pajarito

Even mother Theresa broke the moral law sometime in her life. Even she is guilty before a just God. Where does that leave you and me? By the way, I'm not trying to get you to join mine or anyone elses church and I don't want your money. Not really. God sent Jesus so that everyone might be bound to his life. Your only other option is death. He died to pay the fine for your lawlessness. You are deserving of punishment (like the rest of us) but He took the punishment upon Himself. Not without repentance (dying to self; complete turning away from sin) and trust in Jesus Christ (alone) for your salvation. Not without proper understanding of just how bad your nature really is and the wickedness that you are capable of. Not without being honest, contrite, and apologetic towards God alone. Making up your own understanding of God (one who fits your purpose) is called idolatry (2nd Commandment). Being born again is evidenced by the fruits of the spirit. If you were ever really born again, you would be growing in holiness becoming more and more like Christ every day of your life. It is a life changing event that does not go away. It’s not like becoming frustrated and changing denominations or something like that. Scripture says you have a wicked heart. Your conscience should bear witness to it also if you admit to yourself that you’ve ever lied, stolen, committed adultery (looked with lust), committed murder (anger without cause), coveted, etc. (broken God’s moral law).

All evolutionists have is a handful of "questionable" findings in this regard. There really should be a "mountain" of fossil evidence. I'd love to see it if you've got it.

Natural selection is working in exactly the opposite direction that you need it to in order to believe molecules to man evolution. Natural selection and mutation occurs. However, that doesn't help the cause of New Darwinian Evolution. The theory is flawed at at its onset. The capacity for much variation is built into the gene. The capacity to "evolve" into something else altogether is not. It is also not what we see in "observed" science. It exists only in the pictures of your textbook.

You can't lose money on every sale and expect to make it up on volume. Change happens all the time. That's not what's important. What "kind of change" is. This is not evidence of the kind of evolution they're after.

I don't have sin problem; that's the joy of being a heathen. Is that kind of like saying "I'm not an alcoholic as long as I don't go to meetings?"

What can any Hindu god do for your sin problem?

How are you defining what is a "born-again" Christian? In my case, it was "accepting Jesus as 'my Lord and personal saviour,'" reading the Bible twice cover-to-cover, going to pentecostal church on Sunday and singing and speaking in tongues, handing out tracts to strangers and sandwiches to the homeless in downtown Philly, 'witnessing' to those who didn't believe what I did, bible study during the week, praying very often...yada... I have no regrets about it; it was during a tough period in my life as a teenager while my parents were separated and at war with each other with me in the middle of it all, one in which I could have easily turned to drugs. Instead I turned to religion, and it served its purpose for a while, giving me hope in the midst of my misery at the time, until I started asking serious questions and not getting any logical answers that made sense. You can consider me a permanent "backslider." Jesus doesn’t need your “acceptance.” That would give you some of the credit. God gets all the credit. Your repentance and faith are required. Reading the Bible, going to church, witnessing, and feeding the poor are things one would do “if” they were saved but not “in order to be” saved. “Works” outside of Christ are like “filthy rags” in the eyes of God because He sees our wicked hearts. You lack genuine contrition for your sin. You also lack proper understanding that your sin is “exceedingly sinful” to God. For whatever reason you turned to “religion” in your youth, it wasn’t because you’d sinned against God and God alone. Any repentance you might have had was obviously horizontal in nature (e.g. sorrow for hurting others) and not vertical (e.g. sorrow for hurting God). You might have just wanted to experiment to see if this religion thing would make your life better or improve your relationship with your parents. It’s not about making your life better. It’s not about your self-esteem. It’s not about nice people to hang out with or a cool place to go. It’s about Jesus Christ and what He did for you on the cross. He paid the fine for your transgression in His life’s blood and He was the only one who ever could. That does you absolutely no good, however, unless you appropriate the gift. It’s like having a parachute on a plane that’s going to crash. It does you absolutely no good unless you put the parachute on before you jump from the plane. Despite some of the good things you did, you were probably never born again. Being “born again” is a radical experience. One who has truly repented produces the “things that accompany salvation” (Hebrews 6:9). They demonstrate the fruits of salvation/righteousness (e.g. love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, etc.; Galatians 5:22-23). If one is not “growing in holiness” and becoming more like Christ, he/she was probably never a Christian in the first place. They didn’t “backslide.” They never “slid forward” in the first place. Added: However, it is true that only God knows your heart. It's not for me or anyone else to say that a person is saved or not. It's just "if it quacks like a duck"....well....you know what I mean.

You can say whatever you want but that's just one more thing you'll have to account for when you die. Or not, if Hindus turn out to be right and you are wrong. Then you'll be in just as much trouble as he is. We should put the evidence for Brahman up next to the evidence for the Christian God and see which one is more reasonable.

You can say whatever you want but that's just one more thing you'll have to account for when you die.

I fully expect most people to react just like you did. The Bible says that the gospel message is very offensive and foolish to the world. If a Christian isn’t taking heat for speaking the truth, then he/she is failing in their task. From the perspective of the world, the message is shameful. It is so shameful and antagonizing that most Christians are afraid to proclaim it. They don’t want to be ridiculed and resented. Faithful Christians, however, are obligated to preach the whole gospel. This includes the reality of sin, judgment, punishment, hell, righteousness, justice as well as love, grace, and forgiveness. Most today only want to speak about the latter. Many, as a matter of fact, don’t even want to mention Jesus and the cross. They want to preach all-inclusive acceptance so as not to offend anyone. They want to turn church into a “country club” where people can just come and have fun. They want to build enormous activity centers in order to attract people into coming without putting the real emphasis on why they should be coming. That’s simply not the message. God wishes that none perish but that all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9). There is NO forgiveness without repentance. Without forgiveness, you stand in judgment and God’s wrath, not his love, abides on you. You are under the full weight of the Law (10 Commandments) which is clearly shown that none can live up to. Every day, you are storing up wrath which will be revealed on the Day of Wrath. The Law makes the message of the gospel make sense. It makes it reasonable. That’s what differentiates this from “hell-fire” preaching. The Law is a Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ whereby we are justified by faith (Galatians 3:24). It is the needle which prepares the way for the thread of the gospel. It is absolutely necessary, however offensive it may be. It doesn’t matter if a Christian NEVER sees a person respond to his/her message as long as he/she is presenting the gospel in the Biblical manner. The way Jesus himself did as well Peter, Paul, and others.

The church of believers. Those who have repented of their sin and put their trust in Jesus Christ for their salvation. Those who are saved.

How are you defining what is a "born-again" Christian?

There is really only one true church and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with any particular religion or denomination.

I agree. Peter is not "The Rock" and the Catholic church cannot trace their roots to that time. This was discussed earlier HERE.

I've got nothing against any of you personally. I don't even know you. I'm sure you'd be an interesting person to hang out with. I don't really care what you think of me or what I have to say. I also don't care if you think what I have to say is complete garbage. What we should all do here is discuss ideas. Not attack each other. If you bring up a topic, I may post an opposing view. I'll defend my stance. You'll defend yours. We can do all of that without directing insults at each other’s intelligence. If you don't agree with me, tell me why. I'll do the same. Maybe we can rationally come to a consensus. Maybe we can't. That's ok. We can still consider what is being discussed and agree to disagree.

John MacArthur sermon on Catholicism and the office of the Pope in 2 parts which was broadcast November 9, 2006 on Way of the Master Radio: PART 1 PART 2

I must have missed that, I've been away skydiving for a week and a half. I saw where you said you'd contacted them, but not their response - could you point me to it? Here's the page

I responded to your question. I actually went through the trouble of e-mailing AiG and the author of the book for clarification. I posted their respose.

I honestly try and do both. I answer questions but I also reference sources. Some of these topics are very challenging. There are some very smart people who have already addressed most of the issues. I couldn't say it any better than they already did. Which brings up a point. Most of these petty attacks are old and played out. Atheists really need some new material. If you brutally murdered someone with intent, the penalty will most likely either be life imprisonment or capital punishment. Am I condemning you by warning you of the crime and its punishment? Would I be rude in telling you so or would I be doing you a favor (if for some reason you didn't already know). It's the difference between being reasonable and unreasonable.

Belief is just the first step which leads one into experience. I "know" God exists and that His Word is true. It has impacted my life in a big way and I can see the change. I am solid in my belief. Nothing will ever change that. Also, there is no other book in antiquity with as much evidence to account for reliability.

***Why do we worship on Sunday instead of Saturday? In the Old Testament, God stated, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you," (Exodus 20:8-10, NASB). It was the custom of the Jews to come together on the Sabbath, which is Saturday, cease work, and worship God. Jesus went to the synagogue on Saturday to teach (Matt. 12:9, John 18:20) as did the apostle Paul (Acts 17:2; 18:4; ). So, if in the Old Testament we are commanded to keep the Sabbath and in the New Testament we see Jews, Jesus, and the apostles doing the same thing, then why do we worship on Sunday? First of all, of the 10 commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, only 9 of them were reinstituted by in the New Testament: (six in Matt. 19:18, murder, adultery, stealing, false witness, honor parents, and worshiping God; Rom. 13:9, coveting. Worshiping God properly covers the first three commandments) The one that was not reaffirmed was the one about the Sabbath. Instead, Jesus said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8). In creation God rested on the seventh day. But, since God is all powerful, He doesn’t get tired. He doesn’t need to take a break and rest. So, why did does it say that He rested? The reason is simple: Mark 2:27 says, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." In other words, God established the Sabbath as a rest for His people, not because He needed a break, but because we are mortal and need a time of rest, of focus on God. In this, our spirits and bodies are both renewed. The Old Testament system of Law required keeping the Sabbath as part of the overall moral, legal, and sacrificial system by which the Jewish people satisfied God’s requirements for behavior, government, and forgiveness of sins. The Sabbath was part of the Law in that sense. In order to "remain" in favor with God, you had to also keep the Sabbath. If it was not kept, then the person was in sin and would often be punished (Ezekiel 18:4; Rom. 6:23; Deut. 13:1-9; Num. 35:31; Lev. 20:2, etc.). But with Jesus’ atonement, we no longer are required to keep the Law. We are not under Law, but grace (Rom. 6:14-15). The Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus. He is our rest. We are not under obligation, by Law, to keep it and this goes for the Sabbath as well. It is not a requirement that we keep the Sabbath. If it were, then we would still be under the Law. But, we are not. Evidence of the Change of Days can be Seen in the NT Within the New Testament is ample evidence that the seventh day Sabbath is no longer a requirement. Rom. 14:5-6, "One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God." The entire section of Rom. 14:1-12 is worth careful study. Nevertheless, the instructions here are that individuals must be convinced in their own minds about which day they observe for the Lord. If the seventh day Sabbath were a requirement, then the choice would not be mans’, but God’s. Col. 2:16-17, "Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day— 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." Notice here that time sequence mentioned. A festival is yearly. A new moon is monthly. A Sabbath is weekly. No one is to judge in regard to this. The Sabbath is defined as a shadow, the reality is Jesus. Jesus is our Sabbath. Acts 20:7, "And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to depart the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight." The first day of the week is Sunday and this is the day the people gathered. This passage can easily be seen as the church meeting on Sunday. It has two important church functions within it: breaking bread (communion) and a message (preaching). Additionally, Luke did not use the Jewish system of counting days: sundown to sundown. He used the Roman system: midnight to midnight. This is a subtle point that shows the Jewish Sabbath system was not the one utilized by Luke. 1 Cor. 16:1-2, "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. 2 On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come." Notice here that Paul is directing the churches to meet on the first day of each week and put money aside. It would seem that this is tithing. So, the instructed time for the church to meet is Sunday. Is this an official worship day set up by the church? You decide. Rev. 1:10-11, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like the sound of a trumpet, 11saying, "Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea." The New Bible Dictionary says regarding the term, ‘The Lord’s Day’ in Revelation 1:10: "This is the first extant occurrence in Christian literature of heµ kyriakeµ heµmera. The adjectival construction suggests that it was a formal designation of the church’s worship day. As such it certainly appears early in the 2nd century (Ignatius, Epistle to the Magnesians, 1. 67). In many churches today, the term "The Lord’s Day" is used to designate Sunday, the same as it was in the second century. I hope this is evidence enough to show you that the Bible does not require that we worship on Saturday. If anything, we have the freedom (Rom. 14:1-12) to worship on the day that we believe we should. And, we no one should judge us in regard to the day we keep. We are free in Christ, not under law (Rom. 6:14).

It's late. I'll answer this tomorrow. I'd rather give a more thoughtful response. Later...

One is not born again and then...well...not anymore. When someone is born again, God changes their heart and gives them new desires and direction. He/she is a "new creature" in Christ. If that is not the case now for you....it never was in the first place.

What do you think the author's motive was? Do you think it was to glorify God or to ridicule Him? If it was the latter, then it was a violation of the 3rd Commandment and God is very offended by it. I'm sure God has a sense of humor but not regarding blasphemy. What God has revealed to us concerning his character is in scripture. I don’t presume to know anything more outside of that.