavens, and he swore by the Life of the world, that in the time of [two] times and a half, and when they have ended shattering the strength of the holy people, all these will end. Link to chabad.org (After all, what would Jews know about Hebrew idioms? :-) If a time is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a time: 2-1/2 "times" = 2500 years. Then 2500 - 533 = 1967 The restoration of the Jews to, and end of the Gentile control of, the holy city, Jerusalem. The end of the "shattering the strength of the holy people". Is this a one "time" wonder?

i'm doing better at memorizing scripture as yes, i believe it's important. even more important, imo, is reading the scripture and thereby getting to know God. in this way we may learn to discern both good and evil.

is this supposed to be irony? i believe it is this weird and twisted logic that prevents the evolutionary theory from being accepted as a common-sense conclusion.

something to consider: perhaps there are human beings that are not born of God. these are not children of God, they do not have the Spirit of God living inside of them. theoretically, they are all dead anyway and going about under the illusion of life. if this is true, it's lucky that God is so benevolent and will give everyone a chance to become a 'real, live boy'! ( recalling pinocchio)

Sorry, I didn't slander anyone's Savior, yours or mine. I made an accurate comment. The evidence for an old earth and for evolution is overwhelming. The evidence for 6 day creation, Noah's flood etc is non existent. As for HopesDaughter--she needs to learn some science before she posts in areas she does not understand. Atheists like you make us all look bad. Assuming I am an atheist, why do I make you look bad? Aside from your insulting tone and surliness? The oh so typial way you read apologetic forums and then find some Christian website to swoop in on and save everyone from their ignorance, as if you had that one special argument that would convince them. Personally the apologetics cliches are getting as annoying as the Christian ones. Generally it is the Christians who are trying to save me. I have only suggested that people have some basic understanding of the science before they start making claims. I am still waiting for Hope's Daughter to answer my questions based on her assertions. Seems to me not an unreasonable position to take. If that is surliness or, as we say in my family, tone abuse, I apologize. But I know more than the average bear about science in general and biology in particular and a pretty decent amount of theology as well. from reading her post, i didn't really see an assertion. she made no claims about her knowledge one way or the other. she asked you a question. which you did not answer.

i'm not sure about this one either. i feel more like a seed planter. many times i can just drop in a little something about God and i don't feel i need to elaborate much but i feel like the person will call it to mind later and someone else will be there to add a little water and eventually the Lord will reap the harvest. i do, however, look for opportunities to say straight out that Jesus Christ is my Lord and savior. i don't want to miss a chance to acknowledge Him !!

i remember being a new christian and being very concerned about doing the right things. luckily, i came to realize very soon that christianity is not a set of rules. it is a way of being. it is also very individualized. as God knows the very number of the hairs on our head, he absolutely knows what each of us needs at any given time. keep on studying his word, praying and fellowshipping. you will find yourself being led toward or away from certain things. what is right for one christian may be wrong for another and vice-versa. because you are so unique, only God knows just what you need to become the person the body needs just when it needs it. great post, by the way!

i'm doubting that's possible. only because i used to live in virginia beach (home of oceana, the largest navy airfield). all conversations must cease when one of those planes fly over and it was against the law for them to fly past 10 p.m. altho they occasionally did. i will ask my niece, tho. she works on planes in the air force.

Agreed, partially. There are groups of living organisms bearing resemblance that are taken as different species thanks to the essentially arbitrary nature of definitions and systematics. God said He created different kinds which do not necessarily correlate with our definition of species. That aspect alone can greatly undermine the overrated issue of observed speciation. Can you provide any online reference in this regard? Surely you have seen the evidence that humans and chimps are 98% the same in our DNA..well as you go back into the great ape family the fartheer away from chimps you get, the farther away from humans you get..now if you found a say worm..that had 98% DNA in common with a man..that would be a huge problem for evolution..but we have never found such a worm and infact it simply couldnt exist..because in order to have 98% of your DNA be the same as man..you would be very very very similar to man..just like chimps are using answers in genesis as a source? LOL *edit links* look at the link on the right labeled why medicine needs evolution or do some research on the best hope for curing aids..heres a hint..it is based 100% on darwin's natural selection hmmmmm . . . i can't remember where i read this, but some are now saying we are even more closely related to dogs. are not all creature of dna related? i bring this up only in the hopes that you will know right where to look for that fact.

i'll put my money where my mouth is, to coin a phrase. if it comes to using embryonic stem cells or my life? no thanks, it's time for me to go. i also did not know this about in vitro. interesting.

beyond the letter excerpts from the bible mentioned above, throughout the bible, marriage is meant to be a picture of the relationship between Jesus Christ and his people (christians). the husband always playing out the role of Christ and the wife portraying the church. the different facets of this relationship are described in just about every book of the bible. we start out with eve being adam's helpmate and go on to isaac having 2 wives, first the wrong one he was forced to have and then the right one that he loved. continuing on to esther, who married to save her people and ruth, a gentile, who after many trials, ended up married and lovingly cared for by boaz, a jewish man. not to mention one of the prophets who was commanded by God to marry a prostitute in order to prove a point to his people. these are just a few that i immediately recall.

I never said there was anything wrong attempting to understand what someone is saying that is not how the term "openmindedness" is typically used. Usually being "openminded" where these types of discussions are concerned means being open to the possibility that there are more than one way to God. Usually it is not athesists that are so bent making the "opendminded" argument as it is those of other relgions who seek to have us believe that their religions are on par with Christianity. Typically, what I see coming here (and I am speaking in a general sense) are arrogant athesists coming here with false, preconceived notions about Christians and can't even quote the Bible properly when they are making their case. They come to boards like this one looking for Christians they view as easy prey, who are not scientists who are mostly just regular people, not scholars. They make unrealistic demands of us, and then pretend they have won some type of victory because we did not have an answer to a unreasonable question that no one would possibly have an answer to. Frankly from what I have seen on this board, atheists are lousy debators. They frame our faith incorrectly, assign motives and values to us that we do not hold to and then that as platform for criticism. I understand your frustration; and were I go back through your second paragraph and replace the word 'Christians' with 'atheists,' you'd have a pretty good idea of how we get pidgenholed in debates, too. Your last comment - the mention of being assigned motives and values that one does not actually hold, and then being criticised for them - is a very accurate description of the vast bulk of my conversations with Christians about atheism. All atheism is, at the end of the day, is a lack of belief in all and any gods. Beyond that lack, it implies no adherence to a set moral, political, social, scientific or ethical philosophy - and yet in discussions pertaining to such diverse points as these, atheists are continually lumped together as a single herd. Atheism is dubbed a 'religion' or 'faith' by some Christians when, contextually, the notion is absurd: a single commonality of thought with no supporting moral/social framework does not religion make. It is widely assumed that all atheists accord with the theory of evolution; that we are all in favour of pre-marital sex, homosexuality and abortion; that we are irrevocably politically left wing; that we live spiritually empty lives (due to our lack of a relationship with God); that we are ignorant; and that we are, at core, amoral (because we do not have the Bible to guide us). maybe this is not the place, maybe it belongs in a new topic but i would love to ask you a question. understand me, i have no agenda in mind but i would like to know how you may mention being amoral in your description. if there is no God that upholds the good, then how can there even exist any such thing as morality. it seems to me there must be an overarching moral law in place in order to decide what is moral and what isn't. what human being would be able to decide what this law is supposed to be? if i imagine that all people are atheists, who decides what is moral and what isn't? would there be laws against lying or cheating or being selfish? what exactly is good and how do we know it's good. does it all come down to what's best for the continuation of society? what is the good of the continuation of society and which society anyway? american society, so that we can keep on riding the hamster wheel of working to live and living to work? sorry about the rant, but when i imagine all that, the questions just don't end for me.

Closemindedness is never justified. If you're right, then there's nothing to lose by being open-minded; and if you're wrong, there's everything to gain. Closemindedness can be quite justified. There are still those who believe the earth is flat and as result reject any notion that man has been to outerspace. Why would I need to be openminded toward them about their assertion that the earth is flat? There are lots of other issues about which closemindedness toward any other position is quite justified. I can afford to be closeminded where God is concerned, because I know Him, and He knows me. If you tried to convince me God does not exist, it would be analagous to me trying to convice your friends that you are just a figment of their overactive imagination. that doesnt mean that some people dont have friend who are 100% figments of their imagination..it just means you refuse to look at any ideas contrary to what you beleive..and doesnt make you or the people who have imaginary friends at 55..any less crazy are you saying that having an imaginary friend does not make someone crazy? i wouldn't use the word crazy but they would definitely be a little out of touch with reality. i don't see what this has to do with anything anyway unless you are insinuating that shiloh, myself and others have not looked at contrary ideas. which we certainly have in order to come to our decision.

even if i acknowledge your opinion that they are not the top 3, i stick by my stance; namely, that they are representative. the very fact that they are well known and publicized would ensure that. i.e. they must be getting wide readership. we do not know if they were chosen at random or purposefully. either way, my argument sticks that they are representative. (if there were no agreement among other atheists, they would not continue to maintain their following.) secondly, one would not be reasonable in saying that they have set out to stack the statistics in their favor. in fact, it is the very opposite.