But this is not about what I believe. It is about your beliefs.
You have a conviction about absolute Truth and specific faith. So in this case, if the other belief is false, it does not mater if you destroy it. They were wrong anyway
And I am asking ir you are prepared to put you immortal soul against that belief. Are you so certain that there is only one truth (and you have it), that you would risk eternal torment?
I know that I am not/
I stand by my beliefs, but not at the expense of others.
How do you believe in salvation when no one has eyewitnessed it…we only know because men claimed to have seen it in vision (Christ and, John in the book of Revelation)
Your argument there is one atheists would use. Thats a useless defense for Christianity. Now given you probably arent Christian, thats even more reason why the historical account in the bible is important. I can show you from history that many of the biblical historical records are true. It then is as simple as a balance of probsbilities equation for the rest. We do that every day ij scjence…the entire darwinian theory hinges on the exact same balance of probability from its assumptions.
The peoblem there Richard is highlighted in the phrase “leading other people astray”.
Poor theology = poor doctrine = wrong beliefs = leading other people astray.
On one occassion, the disciples tried to stop children from coming near christ…they tried to lead them away, he rebuked them saying suffer the little children to come unto me
A christians job is to take the gospel to all the world…not to waste the talent of communication given to us and sit in a cave with a tv remote!
The point is, which gospel are we taking to the world?
The bible very much warns us that there are two gospels…Christ warns about the impersonator at the end times “If someone says lo he is out in the desert, do not go there…” (which theology = which doctrine = which belief?)
Im not going to facilitate sidestepping…you people here are good at that.
Read the epistles of.peter… tell use here on this public forum which epistle, the chapter and verse where peter records he got his revelation.
What does Christ say in matthew 24 about Noahs flood
Do you agree that the bible concordance cross references for peters statement about noahs flood, Christs statement about noahs flood, these are the sameevent moses records in genesis? (Open your concordance online, post images of the cross references for all 3 accounts and show us it doesnt link all three)
Yu are declaring a right and wrong theology. which makes you in line for
There is only one Gospel. But that would mean defining what is essental and what is not. . SDAs have always been considered on the fringe of Christianity/ I would be careful if you ae gooing to define the essentail Gosppel if i were you/
I would say that the Bible warns about being lead astray, but it does not clai an alternative Gospe/ There is only one Gospel.
I would hesitate to tie any of those down r write them in stone. Faith is always personal. Your approach seems to have little lattitude.
I do not think that you do. You make assetions thaqt cannot be confirmed by observattion yet claim them to be true. You also claim to recognise only certain types of evidence, which causes problem when making that stetement.
Adam, not everyone conversing here necessarily identifies as Christian or theistic or religious. So trying to appeal to what you call “Christian responsibilities” doesn’t make sense. But you certainly can appeal to honesty - that is a value everyone here should agree on for the sake of civil and respectful discussion. And even among Christians here, a fair number of us have already learned that your understanding of how to read scripture is not something that other Christians can agree with and remain honest - so your ‘gotcha’ tests don’t carry much weight among biblically knowledgeable believers here either, much less skeptics who don’t claim your faith at all.
I think that we should consider that even intellectual honesty applies here…the trouble is, this forum exists soley because its founder, whilst researching the genome project became convinced there is a God.
So we cannot pretend this forum isnt here to promote Christianity.
Therefore, christian honestly is a vital fundamental principle here, because this is a christian forum, because its founder is christian.
God gives us a binary choice …tell me the bible dissagrees with me on that claim?
God told Moses and quite a number of patriarchs, other prophets and kings, “you are either for Me or against Me”
A non believer eho is sewrching here comes to these forums to talk Christianity…if all you are preaching here is science, then theres no gospel to be found in that. We have the gospel only because its recorded in the bible. If it wasnt for the biblical historical narrative, the christian story would be nothing more than a mythical fairytale amd that is why the answer to this question “Did God create life” is abaolutely yes.
God bent down close to Adam “and breathed the breath of.life into his nostrils…and he became a living soul.”
That is a very explicit historical statement. God didnt use a straw, didnt bluetooth it…its intimate, personal, physical. Adam would have woke up looking directly into his creators eyes and face, felt His touch…he would have smelled God.
There is nothing more amazing then the physical interraction with ones own creation using our senses. This nonsense biologos portrays about the wonder of crewrion from a pea soup…that isnt personal at all…its a statistic and its certai ly not the model the bible records…it records a personal God who from day one has always been right here alongside His creation intelligently interracting with it using those 5 senses we share.
It’s sad that you think there is a link between Roy’s statement and your response.
A rational response might have been, “What sort of evidence would you find useful?”
I can show you from history that many of the parts of books by Tom Clancy and John Grisham are true. That means nothing for the rest.
See, if you want to make a case that everything in a piece of literature is accurate because parts of it are historically accurate, you have to first show that it is a kind of literature where that is expected. All that can be shown from you you set forth is that the scriptures qualify as a set of historical novels – which is obvious to anyone who understands normal literature, which is why this sort of YEC argument gets laughed at and drives people from Christ.
No, it doesn’t: evolutionary theory rests on testable propositions.
By noting that there are no eyewitness accounts of the Noah story or Sodom and Gomorrah, that is what is being said.
I can’t find the original post this is from, but . . . .
Adam, where does the text say that? If it doesn’t (which is doesn’t) then you are adding to the scriptures.
BTW, the “whole point of the Bible” is Christ, not history.
Let me ask, given Neil Tysonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson isnt a christian, how do you suppose you would do that with him?
You know what the answer is going to be? Prove God exists!
You are living a delusion there St Roymond.
My aim here it to challenge that people either accept or become an atheist. Im in favour of either outcome even if its a christian who dumps the faith. The reason why im ok with that is because its biblical. Peole here who claim to be christiaj but dont really believe the history of the bible… God has repeated his views about that literally dozens of times throughout the bible…noahs flood, destruction of sodom and gomorah, the plagues on the egyptians, israelites captivity, christs statment about the destruction of the temple, the apostle johns statement about the church of laodocea in revelation.
It comes back to the same equation poor theology = poor doctrine = poor belief = error and leadingpeople astray.
Those who already have poor theology have already been lead astray…they are already atheist. This might sound redneck, however the reality is, redneck or not, its the truth of the matter.
Fortunately, salvation requires only faith that God is gracious enough to accpe thst Christ physical death on the cross for the wages of sin, that thst is sufficent to pay the debt owed to the law. The claim we are no longer in debt to the law, to the wages of sin…that is true only because someone else has paid the debt. However the final cancellation of that debt is a contract with a future end date…because we are all still here! The apostle Paul said he dies daily…so its not a once saved always saved contract…we have to acgually do more than just have faith…our faith requires action…just that the action itself is not what saves us…we cannot save ourselves as such.
So why do you invest so much energy in an endeavor that serves primarily to drive people from Christ?
The Bible doesn’t even make that assertion, despite Adam’s insistence.
I Peter: he says nothing about it.
II Peter: as regards the contents of his letters, he says nothing about it.
That the Flood was a surprise and that Noah entered the Ark. Other than that it’s a reference to a known story.
In the way you mean it? No. Peter doesn’t say the Flood was global, only that it happened to the civilized world (κόσμος, [COS-mos]). Christ only references it as having been a flood and that Noah entered the Ark.
Theology is not done by concordance, especially when using a translation.
Are you linking my interrwction here with a mancave and tv remote?
I doubt it.
its no different to what christ did…are you denying he said stuff like
You brood of vipers (to priests and pharasees)
Get behind me satan (to the disciple.peter)
Wrote the sins of the accusers of the women taken in adultery in the dirt
You seek to have this idea that there is a morality change in the new testament…that God was nt really the brute of the old testament. I think you do thst to try to explain away the historicity of the old testmanet because its at odds with secular science interpretwtion.
Well id suggest you go back and re read the story of ananias and saphira…because the Holy Spirit struck both down dead hours apart right there at Peters feet for lying to Him! (capital “h” is intentional because it was God who killed them not Peter)
If you feel you have the responsibility to believe something is true, then fine. However, that doesn’t make it evidence. Evidence should be demonstrable and independently verifiable. Evidence doesn’t take the form of “because I say so”.
If a Muslim told you you weren’t being honest because you refused to accept Muhammad as Allah’s prophet, what would be your response? What if he showed you verses in the Koran that clearly stated Muhammad was Allah’s prophet? Would you be dishonest for rejecting this clear evidence for Muhammad’s status as Allah’s prophet? Or is it evidence?
