Christian answering questions.

[drfuzzy]

---

Ahh, the old "you're not reading it with spiritual discernment" argument. A classic.

Except that most of us still were Christians when we undertook a serious study of the Bible. Also, "spiritual discernment" is simply another way of saying "I read it and my interpretation is correct because I think I'm guided by an invisible fairy", and ignores the fact that every Christian on this planet gets a different (to some degree) interpretation from the same sets of passages... especially given the tendency to "cherry-pick" favorite parts while ignoring the ones that are more problematic. Or worse, they make excuses for genocide and other inhumane actions by their deity, while pretending that we're the ones who can't see The Truth™.

As has already been pointed out to you, GC, the question is not "why do you think god talks to you" but "why do the Hindus also think their gods talk to them, and offer them guidance?" You're turning a blind eye to the commonality between your religious ideas and those of others whom you consider to be worshiping nothing, as we do. "Not my religion," you say, "It's all those other humans who are hallucinating their interactions with imaginary gods and making poor excuses why their scriptures are the True Revelation from God™!"

---

 You were never Christians so you couldn't have had spiritual discernment,

---

 the Holy Spirit will only reveal the truth of scriptures to the saved. The only time the Holy Spirit will make a revelation to non-believers is witnessing for Jesus through the scriptures. You can't see the truth nor did you ever, if you had you would not have left the faith. I haven't ignored problematic parts of scripture because I've never seen one. As for cherry picking the atheist are kings at that because they know no other way to discredit the Bible except to be dishonest in their feeble attempts. God has the right to do with His creation as He wishes it belongs to Him, He owns it lock stock and barrel.

I've never heard a Hindu say their god said anything to them, I've heard people here say that and I do not remember any being Hindu. I believe they are mistaken in their beliefs and have no doubt they believe in their religion, if they didn't they wouldn't go through all the physical requirements their religions demand of them, they have to earn their way into their god's good, in Christianity it's a gift, we can't earn it, gifts come from love. But then you know this I'm sure your wife has told you this.

GC

---

           LOL!!!!!  Telling Rocket he was never xtian.  Next you'll be telling me I wasn't either!!!  Cue the "no true scotsman" fallacy and the "but you never read it right" whine.

[Godscreated]

And when people here go to an atheist site to source what the Bible actually says isn't what you are accusing me of. Funniest thing about this whole thing is you and the rest can on say my source is bias and make no attempt at showing what I posted wasn't true. Round and round you go to avoid the truth.

For the love of Mike, it says the same thing whether you source it from an atheist site or a Christian one. Conservapedia is worse than right wing or Christian; it's very badly researched and the contributors and editors couldn't care less whether anything on it is actually true.

No one has tried to prove the article wrong, all I hear is it can't be true and until you prove different I will believe it. As for what the atheist bring to the table from atheist sites about the Bible well... they say things totally different than what the Bible actually says, if they didn't why have an atheist repeating what comes from Christian sites.

GC

[abaris]

No one has tried to prove the article wrong, all I hear is it can't be true and until you prove different I will believe it. As for what the atheist bring to the table from atheist sites about the Bible well... they say things totally different than what the Bible actually says, if they didn't why have an atheist repeating what comes from Christian sites.

GC

Some do, most don't. It's called being critical of your sources. I would never link to something leftwing or outspoken atheist, simply because it meets my expectations. I always look who's behind a certain article and what these persons are all about. Rule of thumb, if there's no unbiased source, it's probably not news. Otherwise there would be.

You were quoting the Reaganite Pravda. Which is obvious, reading their mission statement.

[Godscreated]

 It would be simple for Him to show up as show himself to you, but you would fall over dead at seeing His glory, what good would that do. God has said everyone will understand that I exist by looking at nature, that no one will be without excuse. So making up excuses is a exercise in futility. Actually I don't believe you have an answer to my questions, do you.

GC

So showing himself without killing people is another of those things your omnipotent God can't do?

Correct, God himself says that no human can look upon His face and live, being the Creator he should know.

That's a particularly interesting stance considering that he makes two personal appearances in the Bible without anyone dying (although in one all the witness got to see was God's backside).

God told Moses that was the only way he could view God without dying and as for the other I'm not sure what time you're referring to. Do you?

Peter said that, not God. And using Bible quotes on atheists is an exercise in futility. What weight do quotes from the Koran carry with you? They're supposed to be verbatim from God (from God to Gabriel to Mohammed), not just a man saying something in a letter later collected into a book and covered by fiat when the whole book is declared to be the word of God. What would you think of the intelligence of someone who tried to convince you with Koran quotes in advance of convincing you that they are true first?

[/quote]

 Don't you think for one minute that Bible verses do not have an effect on atheist, being faced with the truth of scriptures puts a responsibility on atheist to investigate, this is according to God. Also God said His word will not go out without bring results, what those results will be in the end is according to God's will.
God has proven to me that Mohammed is a false prophet and by the Bible Mohammad has proven himself a false prophet. Most important God has proven Himself to me and that leaves Mohammad in the dark.

GC

[The Valkyrie]

 You were never Christians so you couldn't have had spiritual discernment,

---

 the Holy Spirit will only reveal the truth of scriptures to the saved. The only time the Holy Spirit will make a revelation to non-believers is witnessing for Jesus through the scriptures. You can't see the truth nor did you ever, if you had you would not have left the faith. I haven't ignored problematic parts of scripture because I've never seen one. As for cherry picking the atheist are kings at that because they know no other way to discredit the Bible except to be dishonest in their feeble attempts. God has the right to do with His creation as He wishes it belongs to Him, He owns it lock stock and barrel.

I've never heard a Hindu say their god said anything to them, I've heard people here say that and I do not remember any being Hindu. I believe they are mistaken in their beliefs and have no doubt they believe in their religion, if they didn't they wouldn't go through all the physical requirements their religions demand of them, they have to earn their way into their god's good, in Christianity it's a gift, we can't earn it, gifts come from love. But then you know this I'm sure your wife has told you this.

GC

---

           LOL!!!!!  Telling Rocket he was never xtian.  Next you'll be telling me I wasn't either!!!  Cue the "no true scotsman" fallacy and the "but you never read it right" whine.

Don't you know, if you were a Christian and no longer believe, you were never a "True Christian™.  And neither are those who don't follow GC's particular denomination.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

 So now we're up to two years in a controlled lab, no outside influences in nature that has proven itself to be destructive to all things organic. Now all we have to do is wait another 99, 999, 998 years to see if the blood will last the required 100,000,000 years.

GC

1) I hardly think "left at room temperature" is "in a controlled lab", but whatever. They were studying a phenomenon, to see if their ideas were valid. It's called an experiment (testing a hypothesis), and is part of how science works. Where else would you have had them conduct that experiment?

2) You clearly have not bothered to read anything about what Schweitzer and her crew found. They demonstrated a mechanism by which the cells could last, preserved enough for the DNA to be partially protected until the slow process of fossilization could finish protecting them from degradation.

3) The experiment was directed at demonstrating that it's possible for a natural action to protect against nature's "destructive to all elements" tendency, and it did so. The discovery was shocking, because we all thought what you apparently still think, that it's impossible for tissues to be preserved for that long... but when new evidence was discovered, they investigated to figure out why/how it happens, and we updated our knowledge. That's also how science works. You should try updating your knowledge, some time. It's refreshing.

Finally, how dare you say I was never a Christian? I certainly thought I was, as you do. I certainly believed and practiced (most of) the things you believe and practice. I proclaimed Jesus as my Lord and Savior, studied the Bible fervently, prayed constantly, and in all other ways endeavored to obey what I believed to be the desires of God. Is it really that incomprehensible to you that a person can change their mind, given new information they did not previously have? Perhaps so... you've demonstrated an astounding (to me, anyway) degree of thick-headedness when confronted with new information. The only difference between my Christianity and yours is that it did not successfully insulate me from learning.

[Godscreated]

I didn't call myself a Bright, so I can't provide proof for something I didn't say.

Nobody claimed that.

What you did say is that "you people call yourself Brights", or some such nonsense.

That's the claim I asked you to back up, which you've spectacularly failed at.

 I didn't fail in any way, I misunderstood what you posted, atheist have been know to claim they are "Brights,'' as a matter of fact atheist came up with this name for themselves, correct? I was assuming that some of the atheist claim to be "Brights" because they go on and on about how much more intelligent than Christians. Most atheist here look down on Christians as if we are stupid, which we're not. What I find ridiculous about atheist, they want to discredit the Bible by using partial verses or trying to connect verses that have nothing to do with each other, they deny the sovereignty of God over His creation and argue not from the Bible but from their opinions. Atheist despise Christians using opinion over science books, why can't Christian have the same reaction without being condemned.

GC

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Call ourselves Brights? Does anyone here know what the fuck he's talking about?

(I'm afraid to Google this idiocy. If it's really from atheists, then they're idiots for thinking it was a good idea.)

[The Valkyrie]

Call ourselves Brights? Does anyone here know what the fuck he's talking about?

(I'm afraid to Google this idiocy. If it's really from atheists, then they're idiots for thinking it was a good idea.)

Brights was a rather embarrassing, to the rest of the atheist community, idea started by Richard Dawkins, who suggested atheists call themselves Brights as opposed to atheists (I believe that's how it goes, I didn't bother reading up on the nonsense).

Most atheists rejected it as a ridiculous idea.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Oooooooooooooooooh, okay. So it's part of GC's personal crusade to show that we're all disciples of Richard Dawkins? Rockin'.