jaybird18c

Apocalypse Now!

Guess so.

That doesn't even make sense. much like your mickey-mouse quoting ramblings.. What an ignorant statement.

That doesn't even make sense.

St. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards.....Wayne Grudem, Dr. Robert Reymond, John MacArthur, John Piper, Ravi Zacharias, R.C. Sproul, D. James Kennedy, Loraine Boettner, J.I. Packer, A.W. Pink, C.S. Lewis...

Experts in the field who actually study this stuff disagree wuth you.

No (James 2:19; "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.") One is saved by God's grace alone through faith alone (which He provides), the effect of which is demonstrated through repentance (also a gift).

- Have you always kept God first in your life (I assume not because you're an atheist)? - Have you ever esteemed something more than God (created an "idol")? - Have you ever taken the Lord's name in vain? - Have you always kept the Sabbath holy? - Have you always honored your Mother & Father? - Have you ever murdered (Jesus said that unjustified anger is equal to murder; He sees the intent of the heart & not just your actions)? - Have you ever taken something that didn't belong to you? - Have you ever looked with lust outside of marriage (considered adultery; again, He sees the intent of the heart)? - Have you ever lied? - Have you ever desired something that belonged to someone else (e.g. covet)? What does that say about your nature?

I fully support your decision not to have a baby.

Well, I guess he didn't do this: "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you-- unless indeed you fail the test?" (2 Corinthians 13:5) If he had, he might have realized that his "profession of faith" meant absolutely nothing. I can say I'm a duck. But if I don't naturally walk like a duck, quack like a duck, or swim like a duck...I'm probably not a duck. The guy you mentioned obviously did not possess the attributes of love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Almost every parable in the NT is concerned with illustrating the seperation of the sheep from the goats, the wheat from the tares, etc. Matthew 7 makes it clear that not everyone who claims to be Christian really is.

Depends on what one considers evolution to be. I'm going to have to say that anybody that has to parse it beyond the common definition is probably just looking for a way out. I'm going to have to say that anybody who doesn't parse it out beyond the common generic definition is just blissfully drinking the blue coolade.

What makes you think they don't? Same as makes you think Christians don't. I would think it very unlikely that a true believer in Christ would commit a crime such as bank robbery. Anyone, regardless of religion is capable of sinning against God, including the Christian. However, it is not in the Christian's new nature to do so. He would be acting in accordance with his old nature...but it would not manifest itself as a lifestyle. What I'm really talking about here is accountability. Everyone ultimately is accountable to God for what they have done in this lifetime regardless of which religion they adhere to. "It is appointed unto man once to die, then the judgment." Everyone stands guilty of breaking God's moral law and deserving of punishment. Infinite offense to a thrice holy God = infinite punishment (e.g. Hell). If you've ever in your life taken something that did not belong to you, God sees you as a thief. What are you going to do or say for yourself when you have to face God on Judgment Day?

Depends on what one considers evolution to be.

What makes you think they don't?

That’s not what I meant. What I was referring to is the fact that God sees your thought life and not just your actions. When you die, you will be judged according to His standard of righteousness and not societies or the person standing next to you. Religion has nothing to do with being good in the way you’re describing. Religion in and of itself can only lead to a form of self-righteousness which will be useless on the Day of Judgment. The born-again Christian who walks into a bank and decides not to rob it does not refrain primarily because it is against God’s law and he fears punishment (although, that is a very good reason not to). The born-again Christian doesn’t rob the bank because his nature has been changed, his conscience bears witness, and he desires to act more and more conformed to the image of Christ.

Here's the real problem: You don't want to believe. Because, if you did, then you'd be accountable to what it says. You'd be accountable to a God who has laws. You could no longer just do what you want with no consequences or accountability to anyone other than yourself. That goes against our nature (our fallen nature, that is). That's why the Bible says that we actively "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." As it is, you stand guilty before a thrice holy God and there are consequences for your actions either in this life or in eternity when you die. That is an inconvenient truth that someone would rather forget, ignore, or deny rather than face.

No serious examination of an ancient literary work is performed in the careless, non-contextual, broadstroke manner you seem to want to apply to the books of the Bible. The Bible is a collection of books and, taken together, is a progressive revelation of God's plan of salvation for His people throughout history. Context is everything. The laws, for example, do not all apply to us. Would you read a contemporary history of law describing the different laws of the major nations in the world and apply those specific to Russia to us? The Civil laws of the Nation of Israel, for example, only apply to the Nation of Israel. The purpose for the ceremonial type laws were fulfilled in Christ's work on the cross and the moral laws of God, of course, still apply to everyone today (not in the work-righteous sense but in the perfect righteous standard for salvation sense.)

Is There Really Evidence that Man Descended from the Apes? NOT a very good track record.

The Problem with Australopithecus sediba All depends on one's worldview.

I disagree with your premise ("given" inaccuracies, changes, mistranslations, we should distrust). Those might account for less than a percent of the whole, there is no evidence that any of it was done with intent to deceive, and none affects the fundamental doctrines of the faith. Also, the original manuscripts are inerrant, not necessarily everything in the KJV translation (that's not one of the versions, by the way, that I rely on for study). A more scholarly (word for word) translation into English would be the NAS or ESV. Besides, infallibility means that the Bible does not err in any of its affirmations. It does not mean that a KJV translator can’t make an error in usage or omission. But again, there is no evidence of any widespread translational dishonesty and those very few discrepancies account for a miniscule portion of the whole. In this way, the vast number of translations themselves gives much credibility to the accuracy of the Bible. The Bible is the most scrutinized work in history because of what’s at stake. It is trustworthy. I believe it was said that approximately 95% of the New Testament could be reproduced from the Dead Sea Scrolls alone. There is no other ancient work in existence with as much textual and historical evidence as the Bible.

Observational Science vs. Historical Science

So what we have is one group stating that they’re right and have a consensus while discounting the opposition and declaring them not to be qualified because they do not agree. That doesn’t sound very scientific. Those people are as qualified as you to speak on the subject. Their findings are based on presuppositions as are yours. Many of the things discussed are not provable based on experimentation. It is speculative, improvable, and grounded in the overall assumption that God does not exist….yet….presented as foundational truth. Answers Research Journal Of course, those who deny their own presupposition foundation and refuse to examine anything to the contrary will disapprove. The condescending commentary (moonbeams, etc.) is unnecessary and does nothing to disprove their stance. That’s what it really boils down to, doesn’t it? You want to live your life how you want. Once there “is” a God who created you and everything around you, then the realization that you are accountable to Him and subject to His laws comes front and center. It’s easier to rationalize Him out of the picture and come up with another explanation (any explanation but God). What you fail to admit is that your belief in atheistic evolution and naturalism is every bit as dogmatic as the religious person’s stance.

Wow. Have you seen an ultrasound?

Evidence of Horizontal Gene Transfer