Results 461 - 480 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
461 | communion: symbolic or something more? | 1 Cor 11:29 | Radioman2 | 85635 | ||
You write: "Let us never lose sight of the fact that no matter what doctrine one ascribes to, the absolute most important thing is one's spiritual walk and relationship with Jesus Christ." I hope you do not mean to say that you can believe anything you want to, as long as you believe in Jesus -- that it doesn't matter what doctrine you believe, as long as you're in a relationship with Christ. I hope that's not what you're saying because doctrine does matter. If one were to believe false, bad doctrine (teaching), that would have a negative impact on his spiritual walk and relationship. What we believe affects every area of our lives. |
||||||
462 | Will be be above or here on earth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 85625 | ||
Is there a pretribulation rapture? 'Pretribulationalism 'This view was first known as "the secret" or "any moment rapture." It is a relatively new position which was first taught by the founder of the Catholic Apostolic Church, Edward Irving, in the late 1820's. It was then picked up by Plymouth Brethren pastor John Nelson Darby, and he first preached on it in 1843. It came to America in the late 1800's . . . 'Pretribulationists teach that the return of Christ has been imminent since the days of the early church and that the church will be raptured sometime before the seventieth week begins. Although they have no Scripture that in so many words teaches it, they teach that there are no signs and the rapture could take place at any moment. The seventieth week of Daniel is therefore considered to be a seven-year period of God's judgmental "tribulation" (hence the term pretribulation). This position generally views the seventieth week as the day of the Lord's wrath from which the church is excluded.' 'Prewrath 'The Prewrath position teaches that the true church will be raptured when the great tribulation by Antichrist, inspired by Satan, is cut short by God's day-of-the-Lord wrath, which will occur between the sixth and seventh seals of Revelation, sometime during the second half of the seventieth week. The persecution associated with the great tribulation of Antichrist is viewed as the wrath of Satan, whereas the events that follow, beginning with the seventh seal, are considered the wrath of God. There is another term that is sometimes expressed, "historical premillennialism," which refers back to the teaching of the early church fathers before 325 A.D. who believed that the church would face the persecution of Antichrist and Christ would then reign for 1000 years upon the earth. With the exception of two, Origen and Clement of Alexandria, who were allegorist, they all taught this view. Prewrath is plainly and simply an expansion of this view which was biblical then and biblical now.' (www.solagroup.org/) |
||||||
463 | whats the reference to our day? | John 4:48 | Radioman2 | 85582 | ||
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:31 | ||||||
464 | Am I once and forever saved? | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85470 | ||
Revelation 2:4-5 does not say what you said it does. DAIRYLEADER5: You write: "But if youve left your first love,God, then you are no longer in Christ." What it actually SAYS is: Revelation 2 [4] Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. [5] Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. Note that the text says: "or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." "WILL REMOVE THY CANDLESTICK OUT OF HIS PLACE"; not "you are no longer in Christ." We know what the Bible means by what IT says -- not by what WE think it says. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
465 | Am I once and forever saved? | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85464 | ||
No, we are not once and forever saved. Isn't it a fact that our salvation is a roller coaster ride of being saved on Sunday and then losing it on Monday? Eternal life by definition is temporary, is it not? Isn't it a fact that Jesus is NOT able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by Him, seeing He does NOT ever live to make intercession for them? Isn't it a fact that my salvation depends on God AND me? And that if I mess up, I might lose it? Isn't it obvious that if there is no security in our salvation, we can never have any assurance of it? Where does it say in the Bible "if you've left your first love, God, then you are no longer in Christ"? Please show us the book, chapter and verse where the Bible says this. |
||||||
466 | Part 1 Does God talk to you personally? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85457 | ||
ad hominem - marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made Your ad hominem attack and bold assertions prove nothing. Also, you have not directly addressed any of the points made in my post, ID# 85420. I am not here to play dueling assertions. All you have done is deny what I posted, without refuting any of it. To refute mans "to PROVE wrong by argument or EVIDENCE." I find your arguments weak and your evidence non-existent. |
||||||
467 | Part 2 Does God talk to you personally? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85421 | ||
Part 2 Does God talk to you personally? "A Private Hot Line to God?" by Gregory Koukl 'Do we have biblical justification for the idea that one of the ways the Holy Spirit is active in our lives is that He, as a standard operational procedure, gives Christians personal and individual messages from God, contentful, propositional information like, "Marry that person"? Does the Bible teach that having a personal, live connection with God speaking to you is God's way for Christians? Does the Bible teach that this represents the optimal Christian life? You hear His voice and then you know what to do in your life? 'Is it the case that the Bible teaches that the Bible itself is not the only source of authoritative information about God, but rather, our subjective experience is also a source of authoritative information about God? And can we expect God to speak to us and fill in the gaps, as it were, on things the Bible does not address (e.g., the specific person I should marry)? 'My answer is, the Bible does not teach such a thing. It's ironic that so many Christians who hold to sola scriptura in debates with Roman Catholics, would also hold that they receive authoritative pronouncements from God. For goodness sake, at least the Roman Catholic Church relegates that only to the teaching magisterium of the church, and to the Pope when he speaks from the chair. 'But we have Protestants who hold to sola scriptura who then, in the next breath, speak about the authoritative messages they've received from God that they're obliged to follow. 'By the way, if you're in the habit of saying, "God told me to do..." thus and so, keep in mind that you're making the claim of a prophet, no less than any prophet of the Old Testament. The testing for a prophet was very severe. A prophet of the Old Testament never made that kind of claim unless he was willing to stake his life on it and die for the claim. In fact, if the claim wasn't true, that's just what happened. The prophet found himself under a pile of rocks. 'So Christians would be good to guard their mouths and not flippantly make proclamations that God has been speaking privately to them. Even the prophets of God did not make those claims with such a cavalier attitude. 'We ought not assume that maturity as a Christian means receiving daily authoritative revelations from God when the Bible itself does not give us the justification for believing that such a thing is a standard work and ministry of the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit does many things, but it doesn't teach that the Holy Spirit does that.' This is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm).' |
||||||
468 | Part 1 Does God talk to you personally? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Radioman2 | 85420 | ||
Part 1 Does God talk to you personally? "A Private Hot Line to God?" by Gregory Koukl 'Does God talk to you personally? Would you bet your life on it? Claiming to receive personal messages from God on a regular basis places subjective experience on the same level as Scripture, Greg argues. This is the claim of a prophet, and not even Old Testament prophets did so unless they were willing to die for the claim. 'I've made what I think is a telling observation about those who hold to a dual source of special revelation. Whenever an organization says, "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe our leadership is inspired," or "We believe the Bible is inspired plus we believe this other book of ours" (like the Book of Mormon, for example) "is inspired," the Bible always ends up taking the back seat instead of being on equal footing with these other sources of special revelation. 'I think most Christians will be comfortable with that assessment. This, though, raises a question about Evangelical claims to multiple sources of special revelation. For all our talk about sola Scriptura, many also hold that God speaks to them on a regular basis giving true information about Himself and specific directions for their lives. Their claim is, essentially, "I believe the Bible is a bona fide source of information and the Spirit also gives private information directly to me." The second step frequently follows the first: The personal, subjective sense of what a person thinks God is telling him trumps the objective Scripture. 'I was teaching from the Bible recently in a large Evangelical church here in Southern California, and I was publicly opposed by a woman who challenged my view not on the basis of a better interpretation of Scripture (she completely ignored my exegesis), but on the basis of what she was convinced the Holy Spirit had told her. She called me a heretic and said I was sinning because I was "analyzing and dissecting the Bible" instead of letting the Holy Spirit speak to me. My view was merely "man's interpretation." You'd be amazed at how often I run into that kind of response by otherwise orthodox Christians. 'Note that I have a very robust doctrine of the Holy Spirit. I'm charismatic in that I believe in the perpetuity of spiritual gifts and in energetic worship. The real question is-- and this is vital-- Are we justified in claiming that our personal, private, first-person, subjective experiences give us authoritative knowledge about God, or about what God wants us to do? 'If a woman said, "God told me to marry this man," that wouldn't be contrary to Scripture unless he was a non-Christian or already married. Even if he was a Christian, though, the statement begs a different question: Does Scripture give us the liberty to assign the authority of divine fiat to our subjective experiences? 'My answer is nowhere does the Bible give us that liberty. It does not enjoin us to assess our feelings and then judge whether they are a manifestation of the voice of God or not.' This is an excerpt from the article. To read more go to: (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/life/aprivate.htm). |
||||||
469 | Empty tomb, but witnesses didn't tell? | Mark 16:8 | Radioman2 | 85303 | ||
Contradictions in the New Testament? "It is discrepancies like the different versions of the women at the tomb that make me wonder whether all of the New Testament is inspired," writes one forum user. Internal Textual Contradictions In his book, "Jesus: The Evidence", British journalist Ian 'Wilson’s text is peppered throughout with casual references to internal contradictions in the New Testament. All of these “contradictions” (and hundreds more) have been answered by many excellent Bible scholars, both contemporary and in the past. I refer the interested reader especially to the 1874 classic An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley (reprinted by Baker), or to the recent Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer (Zondervan). 'One example Wilson gives of internal contradictions concerns the nativity of our Lord. Wilson lists three important “contradictions” between Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts: 1) In Matthew, the announcement of Jesus’ birth is given to Joseph; in Luke, it is given to Mary. 2) In Matthew, Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem and leave only when Herod begins the slaughter of the innocents; in Luke, Mary and Joseph leave their home in Nazareth and travel to Bethlehem for the census. 3) The genealogies in Matthew and Luke contain a number of different names; most difficult is the fact that in Matthew Joseph’s father is called Jacob, whereas in Luke his father is called Heli.7 Pages have been written by a variety of scholars answering the above objections, so I will comment here only briefly. '1) Luke does not state that the angel told Mary and that no one told Joseph. Matthew does not state that the angel told Joseph and that no one told Mary. In fact, Matthew assumes that Joseph already knew about Mary’s pregnancy before his dream, since he records Joseph as having already decided to divorce Mary quietly for her “indiscretion” before the angel explained to him the true nature of the conception. Far from contradicting each other, Matthew and Luke complement each other. '2) Matthew does not say that Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem before Jesus’ birth. He merely states that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that the family lived in a house there at the time the magi came. Luke begins his story earlier than does Matthew, explaining how Mary and Joseph came to be in Bethlehem for Jesus’ birth. While Luke gives more information about the time before Jesus’ birth, he does not mention the escape to Egypt after the birth. For this we have Matthew’s account. Again, far from contradicting each other, the two accounts complement each other. '3) The two genealogies of Jesus do not contradict each other. For something to be a contradiction, there cannot be any possible reconciliation. Several viable explanations are possible, such as this one suggested by Gleason L. Archer: 'Matthew 1:1-16 gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, who was himself a descendant of King David. As Joseph’s adopted Son, Jesus became his legal heir, so far as his inheritance was concerned.... 'Luke 3:23-28, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical line of Mary herself.... This seems to be implied by the wording of v. 23: “Jesus. . . being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph? Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph,. . . Mary. . . must of necessity have been the sole human parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of ancestors. Her genealogy is thereupon listed, starting with Heli, who was actually Joseph’s father-in-law, in contradistinction to Joseph’s own father, Jacob (Matt. 1:16.... Therefore Jesus was descended from David naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon.8 'We find, then, that each of the three “contradictions” raised by Wilson are not contradictions at all. The same is true of the other internal problems Wilson raises.' To read more go to: (http://www.equip.org/free/DJ025.htm) |
||||||
470 | Studying O.T. is creating problems. | Genesis | Radioman2 | 84910 | ||
"Several" apparent Bible contradictions? There are not merely "several" apparent Bible contradictions; instead, there are more than 101. (http://worthynews.com/apologetics/apol101part1.htm) In Genesis alone, there are at least 22 apparent contradictions. 'Genesis 6:19-20: 7:2-3, HOW MANY KINDS DID NOAH BRING INTO THE ARK, TWO OR SEVEN? 'Chapters 1 and 2, Don't Gen. 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts? '1:26, How many Gods are there, one or many? '3:9, Doesn't "Adam where are you?" show God didn't know something? '3:16, God multiplies the pain of women in child bearing. '3:22, How many Gods are there, one or many? '4:17, Where did Cain get his wife? '5:1-31, Did people really live hundreds of years according to Genesis? '5:24, Did anyone ascend into heaven before Jesus or not? '6:6,7, Does the Lord change or not? '7:1, Have all people sinned or not? '11:8-9, God is not the author of confusion, and the Tower of Babel. '17:1, Has anyone seen God or not? '18:1, Has anyone seen God or not? '22:1, Does God tempt people or not? '22:2, How many children did Abraham have, one or two? '37:28, Who sold Joseph, the Midianites or the Ishmaelites? '37:36, Who sold Joseph, the Midianites or the Ishmaelites? '38:9, God kills a man for spilling his seed on the ground. '39:1, Who sold Joseph, the Midianites or the Ishmaelites? '47:31, Was Joseph at the head of the bed or leaning on a staff? (www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm) To read more go to: (www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm) |
||||||
471 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Radioman2 | 84824 | ||
To read more go to: "Creation: Believe it or Not--Part 1" (www.gty.org/Broadcast/transcripts/90-208.htm)] There is no reason why Genesis 1 cannot be accurate. There are no "pitfalls" to believing the Bible over random chance theories. To read more go to: "Creation: Believe it or Not--Part 1" (www.gty.org/Broadcast/transcripts/90-208.htm)] |
||||||
472 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Radioman2 | 84817 | ||
"What does this text say to us, anyway?" - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Avoid adlibbing in Bible interpretation. Avoid free wheeling in Bible interpretation." - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Avoid superficial interpretation...avoid superficial interpretation. One of the common problems in interpreting the Bible is this little phrase, "This verse means to me...." so forth and so forth and so forth. Let me tell you something. It doesn't matter what it means to you, the question is what would it mean if you didn't live? What would it mean if you didn't exist? What does it mean period is the issue, not what does it mean to you. 'Sometimes you'll hear people get together and supposedly have a Bible study which is little more than a pooling of ignorance. People say, "Well, I look at this verse and I feel this verse is saying..." It doesn't matter what you feel. That has nothing to do with it. It's not a matter of how you feel about the verse, it's not a matter of what you think it means to you. Avoid adlibbing in Bible interpretation. Avoid free wheeling in Bible interpretation. Haphazard handling of God's Word. 'We all want to acknowledge the priesthood of the believer...yes, we all want to acknowledge that we have anointing from God, the Spirit of God who dwells within us and the Spirit of God who dwells within us is the teacher who teaches us. We all want to acknowledge that. But that is not justification for flippancy dealing with Scripture. That's why in 1 Timothy 5:17 it says, "The elders who work hard in the Scripture are worthy of double honor." It is hard work. 'Avoid superficial interpretation. Avoid "this means to me." That is not a statement that should preface any interpretation of Scripture. The question is, what does it mean if you don't exist? What did it mean before you were born? And what will mean it after you're dead? What does it mean to people who will never meet you? What does it mean period, is the issue' (www.gty.org). |
||||||
473 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Radioman2 | 84812 | ||
Creation: Believe it or Not "Understanding origins in the book of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. If Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 don't tell us the truth, then why should we believe anything else in the Bible? If it says in the New Testament that the Creator is our Redeemer, and if God is not the Creator, then maybe He's not the Redeemer either. If it tells us in 2 Peter that God Himself will bring about an instantaneous dissolution of the entire universe as we know it, that God in a moment will uncreate everything, then that has tremendous bearing upon His power to create...the same One who with a word can uncreate the universe is capable of creating it as quickly as He desires. "So what we believe about creation, what we believe about Genesis has implications all the way to the end of Scripture, implications with regard to the veracity and truthfulness of Scripture, implications as to the gospel and implications as to the end of human history all wrapped up in how we understand origins in the book of Genesis. The matter of origins then is absolutely critical to all human thinking. It becomes critical to how we conduct our lives as human beings. Without an understanding of origins, without a right understanding of origins, there is no way to comprehend ourselves. There is no way to understand humanity as to the purpose of our existence, and as to our destiny. If we cannot believe what Genesis says about origins, we are lost as to our purpose and our destiny. Whether this world and its life as we know it evolved by chance, without a cause, or was created by God has immense comprehensive implications for all of human life. (...) "Either you believe God did create the heavens and the earth or you believe He did not. Really those are the only two valid options you have. And if you believe that God did create the heavens and the earth, then you are left with the only record of that creation and that's Genesis 1 and you are bound to accept the text of Genesis 1 as the only appropriate and accurate description of that creative act. "So again I say, you're left really with two choices. You either believe Genesis or you don't. You either believe the Genesis account that God created the heavens and the earth, or you believe they somehow evolved out of random chance. "This is more than just a secondary issue. " [Excerpt from "Creation: Believe it or Not--Part 1" (www.gty.org/Broadcast/transcripts/90-208.htm)] |
||||||
474 | Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | Genesis | Radioman2 | 84810 | ||
Avoid allegorizing the Bible "Avoid spiritualizing or allegorizing the Bible. This is that which gives to the Bible some kind of mystical meaning. In other words, what is on the surface is not the meaning, but what is hidden becomes the meaning. This is very popular. Allegorizing means to say that the historical meaning is not the real meaning, and in fact may be nothing but a fabrication. The historical meaning is not the real meaning, the real meaning is the spiritual meaning hidden beneath the surface. "And once you say that something in the Bible is an allegory, that is, it is only a symbol of the reality, you have just made it impossible to know what that reality is because if that reality cannot be discerned through the normal understanding of language, how can it be discerned?" (from the radio message: "How to Study Your Bible: Interpretation" by John MacArthur on Grace to You broadcast) |
||||||
475 | Studying O.T. is creating problems. | Genesis | Radioman2 | 84809 | ||
"Several" apparent Bible contradictions? There are not merely "several" apparent Bible contradictions; instead, there are more than 101. (http://worthynews.com/apologetics/apol101part1.htm) In Genesis alone, there are at least 22 apparent contradictions. 'Genesis 6:19-20: 7:2-3, HOW MANY KINDS DID NOAH BRING INTO THE ARK, TWO OR SEVEN? 'Chapters 1 and 2, Don't Gen. 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts? '1:26, How many Gods are there, one or many? '3:9, Doesn't "Adam where are you?" show God didn't know something? '3:16, God multiplies the pain of women in child bearing. '3:22, How many Gods are there, one or many? '4:17, Where did Cain get his wife? '5:1-31, Did people really live hundreds of years according to Genesis? '5:24, Did anyone ascend into heaven before Jesus or not? '6:6,7, Does the Lord change or not? '7:1, Have all people sinned or not? '11:8-9, God is not the author of confusion, and the Tower of Babel. '17:1, Has anyone seen God or not? '18:1, Has anyone seen God or not? '22:1, Does God tempt people or not? '22:2, How many children did Abraham have, one or two? '37:28, Who sold Joseph, the Midianites or the Ishmaelites? '37:36, Who sold Joseph, the Midianites or the Ishmaelites? '38:9, God kills a man for spilling his seed on the ground. '39:1, Who sold Joseph, the Midianites or the Ishmaelites? '47:31, Was Joseph at the head of the bed or leaning on a staff? (www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm) To read more go to: (www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm) |
||||||
476 | Atheism means ‘no god.’ | Ps 14:1 | Radioman2 | 84807 | ||
Mistakes Christians make when dialoguing with Atheists - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Generally, you do not try to prove a negative. If I asked you to prove there wasn't an ice-cream factory on Jupiter, could you do it? Of course not. It isn't a fair request. In fact, it isn't even a good request." - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Most Christians mean well when they defend their faith. But, too often, many make fundamental errors when dialoguing with atheists. We need to make as few errors as possible, not simply to win an argument, but to help the atheist come to a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus. 'Following are common mistakes made by theists when dialoguing with atheists. 'Asking an atheist to prove there is no God 'Sometimes Christians will attempt to dismantle an atheist argument by demanding that the atheist prove there is no God. Well, to be fair, an atheist can no more prove there is no God than he can prove that there isn't an ice-cream factory on Jupiter. The problem does not lie with the atheist, but with the theist who demands such an impossible and illogical request. 'Generally, you do not try to prove a negative. If I asked you to prove there wasn't an ice-cream factory on Jupiter, could you do it? Of course not. It isn't a fair request. In fact, it isn't even a good request. Let's think about this idea of proving there is no God. 'First of all, how could an atheist prove there is no God? Can he know all things to know there is no God? Well, of course not. If he knew all things, he'd be God. Can he answer every bit of evidence raised in support of theism? Again no. He is not omniscient. There is simply too much information in the world for one person to know. 'Again, in argumentation you don't try to prove a negative. It’s the same thing as making something up and then asking a person to prove it doesn't exist -- like an ice-cream factory on Jupiter. 'Labeling Atheists 'Some Christians have labeled atheists as evil, stupid, devil-worshippers, or morally void. Though there may be some atheists who fit these categories (as would many in the general population), atheists are not evil, stupid, devil-worshipping degenerates with no morals. Many of them are fine citizens, honest, caring, loving, and patient. For a Christian, or anyone, to make a blanket statement about atheists in a derogatory manner is wrong. It is the same thing atheists sometimes do when they accuse Christians of being irrational, psychotic, or stupid. Such accusations have no place on either side of the argument of truth. 'Generally, atheists are not stupid. Many of them have thought through their position over a long period of time. Some were raised in religious homes, have seen what religion has to offer, and have rejected it. Of course, I think that atheists have drawn incorrect conclusions about God, but it doesn't mean they are dumb. Some atheists have presented very cogent arguments against the existence of God -- which need to be addressed -- and rest their eternity on their arguments. 'So, just because someone believes in God and encounters someone who doesn't, that does not mean that either side is stupid. Labeling and name-calling have no place in the discussion. ( . . .) 'Stating that Atheism is a religion 'Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion. A religion almost always is defined to include belief in a deity of some sort. Atheism is non-belief in a deity. It isn't necessarily a "belief that there is no God," but is not believing either way." 'To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to any effective communication. It would be like someone saying to a Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to torture people." The Christian would simply role his eyes and think that the person doesn't know what he's talking about. So, how much effective conversation could there be in either instance? Not much. ( . . . ) 'Never admitting when you are wrong 'Pride is a harmful thing. It caused the fall. It ruins marriages. It leads to anger and self-righteousness. It has no place in the Christian's life. Never admitting you are wrong is being prideful. If an atheist, or anyone, proves you wrong in something, be kind and courteous. Admit you made a mistake and go on. Everyone makes mistakes, even atheists. There is nothing wrong with admitting an error. It no more proves you are wrong about Christianity than being wrong about the color of a boat means boats don't exist. But, if you never admit when you are wrong, you will not be able to convince anyone in a discussion of your position. You will simply loose the respect of the one with whom you are debating.' (www.carm.org/atheism/christianmistakes.htm) ps141 |
||||||
477 | Studying O.T. is creating problems. | Genesis | Radioman2 | 84803 | ||
Atheism means ‘no god.’ Atheism 'The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most base terms means ‘no god.’ Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God and that He is knowable. I need to mention that most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists. Most consider themselves as non-theists. ' I've encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system while others say it is. Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which definition of atheism to use can be difficult. Following are some definitions offered by atheists. "An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god." "An atheist lacks belief in a god." "An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all." "An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry." "An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas." ' Whichever definition you go by, atheism denies God. ' There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak, with variations in between. A strong atheist actively believes and states that no God exists. They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god. Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with theists and try shoot holes in theistic beliefs. They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidences to denounce God's existence. ' Agnostic Atheists, as I call them, are those who deny God's existence based on an examination of evidence. Agnosticism means 'not knowing,' or 'no knowledge.' I call them agnostic because they state they have looked at the evidence and have concluded that there is no God. But, the interesting thing with them is that they say they are open to further evidence for God's existence. ' Weak atheists simply exercise no faith in God. The weak atheist might be better explained as a person who lacks belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a green lizard in a rocking chair on the moon; the subject simply isn't an issue and they don't believe or not believe it. ' Finally, there is a group of atheists that I call militant atheists. They are, fortunately, few in number. They are usually highly insulting and profoundly terse in their comments to theists, particularly Christians. I’ve encountered a few of them and they are vile, rude, and highly condescending. Their language is full of insults, profanity, and blasphemies. Basically, no meaningful conversation can be had with them at all. 'Two Main Types of Arguments from Atheists ' Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories. The first is the lack of evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence. The second is the category where they believe that the idea of God existing is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. To simplify, one says there isn't enough evidence to decide and the other says there is evidence contrary to God's existence. For those atheists who simply lack belief and exercise no energy in the discussion, neither category applies because they are not involved in the debate. ' A typical argument posed by an atheist to show why God does not exist is as follows: God is supposed to be all good and all powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all powerful then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist. 'Some Basic Tenets of Atheism ' Presuppositions are important to us all. We look at the world through them. The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too. Though there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt. They are listed below. Please note however, that not all atheists assert all of these tenets. The only absolute common one they hold to is that they do not believe in a God or gods. 'There is no God or devil. 'There is no supernatural realm. 'Miracles cannot occur. 'There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will. ' Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable. 'Man is material. 'Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact. 'Ethics and morals are relative.' (http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheism.htm) ps141 |
||||||
478 | Atheism means ‘no god.’ | Ps 14:1 | Radioman2 | 84722 | ||
Atheism means ‘no god.’ Atheism 'The word ‘atheism’ comes from the negative ‘a’ which means ‘no’ and ‘theos’ which means ‘god.’ Hence, atheism in the most base terms means ‘no god.’ Basically, atheism is the lack of belief in a god and/or the belief that there is no god. By contrast, theism is the belief that there is a God and that He is knowable. I need to mention that most atheists do not consider themselves anti-theists. Most consider themselves as non-theists. ' I've encountered many atheists who claim that atheism is not a belief system while others say it is. Since there is no official atheist organization, nailing down which definition of atheism to use can be difficult. Following are some definitions offered by atheists. "An atheist is someone who believes and/or knows there is no god." "An atheist lacks belief in a god." "An atheist exercises no faith in the concept of god at all." "An atheist is someone who is free from religious oppression and bigotry." "An atheist is someone who is a free-thinker, free from religion and its ideas." ' Whichever definition you go by, atheism denies God. ' There are two main categories of atheists: strong and weak, with variations in between. A strong atheist actively believes and states that no God exists. They expressly denounce the Christian God along with any other god. Strong atheists are usually more aggressive in their conversations with theists and try shoot holes in theistic beliefs. They like to use logic and anti-biblical evidences to denounce God's existence. ' Agnostic Atheists, as I call them, are those who deny God's existence based on an examination of evidence. Agnosticism means 'not knowing,' or 'no knowledge.' I call them agnostic because they state they have looked at the evidence and have concluded that there is no God. But, the interesting thing with them is that they say they are open further evidence for God's existence. ' Weak atheists simply exercise no faith in God. The weak atheist might be better explained as a person who lacks belief in God the way a person might lack belief that there is a green lizard in a rocking chair on the moon; the subject simply isn't an issue and they don't believe or not believe it. ' Finally, there is a group of atheists that I call militant atheists. They are, fortunately, few in number. They are usually highly insulting and profoundly terse in their comments to theists, particularly Christians. I’ve encountered a few of them and they are vile, rude, and highly condescending. Their language is full of insults, profanity, and blasphemies. Basically, no meaningful conversation can be had with them at all. 'Two Main Types of Arguments from Atheists ' Atheist positions seem to fall into two main categories. The first is the lack of evidence category where the atheist asserts that the supporting evidence isn't good enough for him to affirm God's existence. The second is the category where they believe that the idea of God existing is illogical and contrary to the evidence at hand. To simplify, one says there isn't enough evidence to decide and the other says there is evidence contrary to God's existence. For those atheists who simply lack belief and exercise no energy in the discussion, neither category applies because are not involved in the debate. ' A typical argument posed by an atheist to show why God does not exist is as follows: God is supposed to be all good and all powerful. Evil and suffering exist in the world. If God is all good he would not want evil and suffering to exist. If He is all powerful then He is able to remove all evil and suffering. Since evil and suffering exist, God is either not all good (which means he is not perfect and not God), or he is not all powerful (and limited in abilities and scope). Since either case shows God is not all good and powerful, then He does not exist. 'Some Basic Tenets of Atheism ' Presuppositions are important to us all. We look at the world through them. The atheist has a set of presuppositions, too. Though there is no definitive atheist organization that defines the absolutes of atheism, there are basic principles that atheists, as a whole, tend to adopt. They are listed below. Please note however, that not all atheists assert all of these tenets. The only absolute common one they hold to is that they do not believe in a God or gods. 'There is no God or devil. 'There is no supernatural realm. 'Miracles cannot occur. 'There is no such thing as sin as a violation of God's will. ' Generally, the universe is materialistic and measurable. 'Man is material. 'Generally, evolution is considered a scientific fact. 'Ethics and morals are relative (http://www.carm.org/atheism/atheism.htm) ps141 |
||||||
479 | Why are you attacking Christians? | 2 Tim 4:3 | Radioman2 | 84599 | ||
Asis: You have my forgiveness, my friend. I welcome you and your contributions to the forum. God bless you richly in all things. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
480 | Why are you attacking Christians? | 2 Tim 4:3 | Radioman2 | 84545 | ||
Why would I attack false teachers? NLT Ecclesiastes 12:12 But, my child, be warned: There is no end of opinions ready to be expressed. Studying them can go on forever and become very exhausting! AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 3:13 But wicked men and imposters will go on from bad to worse, deceiving and leading astray others and being deceived and led astray themselves. AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 4:3 For the time is coming when [people] will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, having ears itching [for something pleasing and gratifying], they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold, AMPLIFIED 2 Peter 2:1-3 BUT ALSO [in those days] there arose false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among yourselves, who will subtly and stealthily introduce heretical doctrines (destructive heresies), even denying and disowning the Master Who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their immoral ways and lascivious doings; because of them the true Way will be maligned and defamed. And in their covetousness (lust, greed) they will exploit you with false (cunning) arguments. From of old the sentence [of condemnation] for them has not been idle; their destruction (eternal misery) has not been asleep. NLT 1 John 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe everyone who claims to speak by the Spirit. You must test them to see if the spirit they have comes from God. For there are many false prophets in the world. NLT 2 John 1:10-11 If someone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth about Christ, don't invite him into your house or encourage him in any way. Anyone who encourages him becomes a partner in his evil work. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] Next > Last [40] >> |