RE: The Historical Jesus is real and He rose from the grave
April 7, 2014 at 11:14 pm
(This post was last modified: April 7, 2014 at 11:28 pm by Revelation777.)
(April 7, 2014 at 9:18 am)Thackerie Wrote:(April 6, 2014 at 5:23 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I'm not here to be your jester. I understand I am on a board filled with people who don't believe in God and I am open for insults, put downs, and rejections. I feel I am sent here on a mission. I am not going to get discouraged by the results. Some people think I'm a simpleton, gullible, or ignorant. I believe in the Truth of who Christ is and stand by Him not any merits of my own. I believe that the Truth can set you free. I love all you atheists on this board and have been praying for you daily. Call me a nut or to take a flying leap, however, I am motivated my the love of the Lord.
You're doing a piss-poor job of carrying out your mission. You're simply reinforcing our perception of the shallowness of christianity. Jesus would not be impressed.
Hopefully, the Lord can teach me to do a better job.
(April 7, 2014 at 9:00 am)Tonus Wrote:(April 4, 2014 at 2:58 pm)ShaMan Wrote: It's misunderstood by Christians, atheists, and agnostics alike. The spirit of that teaching is that there are some among this [age] (this current developmental stage of human-kind) who would not taste death (experience a spiritual sleep) prior to Christ (spiritual realms) returning in glory (providing an individual with a spiritual awakening). The bible is an esoteric text, and in the wrong hands it can produce all kinds of error and destruction (as history has proven well).Most theists will explain a difference in interpretation by first pointing out that everyone else has it wrong, then providing the "correct" interpretation. Occasionally they will provide some out-of-context verses from parts of the Bible to help bolster the point, or (as you did here) simply offer the alternative with no additional support.
Once we assume that a particular text is metaphor or allegory, the possible interpretations and explanations become almost infinite and can support just about any approach. As others pointed out, this does not speak well of the idea that it was inspired by a being of immeasurable intellect and wisdom.
(April 6, 2014 at 5:23 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: I'm not here to be your jester.
Not intentionally, perhaps.
Then call me a Fool for Christ.
(April 7, 2014 at 11:12 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(April 7, 2014 at 10:57 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Sorry that I didn't reply to this post. I do believe and understand that there are changes that take place within species. However, In the Beginning God created various creatures after THEIR KIND. Dogs have evolves into many variations of various breeds but we don't find dogs turning into a different kind all together like a human.
Okay, so like someone else in another thread, you're attempting to draw a division between microevolution and macroevolution. I'm going to do the nice thing and simply ignore your use of the word "kind," since that has no definition beyond what creationists need it to mean at the time, and it's useless to discuss. So, put that to one side, it's not going to help you.
Unfortunately, with your "you don't find dogs turning into people!" nonsense, you have confirmed to me that you did exactly no research before you decided evolution was incorrect, and that you also have no idea what it is. That's a profoundly dishonest position to take, but as it happens, also the easiest one to debunk. Evolution happens very gradually, with those small changes you mention building up over time, generation by generation. What you're saying, when you draw this micro/macro distinction, is that those little changes occur, but that little changes can never add up to big changes, and that's just as absurd as saying you could walk in a straight line forever and never walk a mile.
To be clear, nobody has ever come up with a mechanism by which those small changes would be prevented from being accumulated; they all just do what you do, which is assert that such a mechanism exists without having any basis for thinking that. It's just a bunch of wild handwaving to avoid admitting the truth.
"Kind" is extremely important and wish you wouldn't cast it to the side. Yes, when we pet a poodle we both can agree that this may of evolved over many many years from a different looking dog. But you lose me if you say that billions of years ago this evolved from a frog.
(April 7, 2014 at 4:53 pm)Cinjin Wrote:(April 7, 2014 at 4:55 am)Esquilax Wrote: Hey Rev, could you go back to page 32 of this thread and answer the questions I asked you at the bottom of that page? I'd really appreciate an answer, and more importantly, if you're honest in answering them, then the answers you'll be forced to give might make you think, too.
It'll never happen. Rev is your typical self-proclaimed sheep. He will never see it because he simply does not want to. I'm convinced that even if you could build a time machine, go back 2000 years, prove Jesus was a worthless hippie and the crucifixion never happened that his kind would only scoff and say it was the work of demons. You cannot teach those who refuse to be taught.
When the hardened Roman Centurian witness what He did at the cross two thousand years ago he said, "Certain, this was the Son of God!"
