Many passages in the New Testament of the Bible are confusing! Not all are cut and dry. Some are very mysterious! Everything in Revelations is a question mark, if you ask me.
Questions and answers... Welcome!
Seems the Bible is rather useless if it's contained with nothing but confusing verses. What good is it, then other than to start fights?
What good is it? It hints at a purpose for being here while here, how to get out of here, and a hint toward what is beyond here. Any clue is exiting to me.
Sorry, but I wouldn't build an entire worldview based on hints, I much rather prefer evidence and facts, like the ones that explain our universe and how it works.
Ehm, is anyone forcing you to accept anything religious?
As a side note, 'sometimes 'hints' may prove to be more valuable that facts and evidence and etc.
Yes, as a matter of fact, they are forcing me. These forums are filled with those discussions, the same ones we some day would hope you would join, but to little avail.
Like others have stated, I don't click those links, either.
Good that you noticed that I'm not one who forces anyone. But who exactly forced you?
Sorry, are you looking for names, dates, places? How is that going to help the discussion?
OK, I get it. Did you - yourself - ever force atheism on anyone on these forums?
I have no idea, how does one force a lack of belief? Perhaps, with education? Reason? Logic? To force one to use one's brain for thinking rather than accepting irrational beliefs?
You tell me.
So, you say that you have forced atheism on people?
Yes, in a certain way you have admitted that you did. Do you wish to differ?
I request you again to answer this question: Did anyone ever force religion on you?
Why are you getting irritated (because it feels as if you are) ?
You say that people have forced religion on you. I am asking if you ever forced atheism on them. Your latest reply reads as if you were admitting that you did force atheism on others. Besides, I have watched your activity on these forums, and I myself have witnessed that you have 'forced' (your definition) atheism on Christians and others.
Many would attest this fact.
The point being: You think you have been 'forced' by others, but you are unwilling to accept that you did the same thing to them ('forced' them).
Seems though, your feelings are betraying you.
Then, it is you who has decided I am forcing atheism on others, I myself said no such thing.
Appeal to popularity fallacy. Appeal to belief fallacy.
And yet, all I ever ask is for those who force their religious beliefs on others is to stop doing so because it is disrespectful, hypocritical and selfish.
EncephaloiDead, what makes you think that others have 'forced' religion on you?
You said this earlier, I quote: "Yes, as a matter of fact, they are forcing me. These forums are filled with those discussions".
In that regard, just about anything a man may say can be said to be confusing,especially as a written statement. One person may say it means one thing while another understands it differently depending upon their personal past experiences.
Not to mention that Yea BUT aspect.
There are two sides to every argument.
What may be true one day week or year may not apply a decade later.
When we read two statements which seem to be contradictory, We need to reinspect our interpretations of both and see if one or both of our interpretations might be incorrect.
I might tell one son he needs to spend more time looking for a job and less time taking his family fishing, playing etc. The other son needs to spend more time with his family and less time at work.
Never cross the street alone
Look both ways before crossing the street.
Stand in the middle of the street all day.
A two year old should NEVER cross the street alone.
A 12 year old can but be careful, look both ways before doing so. And that 26 year old should stand in the middle of the street all day if that is what it takes to feed his family.
Confusion and contradiction is easy to find when that is what we are looking for.
Well, the original title of this post was going to be: What Did Jesus Mean? I believe he was speaking to every person about the nature of reality and how each of us can tap into it. We have to admit the passages are confusing. We need to analyze them carefully in an objective manner, rather than subjective. We need to take into account the moreys of the time, and the fact that there were difficulties in translating his words from other languages.
And what is written in scripture as for what he did teach is but the tip of the iceberg. That is what I found confusing. Scripture says if everything he did and taught were written in books, the earth isn't big enough to hold them all (or something like that) yet there really isn't that much written concerning his teaching to his disciples. Maybe Jesus told them we didn't need to know everything?
Sometimes when we know too much about a thing, it takes all the fun out of it.
I don't think it was intended for anyone to understand everything.
Yes, the other force, satanic delusion, does not want us to know the truth. However, Jesus said, "Knock on the door and it shall be answered." (Whoever has questions about Reality will be answered.) The things he spoke of could not be understood by all. Thats why he would often add,
"He that hath ears to hear...
(- the spiritual readiness to accept certain knowledge.)
No confusing here at all . John the gospel writer has concluded his book giving the readers complete understanding of WHO this Jesus Christ from the Nazareth IS .
You are referring to John 21:25, " there are also many other things which Jesus did..." I will finish the verse later, after leading you into the introduction of the John'a gospel , chapter -1, " in the beginning (before all time ) was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
He was present originally with God.
All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being..."
Now the conclusion of the verse you think as confusing , ... (. Any others things which Jesus did )--IF THEY WERE WRITTEN DOWN ONE BY ONE, I think [John] that NOT EVEN THE WORLD ITSELF WOULD HOLD THE BOOKS THAT WOULD BE WRITTEN."
Does anyone in the history of mankind gets the idea what JESUS as the Eternal Word has put into being. How many books are written only concerning " evolution" constantly changing, constantly guessing and what about all universe, known and unknown galaxies ...?!
With the help of the Holy Spirit and mixed with faith any child of God won't have difficulty to understand this portion of the Scriptures or perhaps any other.
Much like your post, of which I can make no sense. Sorry, but I simply cannot see the connection between what you say here:
What may be true one day week or year may not apply a decade later.
When we read two statements which seem to be contradictory, We need to reinspect our interpretations of both and see if one or both of our interpretations might be incorrect.
... and the examples you offered? How is teaching a child to cross the street a contradiction? How can that be misinterpreted? I don't get it.
Perhaps it simply means that people become wiser with time.
You mean, for example, how scientists are learning more and more about the universe and how it works, and how the facts and evidence don't support the myths and superstitions of Scriptures, but instead are explaining reality for us?
Getting wiser might have many facets. One such facet might be the realization that scientists are human beings who are born at someone's will and that they die - at something's will. And that they are more helpless because they have lost their 'senses'.
i am sorry you don't get it.
When I was two years old I was told to NOT cross the street by my self because it was dangerous.
When I was 10, I was told it was OK to cross the street to go to the little grocery store (all by myself) to buy a loaf of bread. These are two contradictory statements made by my parents. Both of them were true statements.
Many seemingly contradictory statements found in scripture should be inspected in the same way.
I have two boys that when they were young, who have two different personalities.
One didn't like school, didn't study. but he wanted to help me with any kind of manual labor which I was involved.
Another who focused on his academics, played on the high school football team, went to collage and got his degrees in Medicine. Though he worked out at the at the gymnasium a lot, he didn't like manual labor very much.
My advice to these two different people often seemed to be contradicting in nature.
Many seemingly contradictions in scripture can be explained from this prospective.
And some of them are caused by having a wrong interpretation of one or the other OR both.
But, there's no real contradiction, the street and the traffic have not changed, they are still the same and are just as dangerous for a two year old as they are for a ninety-two year old, people get hit by cars at all ages, and they have been taught the very same things. The first statement is not true, because it is OK to cross a street even though it is dangerous. And, if a two year old could understand the difference between a Walk and Don't Walk signal, they too could safely cross the street, it would be OK.
Sure, and we can find contradictions in scriptures that are not the same as your example at all, they remain direct and distinct contradictions with no valid explanations.
No, they are not contradictory in nature, a contradiction is, a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another. There is nothing you want for one of your sons that you oppose of the other, you want all of those things; manual labor, academics, helping you, playing sports, going to college and the gymnasium... in other words, you simply want what's best for them and what will make them happy. You are not opposing something for one and not the other.
But, as you can see, it's not that difficult to deconstruct an example to see if there really is a contradiction or not.
Too bad if " you can make no sense"- as you said. Do you have the Holy Spirit which the heavenly Father gives freely to his children ? My last paragraph above is telling you:" With the help of the Holy Spirit and mixed with faith any child of God won't have difficulty to understand this portion of the Scriptures or perhaps any other." ( I knew that this would be coming .)
What is the Holy Spirit, exactly? Where does it reside in people? Are there symptoms, is it like having a disease or virus? You'll need to explain what that is in order for anyone to know if they have it.
Are you saying those who understand Scriptures are special?
As it stands, no one has ever been able to explain this alleged "Holy Spirit" they claim to possess, so it appears nothing more than a lame excuse for them not having to explain themselves in any way.
Holy Spirit is God's gift to His children ( Luke 11;13); Divine presence in a believer… God is the eternal, life giving, Spirit - The LIFE originator and sustainer ALL universe, omnipresent, to mankind revealed in the body of Jesus from Nazareth… HE resides in the spirit of man immediately after a person accept the LIVING WORD, (John 1:12.13) and become s born of God…
When we use the word ' spirit ' we know the we are dealing with invisible which isn't in the terms of substance - beyond eyesight , beyond natural visibility.
For any human to "explain" is simply to direct those asking the Scriptures in which there are hundred of references to gain explanations. Pointing to one of the references we are told " for in Him we live and move and have our being…" To me wouldn't be possible to explain "life" which most of the people know that the life is…
Your question if "those who understand Scripture are special?"- have affirmative answer in a sense , that by choosing to be follower of Christ Jesus, a believer/ the child of the Heavenly Father as a token for His love WE DO LOVE Him, and as we love him we do obey HIM and for such Jesus has promised " I will ask the Father and he will give you another Helper ( another me) to be with you forever, the Spirit of truth, whom true world can not receive because it neither sees him nor know him. You know him because he remains with you and is in you." (John 14:15- ( No lame excuse here, thank you very much) . Consequently , "we " do not have need, neither we would like to explain ourselves. It is always between you and your god what you would do as it is between me and my God , my choice.
Ah yes, in other words, the "non-existent".
Yes, I got the non-existent conclusion from Scriptures, as well.
Ah, so you don't need to explain yourselves, that's ever so convenient, isn't it?
Explaining myself would be irrelevant in any case. Even any of billion upon billion individuals would not contribute or diminish the eternal, existing truth of the Creator's love, grace and Dominion. Some of us are willing and bold enough to use and developed the gift of faith instead to neglect it and rob ourselves of joy of the living in His presence, favor security for long time.
Perhaps, that itself is an admission to prelude the irrelevance of the case itself because there are no reasonable or rational explanations?
Developing faith? How does one do that? Work towards giving up completely all forms of logic? Reject all facts and evidence in favor of pure, unadulterated guesswork and wishful thinking?
No. Simply put - you have no idea how that stuff (faith) works. If you want to know, if you are really curious - then respectfully request others (seniors) to clarify that for you.
Otherwise please stop speaking as if we owe an atheist any explanation for our hard-won knowledges.
Faith is a gift, lest any man should boast. (Eph 2:8)
Logic, reason, rationalizing, critical thinking, understanding etc. are not gifts, we all possess them as traits that have evolved in us over many generations.
So, if faith is a gift from God, and there are obviously many who don't use faith to rule their worldview, then that gift has not been bestowed upon everyone, but instead a select few. They must be the "special" people amongst us, to whom we are to believe every word they say, regardless of how much it flies in the face of logic, reason, etc.
But, of course, that special person must realize they cannot live in reality strictly using faith as their guide, as it will undoubtedly lead to constant misfortune.
With using faith, for example, a green light won't turn to red as you speed towards it and there are never any fatal collisions at intersections.
Stop telling people how to live their lives.
First of all: you no (very little) idea what faith really is and how it works out in real life. Respectfully request others to clarify that for you. Otherwise you have no right to ferret out people's faiths.
Beth, I'm replying to (replied) EncephaloiDead. My 'reply'-button ends here, unfortunately.
If it is helpful, you might want to click on Chronological on the top right of your screen. If that is not the issue, then you might want to only click on "post a reply" on the bottom right and not "reply" on an individual's post. That way you will not be responding to any one individual, but your text will stand alone and you can address it to whomever you wish.
- confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
- belief that is not based on proof.
- belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.
It would appear that by just referring to the definition of faith, it's very easy to see how that stuff works. And, from what I've read here, no believer has ever demonstrated their beliefs beyond these definitions.
This isn't like physics or baking a cake, where reality plainly shows us exactly what does work and how it works. Believers can make up anything they want using faith and never have to explain themselves or offer any proof.
That's how "that stuff" works.
True, you don't owe anyone any explanations for your "hard-won knowledges".
Btw, did you notice the word "knowledge" is curiously absent in the definition of faith?
It seems that you know nothing better than that when it comes to that stuff, which is faith.
Can I ask you a question? What does it matter to you if I have faith? Many Atheists are satisfied with a "live and let live" kind of attitude. Why do you think it is so vital to you that everyone believe as you do? This was a thread on scriptures that Kathryn found confusing, but of course, it is now once again a "defending your faith" thread. You are highly motivated, but why?
Because religious types keep trying to force their unconstitutional dogma into the Constitution.
Have you actually read the constitution? Not a lot of wiggle room there. It's been the way it is for hundreds of years... I don't think anyone's gonna change it without another civil war on their hands. Besides... a lot of the ppl who are constantly belittling our faith on these threads are English. Are they worried about the constitution too?
I have no problem whatsoever that you have faith.
But, some Christians are not satisfied with a "live and let live" kind of attitude and are constantly telling us what to believe and how to behave. Perhaps, those Christians could learn a thing or two from atheists?
You are putting words in my mouth. Nowhere did I ever say I want you or anyone else to believe as I believe. Pointing out the flaws, fallacies, the illogical and absurd has got nothing to do with your question.
Is that why you felt it necessary to post an argument on evolution with sources and quotes? And, your argument about credentials?
You are just as highly motivated. So what?
Of course, I completely understand that you eventually turn to the poster and begin talking about them rather than sticking to the posts, this has been your process for some time now, and probably why you get banned so many times, as you have admitted.
The reasons for that motivation might be found here: http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2603612
Your response doesn't have any reasonable meaning, Zelkiiro.
Besides, it's totally irrelevant to the current question, which is: Why do you atheists constantly 'disturb' us regarding our faith, when you don't even know what that word (faith) means?
12 Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbours; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompence be made thee.
13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:
14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
This seems clear enough, doesn't it?
But, when you look carefully, Jesus is really saying, invite people to dinner with no expectation of compensation from them, but rather from God.
This is very interesting to me. We always think about compensation… it is human nature.
It seems Jesus teaches how to get beyond human nature!
No, it very clear. Don't invite people over to dinner that will feel obligated to invite you over, instead invite the poor and homeless over as they can't compensate you so the lord will.
Any of you Christians inviting the poor and homeless over to dinner?
I'm especially fond of poor and homeless people. Where I went to college they had a homeless shelter nearby (eventually moved it because they didn't think it safe for the students), so we had a lot of homeless people wandering around with us. I enjoyed them. I used to go swing with a homeless man in the park (still enjoy swinging these days), but it bothered people. Had the police telling me I shouldn't be around homeless people because it wasn't safe. Yet God has always protected me.
I am assuming you mean swing dancing or do you mean swing on a swing set?
You have to be careful what you say around here.
I mean swing on a swing set. It's actually fun and good exercise for your stomach muscles (especially if you do it for half an hour or so)! I used to go swing in the park there, and this homeless man would come join me - the nicest man who would laugh and say how much fun swinging was, which he hadn't done since childhood. But it made the police uncomfortable.
"....but rather from God....."
Could this mean that within your self, you know you will have done the right thing. This, ideally, will not go to the extent of being proud, self-congratulatory, but just that warm feeling of having been kind to others less fortunate than yourself. For me, there would be no exterior god looking down on me to confirm that I had "obeyed him."
This is just another point of view, probably not in line with the understanding of most people.
That verse is from Luke. God was saying don't invite rich folks and neighbors over to bless them with a feast, b/c they will be sure to return the favor. What have you given... what sacrifice have you made in the name of love, when you know they will give the gift right back?
He's saying, instead, invite the poor, the ill, the disabled... invite those who have nothing to offer in return. This is kind, it is loving and this pleases Him.
This is very confusing: "The light of the body is the eye. Therefore when thine eye is single thy whole body also is full of light. But when thine eye is evil, thy body is also full of darkness. Take heed, therefore, that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body therefore be of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light."
The light of the body comes from your soul. When you focus your attention on the soul, (which is energy) your whole body will have energy. But when your attention is pulled away from the soul, your body will not have energy. Therefore focus on the source of your energy to have energy flowing throughout your body. When you do this, your source of energy is not shut down and you will be of vibrant robust health and energy.
I think He is instructing us on how to be healthy through the right use of willpower.
Any other guesses are welcome!
I believe this is talking about how the eye estimates what it sees. It's like a translator, if you will. You have to estimate not only what you are seeing, as in good and evil, truth and lies, you have to receive in you what is good. You have to receive the light, and understand it for your body to receive the light. If your eye only lets in partial truth, partial light... or none at all, your soul will be withered. If you allow the full light, the full truth, your soul will flourish.
I agree, the eye is that part of you which perceives.
A single minded focus upon what is good will bring in light. But what is "light' and how does the soul benefit?
...oh, so truth = light?
The soul benefits from knowing the truth, I would agree,
Q. - what is " truth?"
Truth has the most simple definition. It is the lack of falsehood and the presence of that which is absolute. Opinions do not enter in. Theories do not enter in. It is absolute. I believe that God is absolute truth, as he is absolute love. Though I have no doubt, my faith cannot change what is true. All truth will be revealed.
1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light.
This is not clear to me. Is it to you, Beth?
"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
The first one is referring to how things appear if you looked thru a clouded or distorted glass. What we understand of God, while we are here on earth is an incomplete picture, but He promises that when we meet Him in eternity, that we will see Him and understand as easily as He sees and understands our hearts now.
"For nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light."
The second is actually talking about dark things and sins that men try to keep hidden... It is a warning that *all* things will be revealed.
How do we make it to eternity?
How are "the sins kept secret" revealed?
Confusing isn't it?
I do not find it confusing, but then I believe the bible is true. So when you put all the verses together and read them as a whole, they make a complete story with more layers than most will grasp in this lifetime... a worthy pursuit.
"Thomas said to Him, "Lord, we do not know where You are going, how do we know the way?" Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him.""
Sins are revealed here on earth... ask Clinton... or anyone you know. They are also revealed at the great throne judgement.
We can know Jesus thru the reading of the word, prayer, and sitting under good teachers and mentors.
- where are good teachers and mentors found?? Is reading the Bible on my own enough to get me into eternity?
I could suggest churches in your area that you could visit. I personally would pray and ask God to lead me as there are a lot of good churches and some maybe a little off track. I would want to end up at the one He most wanted me to be a part of. Mentors and teachers are found everywhere. You just need to make sure the ppl you trust are lined up with what the Bible is teaching.
As far as reading the bible getting you into Heaven... Satan might very well know all scripture... I don't know, but I do know reading a book cannot save you. That would be like saying memorizing a Science book makes you a scientist. The word of God is alive and it must change you... it must transform your heart until God's desires are your desires and you live them out in love. That is making him the Lord of your life... loving Him above all else and obeying His word... giving yourself over to Him to be led by Him.
But how do you contact God. You mentioned heart. How does one get in touch with God through the heart? What would a preacher or mentor tell me about that? Does Jesus himself mention how?
Ps 145 17-19
The LORD is righteous in all His ways And kind in all His deeds. The LORD is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth. He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He will also hear their cry and will save them.…
You reach out to Him the same way you reach out to all of us... you speak to us and you allow us to respond.
Answer me when I call, O God of my righteousness; Thou hast set me at large when I was in distress: Have mercy upon me, and hear my prayer.
The disciples were used to reciting old testament prayers, but when they saw how Christ prayed to his Father, so connected and in tune, they asked him to teach them how to pray... he told them how.
Mt 6 5-15
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
"How do we make it to eternity" - by putting our faith in Jesus Christ, who has already fully paid our sin debt and has made the way of reconciliation with the Father; thereby we are accepting the gift of eternal life that is offered to all.
"How are the sins kept secret revealed?" When God judges the whole earth, all the secret things (those not known to anyone but ourselves, the motives of our actions, etc.) will all be revealed by the One who knows our hearts and knows all things.
First of all, an off topic comment. I really like your new profile picture, looks great.
Secondly, the definition of "truth" is: that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality... a fact or belief that is accepted as true. It seems as though your definition aligns with a ...belief that is accepted as true. but certainly doesn't appear to align with fact or reality.
Theories do indeed align with reality considering that theories are a collection of facts that explain how reality works. On such theory, "Relativity" teaches us that how most things work in the universe are relative to each other and not necessarily absolute.
And, science is revealing that truth.
1) Thank you.
2) Your theory remains unproven or there would be no religion.
Sure, there is religion, because there is still ignorance and indoctrination.
If by theory, you mean Relativity, yes, it has indeed been verified to very accurate measurements.
I am not an ignorant person, but I forgive you for calling me that and I'll just go ahead and throw forgiveness in there for all the other people of faith, assuming that they are living out their faith.
I was basically talking about evolution. I'm sure we would agree that quite a bit of science is fact. It is that theory in particular that is not proven... although there are those of course who believe God might have used the theory of evolution to bring the world into existence... either way, it is theory none the less.
Excuse me? Where did I call you ignorant? Show me? I don't need forgiveness where none is required, thank you very much.
To my understanding, that is a topic you are not well informed, correct?
Yes, hence the nature of science, it deals with facts.
Since you're making that claim, could you please show how it is not proven? What are your refutations?
Evolution doesn't need god in order for it to work, quite the contrary, in fact. To state that a god used the theory of evolution is as valid as saying Bozo the Clown used the theory of evolution.
Prodio: "Did you - yourself - ever force atheism on anyone on these forums?"
EncephaloiDead: "I have no idea, how does one force a lack of belief? Perhaps, with education? Reason? Logic? To force one to use one's brain for thinking rather than accepting irrational beliefs?"
Sorry, I don't click those links. Unless you actually have something to say, those types of posts will be ignored.
So when you say, "Sure, there is religion, because there is still ignorance and indoctrination." you are not saying that those who are believers have faith b/c they are ignorant? Maybe you meant something else.
"The simplest cell requires hundreds of genes, numerous complex biological machines and biochemical pathways, and a fully functional genetic code in order to survive. Darwinian evolution - blind natural selection acting on random mutations - has failed to provide Darwinian explanations for how basic cellular biochemistry might have evolved. Five years after Behe published Darwin's Black Box, biochemist Franklin Harold stated an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
Even the center for Science and Culture says that neo Darwinism has problems.
Ask him/her about creating an atom from scratch, instead. That is a more fundamental question.
Ah yes, Behe and the Discovery organization. Do you even know what they're talking about? Do you even know anything about evolution?
Many others do, that's why they know Behe and the Discovery folks have no idea what they're talking about. They're silly claims of irreducible complexity have been laughed at as childish. They have been refuted with peer reviewed papers on their ideas of intelligent design, easily.
You should realize that evolution is a fact and that only a very tiny minority of scientific illiterate folks still don't get it and still believe in creationism/intelligent design, and that tiny minority gets tinier all the time.
That is the most condescending thing I think I have ever read on these threads... but I forgive you once again.
Then we have Wilderness's quote: "The interminable cry of the theist, I think. "I/everyone is ignorant of (fill in the blank) so there has to be a god". It just doesn't work - ignorance is not a reason to postulate a god, let alone decide that there IS one and that everyone should do what you think that god wants of them."
I forgive you too Wilderness... and now I will take my leave as I don't want to spend my day getting my toes stepped on... (maybe that's why GA thinks they're crooked.)
And, I apologize for that condescending question. But, i do think those who really don't understand evolution are the ones who can't seem to accept it. It's really not that difficult to understand the facts once you get a handle on the postulates and requirements, primarily two of them, natural selection and diversity of species. That's about it.
Evolution, that is micro-evolution, is a fact. The THEORY OF EVOLUTION is just that - THEORY!
At worst the theory of evolution is grossly misleading and full of falsehood; at best it shows you nothing but the process of creation.
Even if we were to consider that the theory of evolution was error free (which most of us do not), still the claims that the process of evolution nullifies the existence of God is like claiming that if you could discover how the various paint colors, brushes and tools come together to form a beautiful painting, that your explanation of such has now nullified the need for a human hand behind that now "understood" painting!
Yes, which means it is a collection of facts that explains a phenomena, that is why it is called a theory.
Yes, just like Behe and the Discovery folks, you too have no idea what you're talking about.
If you actually understand evolution, which I know you don't, you would be able to list any errors and show why they're errors, but I know you can do no such thing, which is why your claims are pointless and futile. The vast majority of people on the planet who have taken the time to understand evolution agree with it, which includes the the last couple of Popes and Bishops of Canterbury, two of the highest seats in the Catholic Church.
If we stop with the simple facts, then okay, because "evolution" in the following definition contains much truth: "Evolution is a scientific theory that essentially states species change over time. There are many different ways species change, but most of them are based on the idea of Natural Selection. The Theory of Evolution through Natural Selection was the first scientific theory that put together evidence of change through time as well as a mechanism for how it happens." We're not arguing against species changing over time, or the process of natural selection.
But when you really look at Darwin's Theory of Evolution and related theories of our day, there are all sorts of assumptions and inferences, and good science is not made up of assumptions and inferences.
Whether or not the theories have truths within them, as soon as they attempt to nullify the hand of the Creator and say all these things could just happen without direction and design, then they've made ludicrous, nonsensical, even IMPOSSIBLE claims (no matter if infinity were given it to just happen). Those who claim that such things can happen strictly on their own without any guidance or design demonstrate limited knowledge and understanding of the universe and all that is within the universe.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Natural Selection
While Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a relatively young archetype, the evolutionary worldview itself is as old as antiquity. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaximander postulated the development of life from non-life and the evolutionary descent of man from animal. Charles Darwin simply brought something new to the old philosophy -- a plausible mechanism called "natural selection." Natural selection acts to preserve and accumulate minor advantageous genetic mutations. Suppose a member of a species developed a functional advantage (it grew wings and learned to fly). Its offspring would inherit that advantage and pass it on to their offspring. The inferior (disadvantaged) members of the same species would gradually die out, leaving only the superior (advantaged) members of the species. Natural selection is the preservation of a functional advantage that enables a species to compete better in the wild. Natural selection is the naturalistic equivalent to domestic breeding. Over the centuries, human breeders have produced dramatic changes in domestic animal populations by selecting individuals to breed. Breeders eliminate undesirable traits gradually over time. Similarly, natural selection eliminates inferior species gradually over time.
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - Slowly But Surely...
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a slow gradual process. Darwin wrote, "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps."  Thus, Darwin conceded that, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."  Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral.  Thus, such a system could not have evolved slowly, piece by piece. The common mousetrap is an everyday non-biological example of irreducible complexity. It is composed of five basic parts: a catch (to hold the bait), a powerful spring, a thin rod called "the hammer," a holding bar to secure the hammer in place, and a platform to mount the trap. If any one of these parts is missing, the mechanism will not work. Each individual part is integral. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. 
Darwin's Theory of Evolution - A Theory In Crisis
Darwin's Theory of Evolution is a theory in crisis in light of the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years. We now know that there are in fact tens of thousands of irreducibly complex systems on the cellular level. Specified complexity pervades the microscopic biological world. Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world." 
And we don't need a microscope to observe irreducible complexity. The eye, the ear and the heart are all examples of irreducible complexity, though they were not recognized as such in Darwin's day. Nevertheless, Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." 
- See more at: http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution. … w9O4W.dpuf
Thank you for cutting and pasting that for us. It's all very wonderful and inspiring. Darwin was an intellectually honest man.
Now will you please be intellectually honest and admit that the god you imagine in your mind is only a theory that you work with, not proven?
(Factually now it is 2.40am and I am tired, so theoretically I will imagine going back to sleep. Have a good day every one. The planet turns regardless )
I could have provided the link for that part, as many of you do, but I personally have reservations about opening links. Anyway, it's the same idea (and the page where it could be found was given), so not sure why the sarcastic tone about it.
God does not fit into the category of theory, though I understand he is "unproven" and unknown to those who have not yet met him. Since he is by nature not amenable to the guidelines and rules of theory - he will not be tested or observed except by faith - we cannot generally expect to act upon the "idea" of God as if he is a theory, if in fact we hope to get anywhere in finding him and finding truth (though with God all things are possible and he will not be limited except by his own words and promises).
I hope you sleep peacefully. Take care.
I don't see the point in posting stuff from websites that have no idea how evolution actually works? Why do you do it? What is the point? Many of us understand evolution and can easily spot those who don't, just like the folks in the website you produced. It's not hard to spot them.
If you know how to bake a cake, you'll quickly find out those who don't, it's easy when they try and you observe their failure and why they failed.
This again? Do none of you Christians know how the scientific method works? A scientific theory is very different from a rhetorical theory.
A rhetorical theory is what you're thinking of--a guess made by quick observation. In science, this is not a theory; we call this a hypothesis.
A scientific theory is, in its current state, the cold, hard truth. It is the conclusion drawn from a series of indisputable facts and evidence, including direct observation. You know what else is still a scientific theory? Plate tectonics. Cell theory. Germ theory. The Big Bang. Dynamo theory. Climate change. Relativity. Evolution. Atomic theory. Quantum field theory. And there are more.
So yeah, if you're going to deny that Evolution happened, then you also have to deny the existence of atoms, cells, climate change, quantum physics, plate tectonics, and relativity. And that would make you an exceptionally stupid individual.
The blatant fact remains, scientists are still baffled by many things.
And another blatant fact remains, scientists understand a great many things, too.
The point is that one can't rule out an intelligent force behind and directing the show. You can try, but it will be to no avail.
There is no reason to rule out anything, even an alleged" Intelligent force". The problem with that is you nor anyone else has any evidence whatsoever to demonstrate an intelligence force. And, when we study nature, we find no intelligent forces anywhere. What we do find is a mountain of evidence supporting evolution.
And, when we study nature, we find <intelligent force> everywhere. What we do find is a mountain of evidence supporting <divinely guided> evolution.
Agreed. Scientists understand many things and they are baffled by many things. They'd do better to state only the understood as factual.
Indeed you do not have to doubt the existence of cells, atoms or the like to believe in a Creator. No disrespect intended, but there are ppl with a great deal more education than you (in this field) who believe the world could only have been created. If you are calling them stupid, I would question your understanding of the word.
These are just some of the winners of the Nobel prize that were listed as Christians or religious and were easy to find. It is by no means a comprehensive list.
Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Christian, Nobel Laureate (Physics) for his discovery of the Compton effect which provided the final confirmation of the validity of Planck's quantum hypothesis.
"It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"
Charles Hard Townes, Christian, Nobel prize winner in physics for fundamental work in the field of quantum electronics
"The question of science seems to be unanswered if we explore from science alone. Thus I believe there is a need for some metaphysical or religious explanation. I believe in the concept of God an in his existence." “To me, God is personal yet omnipresent - a great source of strength Who has made an enormous difference to me."
Arthur Leonard Schawlow, Christian, Nobel prize winner and professor from Stanford University for his contribution to the development of laser spectroscopy.
"We are fortunate to have the Bible which tells us so much about God in widely accessible terms." When commenting about the universe and wonders of life he stated "The only possible answers are religious.....I find a need for God in the universe and in my life."
Alan Sandage, Christian, the world's greatest observational cosmologist from the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution, won a prize given by Swedish parliament equivalent to Nobel prize (there is no Nobel prize for cosmology) and became a Christian after being a scientist.
"The nature of God is not found in any part of science, for that we must turn to the scriptures." He also writes that the Big Bang can only be understood as "a miracle." In a lecture by Fritz Shafer from a website by Leadership University: http://www.leaderu.com/realri9501/bingbang2.html
Sir Ernest Chain, Christian (?), Co-holder of the 1945 Noble Prize for developing penicillin
"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutation seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts.
These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
…"I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts."
quoted by Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield & Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148
William Phillips, Christian, co-recipient of the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light, Works for the US National Institute of Standards and Technology
"I said something like, 'There are many people I want to thank, and I'd also like to thank God for giving us such a wonderful and interesting universe to explore."
The churchgoing physicist addressed a conference at Harvard University:
"Being an ordinary scientist and an ordinary Christian seems perfectly natural to me…For others, however, it appears strange, even astonishing, that someone could be serious about science and about faith."
"Einstein's god, who is really just the laws of nature, is not for me," he said. "I'm strongly of the conviction that God is personal, and this is the foundation of my faith."
http://www.deepscience.com/philosophy/f … ience.html
ELIE WIESEL, winner of nobel peace prize in 1986, Chairman of 'The President's Commission on the Holocaust'. Author, humanitarian.
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. winner of the Nobel peace prize in 1964, leader of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, campaigner for civil rights.
”Science investigates, religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power, religion gives man wisdom which is control.” Martin Luther King, Jr.
ALBERT SCHWEITZER , winner of the Nobel peace prize in 1952, Missionary surgeon, Founder Lambaréné Hospital in République du Gabon, and protestor against nuclear power abuses.
Elias James Corey (Chemistry 1990),
Peter Brian Medawar (Medicine 1960) and
Ferid Moura (Medicine 1998)
are Christian Nobel Prize winners.
Amartya Sen, Christian, Nobel prize in economics
Melvin Alonzo Cook, Christian, physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee)
Dr. Henry F. "Fritz" Schaefer is a five-time Nobel Prize nominee and world-renowned chemist and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. Henry F. Schaefer III received his B.S. degree in chemical physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1966) and Ph.D. degree in chemical physics from Stanford University (1969). For 18 years (1969-1987) he served as a professor of chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley. Since 1987 Dr. Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. His other academic appointments include Professeur d'Echange at the University of Paris (1977), Gastprofessur at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochshule (ETH), Zurich (1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002), and David P. Craig Visiting Professor at the Australian National University (1999). He is the author of more than 900 scientific publications, the majority appearing in the Journal of Chemical Physics or the Journal of the American Chemical Society and has made presentations or given lectures at most major universities in North America, including Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, Yale, Princeton, as well as many internationally. He said, "It is very rare that a physical scientists is truly an atheist." In an interview with U.S. News & World Report, Schaefer said, "The significance and joy in my science comes in...discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!'" My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.
His biosketch is at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer … ketch.html
articles by him are at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/
Martin Rees "The possibility of life as we know it depends upon a few basic values which are constants. And it is in some aspect remarkably sensitive to their heir numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."
Linus Pauling, 2 time Nobel prize winner in Chemistry and Peace was a member of the Unitarian church (but believed more in naturalistic religion). He won the prize for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances.
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, 1970 Nobel prize in literature, studied communism for 50 years and wrote that the cause of 60 million people dying under communism was because “people forgot God”.
Jimmy Carter in 2002, winner of the Nobel peace prize for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.
Kim Dae Jung, winner of the Nobel peace prize in 2000 for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular.
Mother Teresa in 1979,Leader of the Order of the Missionaries of Charity.
Desmond Tutu in 1984, Bishop of Johannesburg, former Secretary General South African Council of Churches (S.A.C.C.) for his work against apartheid.
Woodrow Wilson, winner of Nobel Peace prize in 1919 for creating the league of nations.
Theodore Roosevelt, winner of Nobel peace prize in 1906, drew up the 1905 peace treaty between Russia and Japan
??Max Perutz, with a Nobel prize in chemistry
PRESTIGIOUS CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS IN HISTORY
Here is a list of branches of science that were started by Christians and pioneering Christians in science and includes at the end a list of some who are teaching and researching at the highest levels currently.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD. *Bishop Robert Grosseteste,* a reform-minded cleric of the 13th century, is the first man known to have explicitly spelled out the scientific method. His methodology was made world-famous by his pupil, the friar *Roger Bacon.* Both PREDICTED that application of their methods would result in the systematic acquisition of knowledge--a result which followed. Bacon especially ennumerated the results, which included submarines and flying machines.
PHYSICS. It is almost impossible to list the Christians active in the history of physics. A short list would include *Philoponus,* *Bradwardine,* possibly *Buridan,* *Galileo,* and *Newton,* the Mertonians, *Grosseteste,* *Faraday,* *Maxwell,* *Thompson (Kelvin),* *Tait,* and more.
Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, proposed the Big Bang theory. Abbé Georges Lemaître, was both an astrophysicist and a Jesuit priest and the first scientist to promote a big bang creation event.( “A Homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-Galactic Nebulae,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91 (1931): 483-90.)
THERMODYNAMICS. *James Joule,* and *Lord Kelvin* are two famous names associated with the development of thermodynamics. Both were Christians, Kelvin more openly so.
GEOLOGY. *Nels Steno,* who became a Roman Catholic bishop (and preached to people in their own language rather than Latin so they could understand the gospel) drew up the first, simple laws of geological study. He is usually named the Father of Geology. Many other Christians made major contributions to the science of geology.
ROCKETRY & SPACE: Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
"There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator...in the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestation of the Divine plan of the Creator."
Dr. Wernher von Braun (1912 -1977), NASA director and "father of the American Space Program."
“Certainly there are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of a man or the system of the human eye?” Wernher von Braun (probably the rocket scientist most responsible for the United States’ success in placing men on the Moon) from a letter written by Dr. Wernher von Braun and read to the California State Board of Education by Dr. John Ford on 14 September 1972.
“What random process could possibly explain the simultaneous evolution of the eye’s optical system, the nervous conductors of the optical signals from the eye to the brain, and the optical nerve center in the brain itself where the incoming light impulses are converted to an image the conscious mind can comprehend?” Wernher von Braun, foreword to From Goo to You by Way of the Zoo by Harold Hill (Plainfield, New Jersey: Logos International, 1976), p. xi.
VACCINATION. The most famous champion of vaccination was a Christian doctor, *Edward Jenner,* who did his work against fierce opposition and in the teeth of threats against himself. In effect he wiped out smallpox from among the diseases that terrify mankind. He died from a cold caught carrying firewood to an impoverished woman.
ANESTHESIOLOGY. *Crawford Long,* one of the three Americans who discovered anesthesia became a Christian. *James Young Simpson,* who championed its use in Britain was also a professing Christian, an ardent New Presbyterian.
ANTISEPTIC SURGERY. First championed by the Quaker doctor *Joseph Lister* against tremendous opposition, antiseptic surgery was based directly on the theories of *Louis Pasteur.* Antiseptic surgery sought to kill germs, primarily by the use of carbolic acid.
Pasteur (1822-1895), dean of the faculty of sciences at Lille University, wrote: "A bit of science distances one from God, but much science nears one to him." Louis Pasteur
BACTERIOLOGY. Bacteria were first observed by the Reformed Dutchman *Anton von Leeuwenhoek* and were received with considerable skepticism.
COMPUTER SCIENCE. Several Christians had important roles in the development of the computer. *Blaise Pascal* built the first workable computing machine. It was too cumbersome to be cost effective. Charles Babbage helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine.
CRYOLOGY. *Lord Kelvin,* a professor who opened each class with prayer and an apologist for creationist ideas, did fundamental work which led to ice-making machines.
"Do not be afraid of being free thinkers! If you think strongly enough you will be forced by science to the belief in God, which is the foundation of all religion. You will find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion." -Lord Kelvin.
STATISTICAL MECHANICS. The American Congregationalist *Josiah Willard Gibbs* and the French Catholic *Pierre Duhem* were two Christians whose work led to an understanding of the thermodynamics of and equilibrium in chemical systems.
WAVE THEORY OF LIGHT. *Thomas Young,* a Quaker, was the first to perform a double slit experiment and to show that light acted as a wave. The French Protestant *Augustin-Jean Fresnel* confirmed and mathematized Young's findings.
FIELD THEORY. *Michael Faraday* first envisioned field theory. Having little mathematics, he was forced to rely on imagination to describe what he saw. He belonged to a small Baptist group. Faith, humility and love governed his life.
EXPANDING UNIVERSE. The Belgian priest *Georges Lemaitre* first gave us a viable mathematics for an expanding universe. His PREDICTION that the universe could not be stable was soon proven by Hubble and others. *Sir Arthur Eddington* championed Lemaitre's theories in a book called The Expanding Universe. Eddington was a Quaker who said that the believer found arguments for the non-existence of God to be quaint.
ENCYCLOPEDIA, SCIENTIFIC. The first scientific encyclopedia featuring the characteristics we accept--contributed articles, pictures, alphabetical entries--was prepared by a minister, *John Harris." Earlier encyclopedias with scientific and medical content had been compiled by Christians, including *Cassiodorus,* *Hildegarde,* *Isidore of Seville,* *Rhabanus Maurus,* the Dominican *Vincent of Beauvois,* *Johann Heinrich Alsted,* whom Cotton Mather called "the doorway to the sciences," etc.
OPTICS. *George Berkeley,* idealist philosopher and Christian bishop, showed how images form upside down in the eye.
RELATIVITY THEORY. Einstein built his theory of relativity on the work of three men, two of whom were Christians. The first of these Christians was *Bernhard Riemann* who had developed the mathematics of Riemannian Space, which Einstein found could explain the curvature of space. The other was *James Clerk Maxwell* whose equations and work with pre-quantum physics led directly to modern physics. Einstein's work was to some measure forced by the famous Michelson-Morely measurements of the speed of light which showed that the speed of light is an absolute. Einstein sought and found the explanation. *Edward William Morley* was the Christian half of that experimental duo.
Galileo Galilei: 1564-1642 Italian Physicist
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Johannes Kepler: 1571-1630 German Astronomer, The 3 laws of planetary motion. Advanced Copernicus' heliocentric theory,
"Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
Blaise Pascal: 1623-1662 French Mathemetician, "There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus Christ." (Pensees)?
Newton Isaac: 1642-1727 (born Dec 25) wrote a million words of theology.
The solar system itself could not have been produced by blind chance or fortuitous causes but only by a cause "very well skilled in mechanics and geometry."
Robert Boyle is called by some the Father of Chemistry. His science sprang directly from his faith. All of his writings show the imprint of Christianity. As a young man, newly converted to Christ, he struggled with faith because the science of the day contained so much which was contrary to his belief. He therefore determined that every fact must be clearly established and tested, in which case he felt certain that it would prove compatible with scripture since both had the same author.
John Dalton, a Quaker, gave us the atomic theory behind chemistry.
Michael Faraday: 1791-1869 English Chemist, Discovered Benzene, electromagnetic induction, lines of force, relationship between polarized light and magnetic fields. Strong believer in the literal interpretation of Scripture. Deacon and elder in his church.
"Since peace is alone in the gift of God; and since it is He who gives it, why should we be afraid? His unspeakable gift in His beloved Son is the ground of no doubtful hope."
George Washington Carver, with his work on peanuts and sweet potatoes was a great pioneer in Chemurgy (the branch of chemistry which focuses on the industrial use of organic materials). His faith has been well-documented.
John Ambrose Fleming, who leaned to the evangelical wing of the Church of England, was not only a Christian, but a first-rate pioneer in electronics, inventor of various items, including a "bridge" and electron tubes which were essential to the development of the field.
Gregor Mendel, a Roman Catholic priest and abbott, first discovered the laws of genetics with his now famous studies of the garden pea. His work lay in obscurity for many years before being rediscovered. Mendel did not accept Darwin's theory, because his own discoveries in genetics showed that creatures tend to revert to kind.
Nels Steno who became a Roman Catholic bishop (and preached to people in their own language rather than Latin so they could understand the gospel) drew up the first, simple laws of geological study. He is usually named the Father of Geology. Many other Christians made major contributions to the science of geology. The minister *Adam Sedgewick* discovered and named the Cambrian.
Louis Agassiz was a prominent voice in promulgating ice-age theory, which he convincingly proved. By his comparison of fossil fish and studies of living fish, he was one of the great founders of icthyology. He was strongly creationist in his views. He was strongly creationist.
Louis Pasteur,* a Christian, developed the germ theory of disease and CLAIMED that microbes transmit many diseases. This claim has been thoroughly proven. The doctor who first applied Pasteur's theories to the operating room was the Quaker Joseph Lister.
James Young Simpson* is but one of several Christian doctors who made significant advances in gynecology.
FAMOUS CHRISTIAN/JEWISH CREATIONIST SCIENTISTS CURRENTLY
Michael Polanyi, held the chair in physical chemistry and social sciences at Manchester University, was one of the 20th century’s great scientific philosophers, and disturbed the ivied halls of academia by declaring in 1958: “The book of Genesis and its great pictorial illustrations, like the frescoes of Michelangelo, remain a far more intelligent account of the nature and origin of the universe than the representation of the world as a chance collocation of atoms.”
John Suppe, noted professor of geology at Princeton University and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.
OWEN GINGERICH, Professor of Astronomy and History of Science, Harvard University, Massachusetts
In his lecture, "Dare a Scientist Believe in Design?" he explains why he believes that a scientist can contribute effectively while holding a belief in a purposefully designed universe.
”For me the goal is to achieve a coherent understanding of a universe that includes self-consciousness and self-contemplative beings - an understanding that is far from complete, yet one in which we do not merely analyze the sound waves but in which we can also hear the music. There are still great unanswered questions, of eschatology and theodicy, but a consistent view of the universe can include both the personal God who has communicated to humankind as well as the superintelligent Creator of an astonishingly fine-tuned and fit physical universe. Through the eyes of faith, physics tells us something after all about the Creator of the universe.” from Science & Christian Belief Vol. 13, No 1, April 2000
Michael Behe, Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania in his book Darwin's Black Box, explains that the complexity of the chemical activity at a molecular level, even in the functioning of one part of the body, such as the eye, points to intelligent design rather than evolution.
Dr. Walter L. Bradley, Professor of Engineering at Baylor University, He has received two teaching awards, one national and five local research awards, and from 1989-1993 served as the head of the department. He has received over $3,000,000 in research grants and contracts resulting in the publication of 80+ technical articles. He has been honored for his technical contributions by being elected a Fellow of the American Society for Materials.
”The design requirements for our universe are like a chain of 1000 links. If any link breaks, we do not have a less optimal universe for life -- we have a universe incapable of sustaining life! The evidence I have present is daunting, but still short of "proof". I must conclude that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it”. from the article “Is There Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God? How the Recent Discoveries Support a Designed Universe”
D. Russell Humphreys, Award-winning physicist, involved in physics research and development in geophysics, optics, nuclear physics, high energy physics, electricity, magnetism, and theoretical physics, B.S. in Physics from Duke University, Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University (dissertation: cosmic rays and ultrahigh energy nucleon-nucleon interactions), Former researcher at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico starting in 1979 -- in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project, Helped design particle accelerators used in fusion energy and Strategic Defense research, Co-inventor of laser-triggered "Rimfire" high-voltage switches, much more online at: http://www.christiananswers.net/creatio … ys-dr.html
Albert Einstein-said (not a Christian, but a believer in an intelligent designer), when commenting about the universe: "God doesn't play dice", and he also said "the harmony of natural law...reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly-insignificant reflection." ... Albert Einstein, The World As I See It, (1974), Bonanza Books, New York, page 40.
Albert Einstein believed there was no inseparable contradictions between God and science, as reported in an essay he wrote Religion and Science: Irreconcilable? Christian Unitarian Register 127, (June, 1948) pages 19, 20.
Dr. Francis Collins is the director of the U.S. Human Genome Project.
Richard Bube (1927-) was the chairman of the Department of Materials Science at Stanford University for many years and currently teaches a second year undergraduate course at Stanford entitled "Issues in Science and Christianity”.
Gerald L. Schroeder holds a Ph.D. in applied physics from MIT. He wrote “Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible.”
Dr. Nathan Aviezer is author of the book "In the Beginning" . He received his doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, and held a research position at the IBM Watson REsearch Center, New York. He now lives in Israel where he joined Bar-Ilan University as Professor of Physics and Chairman of the Physics Department. He is a fellow in the American Physical Society.
Martin Rees at Cambridge: "The possibility of life as we know it depends upon a few basic values which are constants. And it is in some aspect remarkably sensitive to their heir numerical values. Nature does exhibit remarkable coincidences."
John Pokingham, theoretical physicist at Cambridge, left physics to become a minister. "I believe that God exists and has made himself known in Jesus Christ."
U.S. News & World Report (June 16, 1997) devoted a respectful four-page article to the work of Dr John Baumgardner, calling him "the world's pre-eminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection." Dr. Baumgardner earned degrees from Texas Tech University (B.S., electrical engineering), and Princeton University (M.S., electrical engineering), and earned a Ph.D. in geophysics and space physics from UCLA. Since 1984 he has been employed as a technical staff member at Los Alamos (New Mexico) National Laboratory.
Phillip Johnson has been a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, for 26 years. He received his B.A. from Harvard and his J.D. from the University of Chicago. Johnson is the author of Darwin on Trial, Reason in the Balance, and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds.
George T. Javor, Ph.D. in biochemistry from Columbia University, New York, U.S.A., B.S. in chemistry from Brown University, Author of over 40 technical papers and abstracts, Professor of Biochemistry, School of Medicine, Loma Linda University, California
C. Everett Koop, Former Surgeon General of the United States of America, Former editor of The Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Recipient of at least 8 honorary degrees stemming from his surgical expertise, Member of more than a dozen medical societies worldwide, Former president of the Surgical section of the American Academy of Pediatric Surgery, Former Professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
UCLA Berkeley Professor Phillip Johnson-considers the weakness of evolution's scientific standing, where "an honest appraisal of the evidence would sweep evolution convincingly into the dustbin of history".
Dr. Hugh Ross earned his Ph.D. in astronomy from the University of Toronto and researched galaxies and quasars at the California Institute of Technology.
Leonid Korochkin, Professor of Genetics at Yale University, Head of the molecular biology laboratory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and Steve Austin, from the Institute for Creation Research
Patrick Glynn, Ph.D. Harvard University, former special assistant to the director of arms control in the Reagan Administration and once a confirmed philosophical atheist, believes the Universe was programmed toward the creation of life. His book:-God, The Evidence
Dr. Ben Carson, one of the top neurosurgeons in the world.
Dr. Denis Alexander, head of the T-Cell Laboratory in the Dept. of Immunology, The Babraham Institute, Cambridge
Raul E. Lopez, Ph.D. and M.S. in atmospheric science from Colorado State University, B.S. in physics and math from the University of Puerto Rico, Author of over 45 papers and over 90 conference papers and technical reports
Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. in kinesiology from the University of Iowa (1958), Former professor of biomechanics and physiology at California State University (1968-1994), Professor Emeritus at California State University (1994-Present)
Charles McCombs, Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry, UCLA, 20 chemical patents over 21 years
Andrew McIntosh, D.Sc. in mathematics from the University of Wales (1998), Ph.D. in the theory of combustion from the Cranfield Institute of Technology (1981), Author of over 80 research papers, Contributor to 10 textbooks dealing with combustion theory
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. and M.S. from the University of Minnesota (1950, 1948), Former faculty member at Rice University (1942-46), University of Minnesota (1946-51), University of Southwestern Louisiana (1951-56) and Southern Illinois University (1956-57), Former head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1957-1970)
Gary E. Parker, Creationist (former Evolutionist professor and textbook author), Ed.D. from Ball State University in biology with a cognate in geology and paleontology
Ariel A. Roth (SDA), Ph.D. and M.S. in biology from the University of Michigan, U.S.A., Former professor of biology and chairman, Loma Linda University, California, U.S.A., Former director of the Geoscience Research Institute in Loma Linda
Jonathan D. Sarfati, Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand
Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney
Timothy G. Standish (SDA), Ph.D. in environmental biology and public policy from George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, U.S.A.
Stephen Taylor, Ph.D. and M.Eng. in electrical engineering from the University of Liverpool, author of over 80 scientific articles, Reviewer for the journals IEE Electronic Letters, Solid State Electronics, Journal of Applied Physics and Applied Physics Letters, Senior lecturer in electrical engineering at the University of Liverpool
Charles B. Thaxton, Ph.D. in Chemistry from Iowa State University, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University (2 years), history and philosophy of science
Lynn Margulis is Distinguished University Professor of Biology in the Department of Geosciences in the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and has been a member of the National Academy of Sciences since 1983. Professor Margulis says that history will judge neo Darwinism as "a minor twentieth century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo Saxon (English nationality or descent) biology"
Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. in zoology from the University of Cape Town, B.S. (hons) cum laude and M.S. in zoology from the University of Stellenbosch, Professor and chair of the Department of Zoology at the University of Western Cape, South Africa
Jeremy L. Walter, M.S. and Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from Pennsylvania State University, U.S.A., National Science Foundation Fellowship recipient (1975), Head of the Engineering Analysis and Design Department, Applied Research Laboratory (Energy Science and Power Systems Division), Pennsylvania State University
Arthur Ernest Wilder-Smith, Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941), Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich, D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964), F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry), Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc., Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford, Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages, NATO three-star general, deceased
Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. and M.A. in geology from Harvard University, B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago, Former student of Professor Stephen Jay Gould
Danny R. Faulkner, Ph.D. and M.A. in Astronomy, Indiana University, M.S. in Physics from Clemson University, Published more than two dozen papers in various astronomy and astrophysics journals
Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has."
Steven A. Austin, Geologist, Ph.D. from Pennsylvania State University, Consulting geologist for government and industry, Author of numerous papers including publication in the peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review
Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc. from Hardin-Simmons University (1950), Former research physicist at Duke University (1942-45), M.S. degree from Brown University (1936) while studying under the famous physicist R.B. Lindsay, Director of many important research projects on terrestrial magnetism and atmospheric physics, Published various scientific papers and textbooks, Member of the Editorial Board of the Creation Research Society Quarterly
Edward A. Boudreaux , Ph.D. and M.S. in chemistry from Tulane University, Author or co-author of four technical books regarding inorganic chemistry, Author of numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers, Professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of New Orleans, Louisiana
Arthur V. Chadwick (SDA), Ph.D. in Molecular Biology from University of Miami (1969), Professor of Biology and Geology at Southwestern Adventist College, Keene, Texas
Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D. in Theoretical Nuclear Physics from Oklahoma State University, Post-doctoral studies at the Institute for Applied Nuclear Physics in Karlsruhe, Germany, Professor of Physics at Bluefield College
John M. Cimbala, Ph.D. and M.S. in aeronautics from the California Institute of Technology, U.S.A., Author of numerous research papers regarding fluid dynamics, Visiting senior research scientist at the NASA Langley Research Center, Recipient of the George W. Atherton Award for Excellence in Teaching, Pennsylvania State University, 1997, Professor of mechanical engineering, Pennsylvania State University
Ben Clausen (SDA?), Ph.D. in nuclear physics from the University of Colorado at Boulder, Research scientist at the Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda, California
Melvin Alonzo Cook, Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Yale University (1937), Nobel Prize nominee (Nitro Nobel Gold Medalist, Swedish Academy, Stockholm (1969), Professor of Metallurgy at the University of Utah (1947-70), E.V. Murphree Gold Medalist Award, American Chemical Society (1968), Loomis Award from Yale University (1937)
Kenneth B. Cumming, Ph.D. and M.A. in biology from Harvard University (1965, 1959)
Donald B. DeYoung, Physicist, specializing in solid-state and nuclear science, as well as astronomy, Ph.D. in physics from Iowa State University, Published articles in The Journal of Chemistry and Physics of Solids, The Journal of Chemical Physics, and Creation Research Society Quarterly
Dwain L. Ford (SDA), Ph.D. in chemistry from Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts, U.S.A., Recipient of three National Science Foundation fellowships, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, Andrews University
Robert V. Gentry, M.S. in Physics from University of Florida, Often considered the world's foremost authority on radiohalos, Former Guest Scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratories, Atomic Energy Commission, Published scientific papers in Nature, Science, Applied Physics Letters, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, etc.
Duane T. Gish, Ph.D. in Biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley (1953), B.S. in chemistry from U.C.L.A. (1949)
D.B. Gower, Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of London, Royal Society of Chemistry fellow, Institute of Biology fellow, Emeritus professor of steroid biochemistry at the University of London, U.K.
Stephen Grocott, Ph.D. in organometallic chemistry from the University of Western Australia, B.S. (honors) in chemistry from the University of Western Australia, Author of 30 research papers, Holds 4 patents, Elected fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute
Edmond W. Holroyd, Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of New York at Albany, Research physical scientist from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado
"At this point the war centering around Darwinism and its control over the scientific discussion of origins is going well for the creationists, and evolution is being defeated in many battles." -Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 12.
"Let me be blunt on this matter. Evolutionists around the world have had to learn the hard way that evolution cannot stand up against creationism in any fair and impartial debate situation where the stakes are the hearts and minds of intelligent, undecided - but nevertheless objective and open-minded - audiences. Experience will prove that the same is true for the age issue as well. Evolutionist beliefs regarding the origin and development of life cannot withstand the scrutiny of an informed opposition, and neither can evolutionist claims to the effect that the universe has existed for 10 to 20 billion years. To delay the collapse of widespread public acceptance of such claims, it will be necessary for evolutionist scientists carefully to avoid debate." -Dr. Paul D. Ackerman, It's a Young World After All (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), p. 13.
Stephen M. Barr is Associate Professor of Physics at the Bartol Institute, University of Delaware.
http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/s … oc71912178
From the link, a blatant falsehood:
"Evolution (which is the theory upon which atheism is founded on and without which atheism has no rational explanation for life in this world or its origins) has been widely accepted by some people as a fact even though true science is limited only to what we can see, observe and test through the scientific method. Evolution has never been verified by observation and many scientists know and agree that it is almost totally lacking in observable evidence.
HAS EVOLUTION BEEN PROVED SCIENTIFICALLY?
Most people think that evolution has been proved already. Such is far from true. Except for the first quote, all of the quotes below are from evolutionists which adds very significant weight to what they say:"
Who said it? Which is the advanced scientist in his field that lied openly about his observation?
Sorry, but did you not even read the article you linked?
Did you think I had memorized not only every quote, but the author of each quote? Seems like if you are going to print a quote, you might feel some obligation to print the author of the quote.
It appears to be the guy who wrote that article; Bryan Bissell.
"A 1991 Gallop Poll (Nov 28th, 1991), which was the last time a comprehensive polling results on a national scale was undertaken, indicated that 47% of Americans believe in creation over evolution and 40% believe that God used evolution as a process of creating life. A few had no opinion and so that left only 9% of Americans who believe that God was not involved and that only naturalistic means were the cause of the origin of life. Since almost 9 out of every 10 Americans believe that God was involved in creation and just under half of those believed that the origin of life was not naturalistically caused, why do almost 100% of college professors and staff teach that evolution is the only option possible? These professors and the colleges seem to be in the minority, yet they do not tolerate differences of opinion or belief, even though the theory of evolution has never been comprehensively established as a fact. Why not let people choose what they want their children to learn? Don’t these professors and colleges work for the students who pay their salaries or the parents who educate their children? Why is there no tolerance for those who differ in opinions and hold to a different belief than an unproven, untested theory? Good question."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/christianc … c-schools/
But, once again, you provide a website in which the premises of argument are falsehoods:
Evolution is a historically based theory based upon assumptions from what took place millions of years ago. What are missing are the gaps of transitional fossils that establish one specie evolving into another, new specie.
Not only is it a fact that every single fossil found IS transitional that establishes one specie evolving into another, evolution does not even need fossils to be shown as fact.
How can evolution ever be established to be conclusive by empirical scientific methods? Can evolution be observed in a laboratory?
Yes, evolution can and IS established with empirical scientific methods and IS observed in a laboratory.
Not to be contrary, of course I have no choice when being factual, but, aside from the post above mine, which of your works have been published? I mean, these are scientists with credentials, these men and women who disagree with you. I am able to judge their credibility which gives their words weight. You, though my new friend, are (possibly) just a man, without a name or picture let alone credentials. Why should I even consider your claims?
You make the grievous error of assuming that because someone has credentials, everything they say is correct. Sorry, that isn't correct by any stretch of the imagination.
Many such people with credentials have come up with some very good ideas and theories, while on the other hand, those very same people have come up with really nutty stuff. This is quite common. It is the peer review process that weeds out good ideas and bad ones, regardless of ones credentials.
In fact, Einstein is a very good example of this, he had literally no credentials when he came up with Relativity.
You don't have to consider anyone's claims, that is your prerogative. But, to dismiss or accept someones claims on the basis of credentials certainly isn't very wise.
I actually agree with you 100%. I mean in addition to the numerous scientists of faith, there are many who do not believe in a Creator... the latter also have credentials and on this matter, their ability to understand what is actual, has fallen sadly short. So do credentials equal the knowledge of truth? Not necessarily, but we who post here are unknown entities. We could be no more than 13 year old loners with no real interests and a lot of time on our hands... not that that isn't that far off base. lol (jk)
Exactly, which is why we don't bother with credentials here, we should be looking directly at the claims being made, the arguments and points that support or don't support them and go from there.
Dismissing evolution because of your religious beliefs, especially when you don't even understand evolution doesn't follow that method at all.
You keep making that assertion. I went to public school for the majority of my education. I guess you doubt my teachers capabilities... oh well. I have little doubt that you don't understand God and faith. Maybe you had lousy teachers too?
Why would I think about or assume anything about your teachers? I don't know about anyone else, but I had good, bad and indifferent teachers throughout school. So what?
This is all about those who reject facts and evidence without any idea of what they're talking about or even the very facts and evidence they reject. And, we know there is a small group of people in the world who still reject evolution. Why they would do this is beyond any reason or logic, it's baffling and absurd at the same time.
Arguing that Genesis is fact in that all things were created as they are today is sooooo... yesterday.
A small group of ppl in the world who reject evolution? Do you remember the quote I posted yesterday based on a gallop pole? I'll repost it for you.
"A 1991 Gallop Poll (Nov 28th, 1991), which was the last time a comprehensive polling results on a national scale was undertaken, indicated that 47% of Americans believe in creation over evolution and 40% believe that God used evolution as a process of creating life. A few had no opinion and so that left only 9% of Americans who believe that God was not involved and that only naturalistic means were the cause of the origin of life. Since almost 9 out of every 10 Americans believe that God was involved in creation..."
I suppose the reason so many reject the notion of evolution and embrace faith in God has something to do with the fact that they understand something you, so far, have missed. May God reveal Himself to you as well... that is my prayer.
Oh! So you understand the mind of your god? That is easy to do, since that god is all in your mind. That god has all the characteristics and qualities that you personally desire.
One of the major things you desire is to win the argument that god exists. One of the self-deceiving tricks you use is that "you have to believe" when there is nothing provable. Which itself proves it's all in your mind.
Rather that is MICROEVOLUTION "can and IS established with empirical scientific methods and IS observed in a laboratory". Few of us question microevolution or that which relates to the changes in species over time related to natural selection.
It is the greater assumptions and inferences made from the limited observation of microevolution that we question. Indeed, even if macroevolution has occurred (though many of us do not concede that it has been shown to have occurred and do not believe it is the case), then we do not accept the wording within the theories regarding the unguided and un-designed aspects of that which has occurred.
I categorize this way (though I'm not saying this is representative of other Christians):
Microevolution - truth
Macroevolution - unproven, and I don't think it's truth but not going to say anything 100% definitively, as I remember that with God all things are possible, he may have created things in a similar manner to the theories, our findings may be influenced by sped-up processes within a short amount of time, literal versus symbolic communication within the Word may play an important role, and on and on.
Anything that portrays the processes of evolution as un-designed / unguided - false
Yes, your post does indeed confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have no idea what evolution is all about. The process that drives evolution within a species is exactly the same process that drives diversity in species. Funny how you agree with the process and then promptly disagree.
"It is the conclusion drawn..." Yes, a conclusion based on a lot of assumptions and inferences related to the simple, indisputable facts.
No, we don't have to deny the existence of anything to say that we do not accept the theory of evolution in full. We accept the facts, btw - that species change over time and that natural selection is involved in this change - but we do not have to accept the inferences and assumptions based on those facts.
You say, "They're silly claims of irreducible complexity have been laughed at as childish." Yet those who think that it's conceivable to get us humans out of even an infinity of un-designed / unguided mutation, natural selection and so on, really don't understand the complexity of any part of us (never mind the totality of us), so we're laughing too.
Yet, you are laughing at hard evidence and facts and theories that do explain how things work because as you say, you "really don't understand" any of it.
The evidence and facts themselves are just fine, it's those theories that take it beyond the facts that we laugh at, especially when people try to say they nullify God.
And yet "god" is only a theory that you try to convince yourself is a fact.
"try to convince yourself" is what you imagine. I am convinced without doubt and it is not of my own doing... it is God revealing Himself. He is real. Maybe you are trying to convince yourself He is not?
The existence of "god" outside and independent of the human mind cannot be proven. Until it can be proven it remains a theory.
God is not theory and is not demonstrated through testing and observation, though he is observed through faith. I don't have to convince myself of anything; to no credit of my own, it's already been shown / revealed to me - God exists, Jesus Christ is Truth and the Holy Spirit is here with us. His manifest presence comes, but will not be controlled (and he often surprises me when he comes). I cannot observe him for you, nor convince you based on my observations. If you're interested or desire to meet him, you'll need to be the one seeking yourself and then making your own observations through the faith that allows you to see the naturally unseen with spiritual eyes.
NOT FOR ME! I have had things happen in my life which were NOT mere coincidence. I am quite, one hundred percent, convinced, If you want to know God he will come to you in whatever WAY you are ready for. For goodness sake, Ghandi said to believe a man! There is a God and I have proof!
Yes, I understand perfectly that you deny and reject facts and evidence because you believe it jeopardizes your religious beliefs. The evidence of that here is overwhelming.
The interminable cry of the theist, I think. "I/everyone is ignorant of (fill in the blank) so there has to be a god".
It just doesn't work - ignorance is not a reason to postulate a god, let alone decide that there IS one and that everyone should do what you think that god wants of them.
What if you know there is a God because he helped you when you asked Him for help? Where no one else could have helped you in the whole world but God came through in mysterious ways. Ways which could NOT be attributed to coincidence?
That is so very obvious that it is something you want to believe and is most like coincidence. Mysterious ways? Lol.
Why would you post to someone who is not affected in any way by what your post? My only reaction is to wonder why you do it?
Did you just reply to your own post and ask why you would post to someone who is not affected in any way by what you post?
Who are you even talking to?
Rad Man, I admit your comment here made me laugh. But I assume she's talking to the one who responded to her.
Kathryn, just in case you don't know (I didn't for a while), you can change the order to Chronological rather than threaded (top right) and then you'll always be given the "reply" option to posts.
I was not trying to be disrespectful. Just trying to understand. But you are correct, she may have been playing the chronological system.
E. H. Why does E. H. respond to me when he knows I will ignore him?
Those of us who've met the Lord believe and are sealed in him because in response to our faith, he has revealed himself to us. Everything else is just side stuff. There's an explanation for all things, but we really don't need to know it all. Likewise those who are unbelievers now but will eventually come to the truth about God will not do so because anyone has "proven" it to them, as God has determined that everyone who comes to him must come in faith, and only then will they be shown the truth about the Lord.
Useful information, thank you! I might make use of this somewhere!
There is only one answer to this question, The TRUTH id Christ Jesus- the God himself. In His words " I AM the Way and the Truth and the Life. This statement can't be taken out of context and scrutinized focusing on single word. ( In that case the plain everyday answer to Q.- what is "truth" would be truth is opposite to falsehood, error or insincerity.) Is "truth" being regarded seriously in everyday life/ conversations / actions ? just asking.
On serious note we go back to the Christ- the Anointed of God- who speaks only what God is speaking by Him.
In following dispute He speaks to a group of characters " You are from your father, the devil, and you want to carry out the desires which comes from your father. He was a murderer from the beginning. He is not grounded on the truth, because there is not truth in him. When he utters falsehood he speaks out of his nature, because he is a liar and the father of falsehood..."
Back to another scene - again in another conversation where one of the disciples asked the Master," Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way ?" In one breath Christ - Anointed One of God isn't answering only a single-eyed where is He going or how to know the way b e c a u s e the answer to this question is the God himself ; I AM the WAY and the TRUTH and the LIFE. Here you have it, the compound answer to the above Q.- God is the TRUTH, - or - to get a complete picture, comprising the sum of the doctrine concerning Christ Jesus; - for the question (of the disciple ) concerning the WAY , He answers this :" I AM the WAY." Concerning knowledge-, h o w c a n w e know, He answers this " I AM the TRUTH; to the question where ?--He makes that answer I AM the LIFE….
What is then actual answer what is -"truth?" Christ is the TRUTH because He is the self-revelation of God- the Father- - and to get the complete answer to the question of the disciple and a question of t r u t h, - here is end of the sentence… and the live, no one comes to the Father except through me if you really know me you would know my Father…
- makes sense, Michael. But how can we know Jesus? Just by reading about him?
Precisely : we read, we believe, trust , obey and act. Once our formerly dead spirit man-to-the Creator-God -the Father is come to life via faith by receiving HIM-THE LIVING WORD (John 1:12.13.) we ARE born from God. And you know it, you talk to Him He talks to you, you hate all kind of sin and stop doing everything what dead in trespass sinful nature used to do, you have the same authority as originally given to Adam , as Ps. 8:6 " You made him to have dominion over the works of your (God's) hands, you -God - have put all things under his feet. It is our privilege to see these things happening when exercised in authority of theNameofChrist. It is fun, it is powerful it is glorious! HalleluYAH.
"workers of iniquity"
Inequity refers to (1) injustice or unfairness, or (2) an instance of injustice or unfairness. It’s an antonym of equity, which denotes justice, fairness, or balance. Iniquity is closely related—both words ultimately derive from the Latin aequus, meaning equal—but it refers to extreme injustices, gross immorality, or acts regarded as sinful. An inequity might be a minor injustice or a small instance of unfairness, while iniquities are by definition very large or especially heinous.
Iniquity appears often in the phrase den of iniquity, referring to a place where immoral or wicked things happen. Jesus often uses the word. "just."
Virtue has always been related to justice. Justice dealing with what is owed. What do we owe and to who?
Romans 14:7-8English Standard Version (ESV)
7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's.
Looks like we owe justice to God.
Justice is giving to God what we owe him.
How do we give Him ourselves?
If we read the bible and belive in Jesus and talk to him in prayer, where will that get us when we are at the end of our lives? what happens to those who never read the bible or pray to Jesus?
Kathryn, if I send you an invitation to my birthday party and you not only refuse to come, but you deny that I even exist... then I have to assume you will not be in attendance.
How can I come if I do not know how to get to your house? You have given up. Don't give up. Be honest if you have given up and are stumped by these questions. If you know the answers, what are they… use scripture, preferably! (I mean, when you have time and interest. We have all lifetime.
Or do we?)
Hmmm... did I really lose you there? I was using an imaginary invitation I might send as a way to compare the invitation God has given the whole world.
1Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: 2“The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. 3He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
4“Then he sent some more servants and said, ‘Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.’
5“But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. 6The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. 7The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
8“Then he said to his servants, ‘The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. 9So go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’ 10So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, the bad as well as the good, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
11“But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 12He asked, ‘How did you get in here without wedding clothes, friend?’ The man was speechless.
13“Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
14“For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
Here is a confusing one: "And that knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep, for now is our Salvation nearer than when we believed." Romans 13/ 11.
This passage makes it seem like Salvation is sooner than after we die in Eternity.
What is Eternity?
Some people look forward to just going to sleep after death or poof... lights out!
Is Eternity a state of wakefulness?
The Bible is talking about how complacent we have grown in these last days b/c we get comfortable in our earthly shoes and start thinking Heaven is always in the future. We forget that at any moment... even this very moment... Christ could return. He is telling us to wake up from our complacency and get to work for the kingdom. Bless the poor, mend the sick, visit those in prison, attend to the widow, adopt the orphan... become His hands and feet and love the world as He loves it. He loves the sinner, He loves the lost. He loved us all during our lowest moments and He is constantly reaching out to each of us in order that we might know... in order that we might be saved.
Edit, yes, eternity is a state of wakefulness... the Bible is full of verses that speak of the life that is to come. We will not be used as human batteries while dreaming we are involved in actual life.
So doing good works, reading the Bible and praying, not doing willfully bad things or doing bad things out of ignorance… these actions will bring Jesus now? I am not doubting. I'm just wanting to know how it will take place? and what will take place?
What are you waiting for? Or can we only know when it happens and we must have faith/patience.
What inspires us to have faith/patience?
I am not saying I am giving up. I am looking for motivation. What drives YOU to keep on keeping on, Beth? is reading the bible enough. I can accept that answer, if it is. (I can accept any answer!)
Begin yourself and journal about it. Have faith, do not test God. Just reach out with an open and humble heart and make sure you don't just do one or the other... read your bible *and pray. Ask God to lead you with His spirit and let me know if you have any questions. I will do my best to answer them according to God's word.
You (finally) mention Spirit… how is that Spirit heard, or felt, or contacted… Don't you see this isolates the difficulty for all of us?
We must ask God to lead us with his Spirit… This is the answer which leads to another important question for which I hope there is an answer:
Q. If I (reach out with a humble heart and) ask God to lead me with his Spirit, how does he communicate, and how do I hear him?
Romans 8:4-6King James Version (KJV)
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
The spirit is part of God. Just as you and I are mind, body and spirit, so is God. God is like the mind. Jesus is like the body... he is the embodiment of God, yet the fullness of God dwells in Him (col 1:19). And the can be described as yours and my spirit might be. We might be brain dead, kept alive by machines... our hearts kept pumping by an outside pump, but why then are we not dead? Because that body is still housing our spirit. The thing that is who we are... our essence. Our emotions and zest and need to love and be loved... it's all in there. So God's spirit is similar. It goes where He sends it. When ppl need encouragement, when they need inspiration... He sends His spirit.
I believe you will know you are hearing from God when the impressions made on your heart, match what you're reading in the word. When you all of a sudden realize you are loved, just as you are. When you feel the need to minister to someone who is hurting and you can't do another thing until you have obeyed this "feeling"... when your body wants to go one way, but your spirit tells you that you would be in sin... this is the spirit of God. That's why it's so important to not just pray or read the Bible, but to do both. They should go hand in hand as God will lead you and you can be sure it's God and not your own voice... not the enemy's voice, b/c what you are hearing matches with scripture.
This is it ! to your Q.- "If I reach out…" - you are not asking me, however here is the answer for everybody: Call upon the Name of Jesus, track to Him, He is there nearer you then you can realize, because He is omnipresent SPIRIT, your words are spirit, and on top of all that he knows and he sees the intentions of the "heart"; MY entering into the family of God was Looooong time ago as a young boy in my dream I've met Jesus with his own and not being among them I woke up and in tearers full eyes I talked to him, confessing my wrongdoings, my failure, my selfish life without him ,- asking him to trace over my will and decisions and to lead me on the path of righteousness. The change came instantly, He came into my life filling me with His Spirit- called "The Holy Spirit"- The Gog became my Father, the Heavenly Father and on since that time he is with me walking on the narrow road , living in the body the life eternal according to His will…
If I would be unrepentant sinner, I would just start talking to Him: Jesus… and whatever you have to say, say it sincerely, and as soon a person gives up on the devil, and his lordship , Jesus takes over-- the rest is beginning of the eternity living to the glory of God….
That's a beautiful story. I'm glad you shared it.
Thank You, God is good- all the times.
Please, accept my apology for typo , " track" - to Him , should be TALK to Him. Thanks to every reader.
On that note, you might want to edit "Gog" as well... I am hoping you meant "God."
he he he… (and I said exiting instead of exciting…)
Correct: Talk to "Him" stands for "Talk to God." A sinner is ' talking to God'… Once received into the family of God, the relationship changes: a stranger before becomes the member of the household, and calls God the Father, He is our ' Abba'- My Father and we do have conversation when ever we want , whenever we pray, we listen whenever the small voice the Holy Spirit speaks to us.
yes, thank for reminding; NO excuse after long working day to stay up deep in the night and making typo, - better thing is to wait until the next day.
Nothing we do will bring Christ. There is an appointed time, chosen by God and nothing we do will change that. We simply wait patiently for our Savior to come.
What keeps me waiting for him Katheryn? Because life without him has no future. For a short time in my life, I turned my back on him to numb up to the pain I was in. Life without him was not worth the fight, in my opinion. And I missed him! I missed his goodness... I missed his righteousness and the warmth of being enveloped by his presence. And to be honest... I didn't even try to run away... I just tried to hide... I knew he could see me, but like a child that pretends they can't hear their parents calling... I just hid under my pretend cloak of invisibility. But you can't forget God. You can't forget His ways. Nothing compares. It's like going from a clean and loving home to living in squalor. There is no comparison... and if you drink enough tequila, the sewer isn't so bad, but you can only live like that for so long. We all have ways to numb up, but once you let him in... once he shows you his ways... nothing compares. Not. One.
If anything is 'confusing' it is mixing the passages of The Scripture by jumping from Jesus to Paul , from Nazareth to Rome, from Christ strong teaching and acting on the KINGDOM of God verses Paul's addressing to particular groups at the particular time and situation. Rom.13:11 is preceded by exhortation to "the law of love towards neighbors." Those were first converts without written Scripture, no books, TV or radio confusing preachers, THEY STARTED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT and when turned to rely on their own understanding, the apostle was writing them certain " road maps " to get there. He has told them that " Salvation " - final deliverance is every hour nearer then it was when we were firs brought into the family of God.
Eternity : Orig. Heb ' olam'- time out of mind; without end; it appears in Engl. translation, ' forever,' everlasting, evermore , perpetual, always, long, eternal, lasting … It means time without defined limits.
Eternity, Greek 'aionbions' transsl. everlasting , eternal in connection with the existence of God, heaven, hell, life, the life of the righteous,, the kingdom and some other things that are clearly eternal.
I appreciate the help, Beth and Michael. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, wisdom, insights and enthusiasm!
It was the least I could do, considering the subject matter of that OTHER thread "Religion IS detrimental to the entire society"
Obviously NOT… LOL
The goodness (of Religion) has always outweighed the badness.
The original Bible (first 5 books, or Pentateuch [Torah]) was written in code by Kabbalists. Only recently has their code been released to the general public after thousands of years of secrecy. You might start with this short film:
Revelations has long been an enigma for many. It too has a great deal of symbolism and metaphor. If you know what the Kabbalists used as symbols, the meaning might become clearer for you.
But some things may be easier to decipher. It seems clear that the rebirth of Israel is critical to the events in Revelations. Could this be referring to the rebirth of the physical nation of Israel in 1947? Or could it be the rebirth of the "path straight to God" (Israel) in 1995 -- when the lessons of Kabbalah were made public again?
It seems to me that the key to understanding the prophetic meaning the prophetic visions as descrobed in the book of Revelation is to go back in time 663 years to when Daniel received many visions of which Jesus referred to.
All of the prophetic visions are interpreted for us by Gods messenger angel Gabriel.
Why does everyone think they can dream up a more appropriate interpretation of these visions than the one Gabriel gave. Why does it have to be interpreted AGAIN?
In 538 BC God is said to have given Daniel these visions that were to come to pass from that point in time forward?
In 538 BC God showed Daniel that when 62 weeks passes, they are going to kill the messiah!
And if Jesus is the Messiah he was talking about (?) 568 years later "They Killed the Messiah!"
Wouldn't that mean that 568 years to us is the same as 62 weeks in prophesy???
When we use this equation every time a period is stipulated in prophesy as stated in the book of Daniel and the book of Revelation ................. WELL ....... All I can say is to follow this train of thought; .......... Brings Ya to a completely different prospective when reading the same scriptures through out the New Testament and Old that we have been reading our whole lives ..... But you will see everything differently ....... More of a basic basic thing.
That is if ya believe what the bible says?
You mean things are not (at all) consistent or even accurate in the least in the OT? That's why I thought it best to stick to the NT.
Now this is a coincidence! Hadn't been on since i posted that. till 2 minutes after your post. Guess I'm supposed to answer it. ?
Straight to the point.
Matt. 23 ...... Jesus looks the Pharisee and scribes and tells them , possibly point to the individuals each statement is maid. "You are going to kill my disciples, and wise men, etc etc.
Then ... a couple minutes later, .....
Four of the disciples ask Jesus, "when is all that stuff you were talking about going to happen"
Jesus answered, " ( possibly pointing to one of his disciples) They are going to kill YOU!, and (pointing to another) they are going to beat you in front of the synagogue, But when you see the abomination standing in the the holy place as spoken of by the prophet,,, Daniel.
know that the beginning of sorrows has begun.
Jesus speaks of his second coming, and then ( a few minutes after he had begone) he said, "This generation shall not pass till ALL of these things come to pass, cain't tell ya what month day and hour it is going to happen, but this generation shall not pass till ALL these things be fulfilled.
The night before he died; Jesus, while looking one of the high priest eyeball to eyeball; "YOU are going to see the son of man coming in the clouds, .....
I believe the words Jesus is said to have spoken to be true.
A generation is said to have been approx 70 years. Approx 73 years after Jesus died, Jesus came again and also appeared to John also, and he alone (it would seem) wrote about any experience they might have had. And if this is when the rapture happened; there would not have been any one else to write about it. Every body having anything to say would have been taken away.
At this same time, The Emperor Hadrian, would have been in the process of deporting every Jew found in Israel and Judea to be sold into slavery through out the rest of the Roman Empire.
144,000 people dissapearing in the blink of an eye, while 100,000,000 people are being deported from their country???? could easily have gone unnoticed. By 150 AD there was not a single Hebrew to be found through out Israel and Judea.
The end of days had come to the children of Daniels people (as a nation)
And for a time, times and half a time, The Hebrew people were banished from entering any city in Israel and Judea.
In 1844 the caliphate ordered, Hebrews entrance into the cities.
If 62 weeks is 568 years in prophesy is 62 weeks in prophesy (?) 42 months would be = to approx 1644 years. 1260 days =s exactly 1644 of our years.
If anyone honestly looked into the prospect this might have a valid argument, especially when they see how a chronological order becomes evident as described in prophesy.
Which leads to a different onion to peel. we would find ourselves on a different mountain top.
Having the same sky to share.
I don't think I understand your point here, but just to clarify... Matthew 23 says none of those things. As a matter of fact, Jesus didn't tell the disciples individually their futures. He was telling them what would happen to Christians in general during the end times... and this took place in Matthew 24.
Matthew 23 : 13 - 31 Jesus is speaking directly to the scribes and Pharisee, seven times he says Woe to YOU. speaking to those he was standing in front of.
Assuredly I say to YOU, all these things will come upon THIS generation.
Matthew 23 : 34 Therefore indeed, I send you prophets, wise men and scribes, some of them you will kill and crucify and some of them you will scourge in YOUR synagogues and persecute from city to city, ....
Assuredly I say to YOU, all these things will come upon THIS generation.
Matthew 24:1 THEN Jesus went out and departed from the temple and his Disciples came to him bragging about the grandeur of the temple, Jesus spoke of it being destroyed.
then Jesus went upon the temple mount.
Matthew 24:3 The disciples came to him PRIVATELY and ask him when are all of these things going to happen?
Mark 13:3 Peter James, John and Andrew came to Jesus PRIVATELY and ask him when are these things going to be?
This word Privately is key in properly understanding this message.
If I come to YOU privately to tell you things which you are going to see, why would you interpret this as Me giving a message to someone else? Jesus was standing alone with the disciples. Who do you think the disciples thought he was talking to?
Was Jesus being intentionally deceitful to these four?
What was described as will happen to, .....did happen to these four.
Except for the second coming, it would be very easy to see that all of these events did happen in the first century. But the way in which we presume the second coming will be did not happen possibly because our presumption is incorrect, in the same manner the first arrival was not compatible with the way they were expecting.
If Jesus was standing in front of you and three of your friends, saying ,"They are going to kill some of us and some will be beaten, Why would we presume he wasn't talking about US?
Whether Jesus has already came as he said he will do ... or if this event is yet to come; Doen Not change a single thing about his over all message.
If the 62 weeks described in Daniel began in 538 BC and ended in 30 AD, a week in prophesy would be equal to approx. 9.16 of our years. Seven weeks later when it is believed the second coming will take place would be around 94ish AD.
According to John, Jesus did come back and gave him the Revelation in 96 AD. No one knows if he appeared to others or not.
The Children of Daniels people were giver 70 weeks to quit sinning, make restitution and anoint the most high. They didn't do it and 40 years later, the children of Daniels people were scattered through out the rest of the Roman Empire. Where they will feed her there for 1260 days.
Using the equation mentioned above; this would be 1648 or 1649 years.
The Jewish people began migrating back into the region in mass numbers at the turn of the 1800's.
If this interpretation is true, it changes nothing concerning the teachings of Jesus Christ.
The only difference this would make is that we don't ride in the first buss, but another after it.
It would actually be good news if this is true. When we die, we go straight back to the father.
The way I understand prophesy, upon the second coming, 144,000 will be redeemed from the living, and a multitude who has come out of the great tribulation are seen before the throne of God.
And then, after the sixth trumpet is sounded, the first resurrection takes place.
From this day forward, when we die in the Lord, we go straight to heaven..
Rev. 20 describes Satan being bound in the pit and the dead reigning in heaven with Christ for 1000 years. .... the seven last plagues are then handed out and one at a time the vials are poured out upon the earth.
And after the thousand years pass, Satan is loosed for a short season. Except for the seventh trumpet and the seventh vial all of the plagues have already been inflicted upon the earth.
Understanding the element of "TIME" in prophesy is key in understanding them.
There is no way that everything described with the opening of the seven seals, and then the sounding of the seven trumpets, and then the pouring out of the seven vials could possibly all hapen within 3 1/2 of our years as is commonly taught in church.
There would be no time between these events giving people time to repent.
Rev 16:8 and the fourth angel poured out his vial .... v.9 .... and they repented not, so then the fifth angel poured out his vial.
It seems to me that there was a period of time between each of these plagues allowing mankind an opportunity to repent.
It just doesn't make any sense to me that 21 of these plagues take place within 3 1/2 years on earth. If we are going to interpret scripture, we should do so in a manner which brings understanding and not confusion.
It just seems I am reading a different bible as everyone else is reading. But I'm not!
Very interesting, lone77star. Does Kaballah teach some form of meditation? energization exercises?
Thanks for starting this forum, Kathryn! So much truth being spoken in this one!
Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Christian, Nobel Laureate (Physics) for his discovery of the Compton effect which provided the final confirmation of the validity of Planck's quantum hypothesis.
"It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"
Hello friends and family!!!
Much to my dismay, this conversation was born shortly after I was gagged for "bickering" (all by myself) again...
Sorry I missed it because I really had so much to say, until I read that Godly counsel was as apt and on-deck as usual.
Though not trying to resurrect the dead, I'd like to add that biblical passages are not confusing. God does not author confusion. It is written.
We must take in that spirit that understands. The bible is meant to "confound the wise." Or better yet, he that feels he "knows already." We have to go to God ready to hear from him (empty-cupped). It doesn't work when we take him our ideas in order to wrestle him into seeing things our way. He knows we don't know. He will not follow us down our edited path.
Scripture (spirit of God illustrator) cannot be tried by our own spirits. We disagree. We must... well we know...
Good one Kathryn! Sorry I missed it.
Glad you're back; I missed your presence here!!
Thanks Cat333! That was a really nice thing to say. Since it reached my heart, I am certain it came from the heart.
I also hate I returned to dry bones. The battlefield is eerily empty.
I guess you've convinced them all. or everyone just got tired of the back and forth three or four sentences. Lol...
Have a great day!!!
Glad your back. Your friends seem to need you.
I'm glad to hear you call me friend on the sly. Lol...♡
Kathryn, the entire Bible is full of confusing and seemingly contradictory material. You are not alone in that assessment. But there are many reasons why it seems that way.
First of all, the Pentateuch (first 5 books) were written in code by Kabbalists. I suspect that even the modern Kabbalists don't know the whole story. I discovered 15 years ago, their "Tree of Life" matrix embedded in 2 chapters of Genesis.
Jesus talked of reincarnation and karma, but so did the Old Testament. Yet, most Christians today reject such notion without discussion. Their limiting interpretation is "truth" and everything else is a lie, to them. No humility, there. For me, I'm not satisfied. I remain both humble and hungry for answers.
Revelations likely has many of the same code elements used by the Kabbalists. It's called the language of branches and describes the spiritual world using physical things as symbols to represent the non-physical.
But the events of Revelations may be happening right now. The rebirth of Israel was a requirement. That probably started off the End Times in 1947.
The story of the great star named "wormwood" is an interesting tale that may already have occurred. It talks about a star falling to earth and spreading a deadly pestilence across a third of the world.
But what is a star? A literal star cannot fall to Earth, because it is too big. Earth would be a tiny pebble falling into gigantic sea of flame. A star is a nuclear furnace, burning light elements in atomic fusion.
So when did something star-like fall to Earth and spread a disease across a third of the world? Try 1986. A nuclear furnace named Wormwood (Chernobyl in Ukrainian), spread its nuclear fallout across a third of the Old World. My sister-in-law's family suffered several cancers after Chernobyl, because Romania was downwind from the nuclear reactor.
I wrote a book on some of my discoveries in the Bible, but I'm always a student. I'm now learning about the structure of reality from the people who's ancestors wrote the Bible -- Kabbalists.
I have a feeling I'll be revising my book.
We are not on the same page, obviously. No problem. I'm not offended or taken aback by opinion. If Jesus said it. I believe it. Please show me his word on reincarnation. I really need his truth.
Jesus is plain as Chernobyl. People do believe what they see, however, usually. every individual, at their appointed time. We need not wait for yet another sign o' the times. The time is now for someone somewhere.
Silly things have been chosen as confounding factors. Jesus actually did say, no man knows. Then he confirmed that he himself didn't know.
"Always be ready" is the main idea.The "time" is near for many of us, maybe.
Reincarnation/Jesus. Go! If you like...
by schoolgirlforreal3 years ago
When we explain salvation to people who want to know, we use "Roman's Road" which are verses from Romans,"For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. " Romans 3:23"For the wages of...
by Alan23 months ago
When a person says this:" Disbelievers will be given Hell & suffering for eternity. Have fear. "in a Question thread, yet says this: "Love to share! Sharing is caring!!"in his/her profile, can...
by jerami7 years ago
Scripture says that while Jesus was on the cross One of the last things that he said (Decreed ??) was something like this "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" One of the last things...
by glendoncaba8 years ago
We have argued back and forth about the merits or demerits of sharing the Christian gospel on this forum. Someone even started a thread in an effort to prove me wrong when i said that a VOCAL MAJORITY opposed the...
by jerami8 years ago
I believe in God, the father of Jesus but I do not worship the Church. The Church is a good place to be introduced to the Lord,a good place for true Christians meet and study together, but do not worship the Church!!...
by Eric Dierker4 years ago
We all understand that Christians are supposed to study the Bible. Nobody is here saying they are not supposed to do that. But many say we must do exactly what is in the Bible. But that would make a Christian someone...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.