@ HAROLD CAMPING - THE BEST BIBLE PREACHER ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH ? @
OB...@aol.com
pointed time there is no other better preacher of the Bible on radio
earthwide.He is a uniquely gifted preacher .He got some excellent
points in what he teaches that put him well ahead of all
priests ,pastors in the nominal christendom.
His reasonings on some Bible issues is fantastic. Though I consider
him as an opponent I listen a whole lot to his Open Forum programs and
learn some things to improve my teaching about the Bible.Right now I
have a audiotape with Open Forum running .I have plenty of cassettes
with Harold Camping talking on his Open Forum.
I recommend you go back to my earlier posts to have a better idea of
what I am teaching.
I wrote about two dates 7 BC and 2 BC that the brith of Jesus can be
ascribed to.How in the world it can be so?
It can be so and Harold Camping helped me on that !
Jesus was born in 7 BC but as a child he was taken to Egypt for safety
and could come out of Egypt with parents in 2 BC.
When Israel was saved by God Yahweh and went out of Egypt a new nation
was born .
When Jesus left Egypt it was like a new beginning for him .
So we can trace the beginning of Jesus to the two dates : 7 BC and 2
BC.
Camping came up with the same period of 1955 years like I did that
linkes the times of Jesus and first apostles with our times.
He got 33 AD ( Pentecost ) to May,21,1988 AD 1955 years.
In my calculations :
29 AD - 33 AD - 36 AD is 1955 years earlier than 1984 AD - 1988 AD -
1991 AD.
He came up with the year 2011 AD as the year of the end of the
world.The date cannot be disputed directly.
Many teachings Camping presents can be challenged using the Bible.
He don't see a difference between God the Father and Jesus Christ.He
claims God the Father is Jesus Christ !
He teaches Sunday is the Sabbath day ( alone ) .
When the church era ended in his view in 1988 AD he has been still
teaching literal hot hell for almost 20 years !
And he used that twisted doctrine on hell combined with predestination
doctrine !
If I were using Camping's doctrines putting aside his calculations I
would have to reject his declarations on the year 2011 AD he
propagates.Had I not gotten the same year 2011 AD I would not believe
even in his predicted year 2011 AD.
There are extremes in Camping's teachings .Sometimes he shows his
brilliancy in reasonings and sometimes he shows the opposite.That
allows me to improve on my teachings and capitalize on his mistakes.
I strongly recommend you to tune to Camping's Open Forum program.
OB...@aol.com
Word.Nothing can be added and miracles ended about 2000 years ago.
On this one many christian religions can be refuted already.
Camping claims there will be rapture of saved into heaven on May,
21,2011 AD.I understand the rapture differently ( spiritually ).
Camping says God will destroy the whole universe on October ,21,2011
AD . God will not destroy the universe according to my understanding
of the Bible.
Camping says there will be no sexual intimacy in heaven ,that is ,for
all saved .There will be sexual life in the Paradise to my
understanding of the Bible.
OB...@aol.com
Camping will be talking about 18 months left to May,21,2011
AD.Tomorrow is Saturday so he will be speaking today about 1.5 year
left to the Judgement Day.
He is very strong on that date .
Henry The IIV
<OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e4d9f8e4-7ded-40aa...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>I wrote about him and have to come back to him . No doubt at this
> pointed time there is no other better preacher of the Bible on radio
> earthwide.He is a uniquely gifted preacher .He got some excellent
> points in what he teaches that put him well ahead of all
> priests ,pastors in the nominal christendom.
Huh? You already admitted you knew he was wrong about a lot of things and
has failed 100% in all his past predictions.
>
> His reasonings on some Bible issues is fantastic. Though I consider
> him as an opponent I listen a whole lot to his Open Forum programs and
> learn some things to improve my teaching about the Bible.
WHO are you teaching about the bible? Do you preach on street corners?
Right now I
> have a audiotape with Open Forum running .I have plenty of cassettes
> with Harold Camping talking on his Open Forum.
Why? What's the point when you already admitted you knew he was wrong about
a lot of things and has failed 100% in all his past predictions.
> I recommend you go back to my earlier posts to have a better idea of
> what I am teaching.
But you've been told hundreds of times that no one care what you are
teaching. You admitted you never actually read the bible.
>
> Many teachings Camping presents can be challenged using the Bible.
Exactly! He, like you, never actually read the bible either.
> There are extremes in Camping's teachings .Sometimes he shows his
> brilliancy in reasonings and sometimes he shows the opposite.That
> allows me to improve on my teachings and capitalize on his mistakes.
> I strongly recommend you to tune to Camping's Open Forum program.
No one cares about the false prophet Camping. Why do you?
Henry The IIV
<OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:de06649e-e0f3-41eb...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Both I and Camping agree on the sole authority of the Bible as God's
> Word.Nothing can be added and miracles ended about 2000 years ago.
> On this one many christian religions can be refuted already.
Why are you so obsessed with this radio preacher?
>
> Camping claims there will be rapture of saved into heaven on May,
> 21,2011 AD.
So far he's been 100% WRONG in all his predictions. Only a fool would take
him seriously. Are you a fool?
I understand the rapture differently ( spiritually ).
> Camping says God will destroy the whole universe on October ,21,2011
> AD . God will not destroy the universe according to my understanding
> of the Bible.
You claimed you never read the bible so how can you comment on that?
> Camping says there will be no sexual intimacy in heaven ,that is ,for
> all saved .
Maybe because that's what Jesus said?
There will be sexual life in the Paradise to my
> understanding of the Bible.
Then you spit in the face of Jesus.... shame on you!
Sockie
<OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8860bf89-7ca0-466e...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
He was just as strong on all the other dates and was still 100% WRONG!
OB...@aol.com
very often to his Open Forum programs I recorded on audiotapes from
radio.I can listen for hours his program .Time is so short that you
must put aside watching tv or listen to commercial radio programs
limiting himself to a small time for that and read or listen what is
being said now about the year 2011 AD.This is the biggest news right
now that is ignored as predicted by the Bible.
Right at this moment I have audiocassette running with Camping talking
on Open Forum .
I will be listening and recording parts of the today's Open Forum that
should be interesting as we come to the marking date 21st of a
month .He will be speaking about 18 months left to May,21st,2011 AD.
Sockie
<OB...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b6f918d3-75ae-450d...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> Despite of the fact I don't agree with many views Camping has I listen
> very often to his Open Forum programs I recorded on audiotapes from
> radio.I can listen for hours his program .
To what purpose? What good does it do you? You have no life. All you do is
obsess over Armageddon?
Time is so short that you
> must put aside watching tv or listen to commercial radio programs
> limiting himself to a small time for that and read or listen what is
> being said now about the year 2011 AD.
Everyone knows what's being said. But you refuse to address the fact that
everyone, including Camping, has been 100% WRONG in their doomsday
predictions.
This is the biggest news right
> now that is ignored as predicted by the Bible.
The bible doesn't predict any year for the end of the world.
> Right at this moment I have audiocassette running with Camping talking
> on Open Forum .
Why don't you listen to some nice music instead, or go for a walk?
> I will be listening and recording parts of the today's Open Forum that
> should be interesting as we come to the marking date 21st of a
> month .He will be speaking about 18 months left to May,21st,2011 AD.
What will you do when you realize he's once again 100% WRONG?
Pastor Dave
<Socki...@Socksland.com> spake thusly:
><OB...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Despite of the fact I don't agree with
>> many views Camping has I listen very
>> often to his Open Forum programs
>> I recorded on audiotapes from radio.
>> I can listen for hours his program .
>
> To what purpose? What good does it do you?
> You have no life. All you do is obsess over
> Armageddon?
Because he mistakenly thinks, like the rest
of the Futurists, that the NT was written
and then time froze, until he was born
and opened a Bible for the first time
and then time started running again. :)
>> Time is so short that you must put aside
>> watching TV or listen to commercial radio
>> programs limiting himself to a small time
>> for that and read or listen what is being
>> said now about the year 2011 AD.
>
> Everyone knows what's being said.
And yet he has the time to spend hours listening
to Camping. :)
> But you refuse to address the fact that everyone,
> including Camping, has been 100% WRONG in
> their doomsday predictions.
Of course they have. And they always will be.
They wait for Jesus to come in their generation
and they will be severely disappointed!
Nor can they seem to understand what "wrong" means.
You can show them their "predictions" and how they
did not come true and they will actually have the gall
to sit there and claim that that doesn't mean that they
were wrong. :)
>> This is the biggest news right now that
>> is ignored, as predicted by the Bible.
>
> The bible doesn't predict any year for
> the end of the world.
It doesn't even predict the end of the world,
let alone what year. :)
And this guy is so messed up, that he doesn't
even have the right year! The "Mayan prophecy"
is for Dec 21, 2012. :)
>> Right at this moment I have audiocassette
>> running with Camping talking on Open Forum .
>
> Why don't you listen to some nice music instead,
> or go for a walk?
Isn't it amazing that he says that there is no time
for TV and yet, spends every waking minute
searching for Camping on the radio, or on tape?! :)
>> I will be listening and recording parts of
>> the today's Open Forum that should be
>> interesting as we come to the marking date
>> 21st of a month. He will be speaking about
>> 18 months left to May 21st, 2011 AD.
>
> What will you do when you realize he's
> once again 100% WRONG?
He will do what he has always done. Pick a new date.
This guy always puts out dates for various "prophecies"
to be fulfilled and he is always wrong.
Not surprising though that he has given some long winded
"explanation" about how it not coming true does not mean
that he was wrong. And he even now makes excuses for
his so called "prophecies" before hand, when questioned
about them and what he will say when the date passes. :)
Futurism is a fools game and these people are nothing more
than what I call, "newspaper prophets". :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Bathroom Fact: While a few hundred bacteria are
typically found on a toilet seat, over six thousand
are typically found on the faucet to the bathroom sink.
Sockie
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:soigg5dnrn18f8oiu...@4ax.com...
You're 100% RIGHT on! ;-)
Pastor Dave
<Socki...@Socksland.com> spake thusly:
Thank you. :)
I don't know you, nor what your beliefs or lack of them are.
But you do realize that if it turns out that you're an atheist
and that we just agreed with each other, that I will have
to kill myself, right? :)
All seriousness aside, if you wish to discuss it further, that
would be fine with me. I would appreciate knowing what
your beliefs, or lack of them are however. Just so that
our discussion makes more sense. :)
And to begin the discussion (should you decide to have one)
on a fair platform, I will tell you what mine are, since just as
I'm sure you feel, I don't like anyone sneaking up on me and
so, I make sure not to do it to others. So I will state that yes
I do believe the Bible to be God's word and 100% accurate
and 100% truth.
I do not however, believe in what's taught in the churches today,
which is not what was always taught and is certainly not what
the writers of the NT taught others. My beliefs are commonly
rejected as "Satan's work" and if you want to verify that, then
just look at the responses you will see this thread getting from
Futurists who read it and the attacks they will launch on me
and the lies that they will tell about me and that will tell you
all you need to know about how (dis)honestly they approach
the subject of Christ's return and what the Bible is saying. :)
The Futurists try to reword and/or redefine the word(s)
that Jesus used (mainly one word, "generation") and try
to make it say something other than what it clearly says.
Of course, sadly, when I prove to Futurists that both Jesus
and the Apostles taught a return within that same generation,
the Futurists immediately try to claim that the Apostles were
wrong about that. Yet, they also claim that the Bible is God's
word and that these men were inspired by God to write what
the NT. Now how does that make sense?! And how can they
be wrong and yet, the Bible be trusted?! That makes no sense!
Of course, when it is explained that it cannot be that they
were inspired by God and wrong at the same time, they
try to deflect, by saying they don't want to talk about it
(when that's what they spend most of their time on) and
that the subject, "isn't that important anyway". Sure. :)
Now of course, they also know that making that statement
is to knowingly lie, since Christians spend more money on
books and videos, etc. on that subject in the Christian book
stores, than any other type (except for the Bible itself) and
that makes it very important to them and they know that,
especially since most of them spend most of their time
(and lots of time in church and even more in Bible studies)
on the subject of the end times!
And furthermore, it was that important to the Apostles as well,
since it is the second most important (behind initial salvation)
and second most talked about subject in the New Testament!
And so, their responses, which they only think up as an
avoidance maneuver when they see the truth of the matter,
are dishonest and furthermore, they know that to be true.
So what does that tell us? Simple! :) That to them, it is
their doctrine that is of the greatest importance to them
and not the Scriptures themselves, while they falsely claim
the opposite to be true. And since their doctrine is based
on it being all about them, in their generation and since
they would probably abandon the Christian faith if it isn't,
that means that their faith is about nothing more than ego,
vanity, self-importance and the physical world. Sad. (:
And after backing them into a corner Biblically, more than
one has responded with the same question (about the Bible);
"Well if it's not all about us today, then good is it?"
Gee, what a humble approach to God's word, huh?! :)
So to them, if it is not all about them today and about
the physical world around them (while they hypocritically
claim that they are all about the spiritual), then to them,
the Bible is just a waste of paper and ink. Sad! (:
In other words, take away their end times discussion
and they just simply aren't interested in the Bible.
To them, it is all about themselves being some great
interpreter of Bible prophecy and impressing everyone
else with their Biblical wisdom, thinking themselves the
one who has discovered what no one else has and looking
for that pat on the back, when in reality, what they say is
not based on any special wisdom from God, but is based
on what they have heard others say; a parroting of others
who have said the same type of thing about whomever
was in office at the time and happened to be the current
target of the latest "Anti-Christ" craze. :) Right now, it is
Obama, but of course just recently, it was Bush and hey,
let's not forget the famous "Anti-Christ Saddam Hussein"!
Of course, none of those were accurate and the Bible
clearly says that when Babylon fell, that would be it!
There is no "rebuilt Babylon" in the Bible and in fact,
it specifically says that would not happen! There is no
5th empire found anywhere in the Bible (just four),
nor is there any "rebuilt Roman Empire" found anywhere
in the Bible, nor is there is any gap in Daniel's 70 weeks
stated anywhere in the prophecy and in fact, Daniel
specifically said that the Messiah's Kingdom would be
set up before the last of the four kingdoms perished
("in the days of these kings") and there is no dispute
Rome was the 4th kingdom (Babylonian, Medo-Persian,
Greek & Roman)!
But hey, approach any of these Futurists about how
they were wrong and they will start talking in circles,
until it somehow seems that even though they were
wrong, they were not wrong. And that is done
because they don't want to lose their place of influence
and because they are perfectly willing to pull the wool
over their own eyes, so that they don't have to give up
their "It's all about me!" doctrine. (:
The way I see it, we have to be honest about our faith.
Meaning that the Bible says what it says and that we
need to wrap ourselves around that idea and then
decide whether or not we will follow Christ, instead of
what is done now, which is to invent our own selfish
doctrine and then try to force read it back into the Bible.
No, horses do not equal tanks. :)
"But they were describing them in the way that they could!"
...is the common answer, but it doesn't make sense.
They could have also said; "Huge metal objects".
Quite simply, they knew what metal was and would
have described it as such. :)
As for the issue of the end times (not the end of time,
which it does not say), I believe what it says and Jesus
did say that He would return within that same generation
and not only that, but He also (the original Greek will
verify this) placed great emphasis on that statement!
He basically said that if that does not come true, then He
should be dismissed. Futurists may not like that, but it is
what He said and the Apostles did indeed teach the very
same thing, based on His words.
And so yes, I also side with the atheists when it comes
to their argument that Jesus said that He would return
within the same generation, since that is what He said.
"So how can you believe in the Bible, when it is obvious
that He did not return back then?"
...would be the obvious question, right? :)
My answer would be that we would need to discuss that
in more detail, but to offer a quick answer, I would say
that He did return and that it is the "how" that the Futurists
make their mistake about and I can prove that to anyone
who is willing to be unbiased about the subject and is also
willing to stick to the rule that all are supposed to stick to,
which is that any text interprets itself and that is always
how meaning is gleaned from it from the outset. Any
scholar worth his/her salt, can tell you that.
In my estimation, the reason that I have not been able
to have a reasonable conversation with atheists, is that
when they see what I have to say and that it makes sense,
they begin to think that it might mean that they might
have to think again about believing the Bible and so,
they then start attacking me and forget all about the
discussion that we were having and become completely
illogical, because they don't like where it is heading.
But whether or not they decide to believe the Bible is
up to them. My goal was merely to discuss with them
"how" it is that He would have returned, based on
the Scriptures themselves and not whether or not
they should convert to Christianity.
I.e., If you see that what someone says makes sense,
then the honest approach is to say that it does, which
is not the same as saying that you now believe that
you should convert to Christianity, agreed?
So anyway, I am open to a discussion if you wish to
have one and if not, then hey, no problem and you
have a nice day. :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
Life is like a game of cards. The hand that is dealt you
is determinism; the way you play it is free will.
Randy ®
Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>> You're 100% RIGHT on!;-)
> Thank you.:)
>
> I don't know you, nor what your beliefs or lack of them are.
> But you do realize that if it turns out that you're an atheist
> and that we just agreed with each other, that I will have
> to kill myself, right?:)
Or you could just realize that your eschatology is appealing to
atheists who want to discredit what the Bible teaches. Of course
Camping is wrong, but your post was so generically scathing of
futurism in general, that it could have been confused for a
simple attack on anyone who believes or proclaims what the Bible
teaches.
--
Have you heard Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him
from the dead? Did you know God saves you from hell and
gives you eternal life through faith in this finished work alone,
not your merits (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess.
1:8-9)? This is so man cannot boast, and God alone gets the
glory (Eph. 2:8-9).
______________________________________________
www.faithguard.org
www.twitter.com/faithguard
www.facebook.com/faithguard
______________________________________________
Sockie
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:40:24 -0600, "Sockie"
> <Socki...@Socksland.com> spake thusly:
>
> Thank you. :)
>
> I don't know you, nor what your beliefs or lack of them are.
> But you do realize that if it turns out that you're an atheist
> and that we just agreed with each other, that I will have
> to kill myself, right? :)
>
> All seriousness aside, if you wish to discuss it further, that
> would be fine with me. I would appreciate knowing what
> your beliefs, or lack of them are however. Just so that
> our discussion makes more sense. :)
Turn on the gas pipe! ;-) Only kidding. Actually I'm an agnostic, not an
atheist. I believe we can't know if there is or isn't a God *as we
understand gods*, or to understand it's mind and how it reasons and thinks,
or what it's motives are, if there is one. This is based of course, on the
real world and how things work, how they are. Is there some kind of "god"
behind the big bang? I don't know. No one can know for sure since there is
no real physical or irrefutable evidence of any kind one way or the other.
Keep in mind that what you may see as "evidence" may not be how someone else
perceives it.
>
> And to begin the discussion (should you decide to have one)
> on a fair platform, I will tell you what mine are, since just as
> I'm sure you feel, I don't like anyone sneaking up on me and
> so, I make sure not to do it to others. So I will state that yes
> I do believe the Bible to be God's word and 100% accurate
> and 100% truth.
And just why do you believe this in face of the scientific evidence we now
have to the contrary? Again, this does not mean some kind of "god" doesn't
exist. Even the RCC Pope believes in the theory of evolution.
>
> I do not however, believe in what's taught in the churches today,
> which is not what was always taught and is certainly not what
> the writers of the NT taught others.
Here we agree.
My beliefs are commonly
> rejected as "Satan's work" and if you want to verify that, then
> just look at the responses you will see this thread getting from
> Futurists who read it and the attacks they will launch on me
> and the lies that they will tell about me and that will tell you
> all you need to know about how (dis)honestly they approach
> the subject of Christ's return and what the Bible is saying. :)
Unfortunately I see to many self-proclaimed Christians in these groups who
lie-for-God. They don't realize the disservice they do to Christianity by
lying and making false accusations.
>
> The Futurists try to reword and/or redefine the word(s)
> that Jesus used (mainly one word, "generation") and try
> to make it say something other than what it clearly says.
>
> Of course, sadly, when I prove to Futurists that both Jesus
> and the Apostles taught a return within that same generation,
> the Futurists immediately try to claim that the Apostles were
> wrong about that. Yet, they also claim that the Bible is God's
> word and that these men were inspired by God to write what
> the NT. Now how does that make sense?! And how can they
> be wrong and yet, the Bible be trusted?! That makes no sense!
Agreed. I always believed Jesus meant "their" generation, not ours or the
one after or before us, but HIS generation. However, he never returned and
I read that many fell away from his teachings when they realized all his
followers, and he himself, died and never came back. Now you can argue the
resurrection, but that doesn't fit either. His followers still died as did
their children and grandchildren..... to this day. They all "tasted of
death." As for the resurrection itself.... that is hard to believe and from
what I've seen on educational TV, many doubt he was actually dead at the
time they removed him from the cross. It was difficult to tell in those
days. People have survived some unbelievably serious mangling accidents.
>
> Of course, when it is explained that it cannot be that they
> were inspired by God and wrong at the same time, they
> try to deflect, by saying they don't want to talk about it
> (when that's what they spend most of their time on) and
> that the subject, "isn't that important anyway". Sure. :)
I believe they wrote what they believed at the time. I also believe Jesus
believed what he was taught and read at the time. How "inspired" the
scribes were by an invisible God is debatable. Anyone can make any claim
they so choose (I was inspired by God. God inspired me. etc) and the
original scrolls no longer exist. What did THEY actually say? And where
are all the other "inspired" scrolls that where never included in the bible
by the RCC? What do they say? Are there even more we haven't yet located
out there in the deserts and tombs?
>
> Now of course, they also know that making that statement
> is to knowingly lie, since Christians spend more money on
> books and videos, etc. on that subject in the Christian book
> stores, than any other type (except for the Bible itself) and
> that makes it very important to them and they know that,
> especially since most of them spend most of their time
> (and lots of time in church and even more in Bible studies)
> on the subject of the end times!
I don't believe that applies to all. My family included several Christian
religions and none dwelled on the end times or Armageddon. The only
Doomsday fanatics obsessed with Armageddon were the Jehovah's Witnesses.
For over 150 year now they've been babbling the end is just around the
corner.
>
> And furthermore, it was that important to the Apostles as well,
> since it is the second most important (behind initial salvation)
> and second most talked about subject in the New Testament!
>
> And so, their responses, which they only think up as an
> avoidance maneuver when they see the truth of the matter,
> are dishonest and furthermore, they know that to be true.
On some of these boards Christians aren't always known to be 100% honest
about the subject. ;-)
>
> So what does that tell us? Simple! :) That to them, it is
> their doctrine that is of the greatest importance to them
> and not the Scriptures themselves, while they falsely claim
> the opposite to be true. And since their doctrine is based
> on it being all about them, in their generation and since
> they would probably abandon the Christian faith if it isn't,
> that means that their faith is about nothing more than ego,
> vanity, self-importance and the physical world. Sad. (:
You're entitled to your opinion. I really have no idea why they feel that
way but see above. Only the JWs were obsessed with the end times.
>
> And after backing them into a corner Biblically, more than
> one has responded with the same question (about the Bible);
>
> "Well if it's not all about us today, then good is it?"
>
> Gee, what a humble approach to God's word, huh?! :)
No comment. I haven't see those posts.
>
> So to them, if it is not all about them today and about
> the physical world around them (while they hypocritically
> claim that they are all about the spiritual), then to them,
> the Bible is just a waste of paper and ink. Sad! (:
>
> In other words, take away their end times discussion
> and they just simply aren't interested in the Bible.
Which denominations are you talking about?
I think that can cover many religions. Sadly, they're mostly money making
businesses these days anyway.
>
> No, horses do not equal tanks. :)
>
> "But they were describing them in the way that they could!"
>
> ...is the common answer, but it doesn't make sense.
> They could have also said; "Huge metal objects".
>
> Quite simply, they knew what metal was and would
> have described it as such. :)
>
> As for the issue of the end times (not the end of time,
> which it does not say), I believe what it says and Jesus
> did say that He would return within that same generation
> and not only that, but He also (the original Greek will
> verify this) placed great emphasis on that statement!
>
> He basically said that if that does not come true, then He
> should be dismissed. Futurists may not like that, but it is
> what He said and the Apostles did indeed teach the very
> same thing, based on His words.
I don't think anyone's seen him yet. The bible also said "all eyes" would
see him etc.
>
> And so yes, I also side with the atheists when it comes
> to their argument that Jesus said that He would return
> within the same generation, since that is what He said.
>
> "So how can you believe in the Bible, when it is obvious
> that He did not return back then?">
> ...would be the obvious question, right? :)
Now that's a broad question and involves more than Jesus not coming back in
that generation and his apostles not "tasting of death" and indeed tasting
of it as one by one they died off.........
>
> My answer would be that we would need to discuss that
> in more detail, but to offer a quick answer, I would say
> that He did return and that it is the "how" that the Futurists
> make their mistake about and I can prove that to anyone
> who is willing to be unbiased about the subject and is also
> willing to stick to the rule that all are supposed to stick to,
> which is that any text interprets itself and that is always
> how meaning is gleaned from it from the outset. Any
> scholar worth his/her salt, can tell you that.
But this is just YOUR opinion of it. Whose "rule" is it? I've not heard of
it before. Also, the bible said, " all eyes will see him..."
>
> In my estimation, the reason that I have not been able
> to have a reasonable conversation with atheists, is that
> when they see what I have to say and that it makes sense,...
I'm not taking sides here, but what makes sense to you may not make sense to
them.
> ....they begin to think that it might mean that they might
> have to think again about believing the Bible and so,
But believing WHAT in the bible? You're making very broad statements.
Believe in talking animals? Sticks turning into snakes? Jonah living without
oxygen in a fishes stomach for a few days? Dead people coming back to life?
What exactly are you talking about them believing?
> they then start attacking me and forget all about the
> discussion that we were having and become completely
> illogical, because they don't like where it is heading.
Since I haven't seen that happen yet, I cannot comment on it. Have you
provided any kind of scientific proof or evidence of what you want them to
believe?
>
> But whether or not they decide to believe the Bible is
> up to them.
But again Mr. Dave... what is it they should believe and why?
My goal was merely to discuss with them
> "how" it is that He would have returned, based on
> the Scriptures themselves and not whether or not
> they should convert to Christianity.
The bible doesn't say HOW he'll return but did say trumpets would sound and
all eyes would see him. That makes it pretty clear to people.
>
> I.e., If you see that what someone says makes sense,
> then the honest approach is to say that it does, which
> is not the same as saying that you now believe that
> you should convert to Christianity, agreed?
It would have to make sense, yes. But what makes sense to you may not to
them. And I have seen you start insulting people who reject your
interpretation of the bible in the past. Once you start insulting people for
disagreeing with you - you've lost them and that's sad. It ends all rational
discussion.
>
> So anyway, I am open to a discussion if you wish to
> have one and if not, then hey, no problem and you
> have a nice day. :)
I believe Jesus said what he said and he believed it when he said it.
However, all his followers died as did he. No trumpets have sounded in the
sky and no one's eyes from anywhere on the earth saw his return as per the
bible.
Sockie
"Randy �" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:I6KdnfuVpc1xFpTW...@giganews.com...
> On Sun, 11/22/09, at 7:40:53AM,
> Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> You're 100% RIGHT on!;-)
>> Thank you.:)
>>
>> I don't know you, nor what your beliefs or lack of them are.
>> But you do realize that if it turns out that you're an atheist
>> and that we just agreed with each other, that I will have
>> to kill myself, right?:)
>
>
> Or you could just realize that your eschatology is appealing to atheists
> who want to discredit what the Bible teaches. Of course Camping is wrong,
> but your post was so generically scathing of futurism in general, that it
> could have been confused for a simple attack on anyone who believes or
> proclaims what the Bible teaches.
I got the impression from Dave's post that he has his own interpretation of
the bible as do so many people and religions on earth. And we are indeed
all entitles to our opinions. It does appear from the bible Jesus was
talking about his own times, not these times.
Pastor Dave
<Socki...@Socksland.com> spake thusly:
Okay, first of all, let me say that in my opinion,
you have fallen for the claims of atheistic minds
that have said that certain things are "science",
when they are either pure fantasy, or at best,
someone's hypothesis and falsely called "theory".
Claiming something is science does not make it so,
nor does wide acceptance of it. And to say that
something must be "peer reviewed" is the atheists
way of saying that they automatically exclude any
scientists, no matter how well educated they are,
if they do not agree with those atheistic ideas
and it is those atheistic minds that control the
journals and they exclude anything that doesn't
line up with the status quo of atheistic thought
and so, a requirement to be "peer reviewed"
by these atheistic minds simply means nothing
more than, "It must appear in our journals and
we must approve of it, which will never happen
and then we will say it's not valid science because
it's not peer reviewed".
But don't believe me. Investigate this for yourself.
> Is there some kind of "god" behind the big bang?
We don't know that there was a Big Bang. It is not
a proven concept. Nor can any scientist who thinks
it did happen tell you what happened. And making
the claim that nothing exploded and here we are,
if you read it in the Bible, would be rejected by you
immediately. Yet when fallible men in white coats
say it, you'll argue to the end that its "science".
How is one any different than the other? There is
only one difference. In my belief system, there
was a cause for matter to be here. In your belief
system, there was no cause and matter appeared
from nothing, with no cause.
Think about it. Which one makes more sense? :)
I think we both know, even scientifically, the one
with a cause makes more sense. And yet it is
the one with no cause that is called, "science".
Huh??? :)
>> And to begin the discussion (should you decide to have one)
>> on a fair platform, I will tell you what mine are, since just as
>> I'm sure you feel, I don't like anyone sneaking up on me and
>> so, I make sure not to do it to others. So I will state that yes
>> I do believe the Bible to be God's word and 100% accurate
>> and 100% truth.
>
> And just why do you believe this in face of the scientific evidence
> we now have to the contrary? Again, this does not mean some
> kind of "god" doesn't exist. Even the RCC Pope believes in the
> theory of evolution.
I don't care what the Pope believes. What I do know however,
is that evolution as you believe it happened, is not science.
Science absolutely requires one of two things to be present:
1) Direct observation.
2) Repeatable testing with repeatable results.
If one of those two things is not present then it is not science.
Evolution, as you believe in it, has neither. And all you will
see when someone claims otherwise, is the type of evolution
that is science, which is microevolution. You probably didn't
know that there are six types of evolution and that micro
and macro are two of them.
Microevolution is what we do see and directly observe,
such as the fact that we have hundreds of types of dogs.
And they all probably came from a common ancestor.
A dog. And that dog probably did come from its ancestor,
which is claimed to be a wolf. And I wouldn't argue that,
as both dogs and wolves are canids. They are of the
same "kind".
Macroevolution however, says that these canids came from
a non-canid and so on and so forth, until we get back to
a single celled organism, which was supposedly the first
life and that came from a rock. And that, has never been
directly observed and there are no tests that can be done
to show that to happen.
Therefore, microevolution is science and macroevolution
is not science.
Furthermore, evolutionists will claim macroevolution and
then when you ask for proof, you will never get it. All you
will ever be presented with, is examples of microevolution
and personal attacks for daring to question their religion.
And a religion is what it is, since it does not qualify as
science, when it does not have the support of one of
the two requirements to make it science.
They will also try to claim that macroevolution is a word
invented by creationists, but it was actually evolutionists
who invented the word and so now what they are trying
to do, is to get the word redefined to mean microevolution.
>> I do not however, believe in what's taught in the
>> churches today, which is not what was always
>> taught and is certainly not what the writers of
>> the NT taught others.
>
> Here we agree.
Good. :)
>> My beliefs are commonly
>> rejected as "Satan's work" and if you want to verify that, then
>> just look at the responses you will see this thread getting from
>> Futurists who read it and the attacks they will launch on me
>> and the lies that they will tell about me and that will tell you
>> all you need to know about how (dis)honestly they approach
>> the subject of Christ's return and what the Bible is saying. :)
>
> Unfortunately I see to many self-proclaimed Christians
> in these groups who lie-for-God. They don't realize
> the disservice they do to Christianity by lying and
> making false accusations.
Amen! :)
>> The Futurists try to reword and/or redefine the word(s)
>> that Jesus used (mainly one word, "generation") and try
>> to make it say something other than what it clearly says.
>>
>> Of course, sadly, when I prove to Futurists that both Jesus
>> and the Apostles taught a return within that same generation,
>> the Futurists immediately try to claim that the Apostles were
>> wrong about that. Yet, they also claim that the Bible is God's
>> word and that these men were inspired by God to write what
>> the NT. Now how does that make sense?! And how can they
>> be wrong and yet, the Bible be trusted?! That makes no sense!
>
> Agreed. I always believed Jesus meant "their" generation,
> not ours or the one after or before us, but HIS generation.
> However, he never returned and I read that many fell away
> from his teachings when they realized all his followers,
> and he himself, died and never came back.
It is your opinion that He never returned. But your opinion
has been skewed. And that is not your fault. It is the fault
of the Futurists, who put a bad spin on what Jesus' words
meant. I.e., they read it as if Jesus was a 21st century
Gentile and as if He spoke that way. And some of them,
when confronted with this, even do say that yes, He was
in reality, ignoring the people He spoke to, to speak to
us today.
There is a good post that I sent out, that I think you
should read, if you would take a little time to do so.
> It was difficult to tell in those days.
No, it wasn't at all. And the Romans were well known
for their proficiency in killing and for making sure
people were dead. Furthermore, you haven't even
begun to look at what He went through and let's
not forget the spear in the side.
Furthermore, no one would have considered Jesus
crawling out of a tomb in that shape, to be the
risen Messiah. Nor have you taken into account
the fact that the tomb was guarded and to fail
at that job, meant one's life and so, no bribe
by someone is going to get you in the tomb,
nor would there be any benefit for the Apostles
to do that.
You also are thinking like a 21st century Gentile
and not even considering their way of life.
>> Of course, when it is explained that it cannot be that they
>> were inspired by God and wrong at the same time, they
>> try to deflect, by saying they don't want to talk about it
>> (when that's what they spend most of their time on) and
>> that the subject, "isn't that important anyway". Sure. :)
>
> I believe they wrote what they believed at the time.
I'm sorry, but that is too simple and they would have
no reason to believe it, if they had not experienced it.
This was not like some nut today making claims and
it's no big deal! These people would have been giving
up an entire life and risk being immediately stoned.
>> Now of course, they also know that making that statement
>> is to knowingly lie, since Christians spend more money on
>> books and videos, etc. on that subject in the Christian book
>> stores, than any other type (except for the Bible itself) and
>> that makes it very important to them and they know that,
>> especially since most of them spend most of their time
>> (and lots of time in church and even more in Bible studies)
>> on the subject of the end times!
>
> I don't believe that applies to all. My family included several
> Christian religions and none dwelled on the end times or
> Armageddon. The only Doomsday fanatics obsessed with
> Armageddon were the Jehovah's Witnesses. For over 150
> year now they've been babbling the end is just around
> the corner.
I think you don't grasp it fully here. And what I said
about Christians and where the money is spent is true.
>> And furthermore, it was that important to the Apostles as well,
>> since it is the second most important (behind initial salvation)
>> and second most talked about subject in the New Testament!
>>
>> And so, their responses, which they only think up as an
>> avoidance maneuver when they see the truth of the matter,
>> are dishonest and furthermore, they know that to be true.
>
> On some of these boards Christians aren't always known
> to be 100% honest about the subject. ;-)
When it comes to questioning Futurism, I have not seen
even one of them stay honest. :)
>> So what does that tell us? Simple! :) That to them, it is
>> their doctrine that is of the greatest importance to them
>> and not the Scriptures themselves, while they falsely claim
>> the opposite to be true. And since their doctrine is based
>> on it being all about them, in their generation and since
>> they would probably abandon the Christian faith if it isn't,
>> that means that their faith is about nothing more than ego,
>> vanity, self-importance and the physical world. Sad. (:
>
> You're entitled to your opinion. I really have no idea
> why they feel that way but see above. Only the JWs
> were obsessed with the end times.
That is not correct and that statement, no offense,
ignores what has and what is going on.
>> So to them, if it is not all about them today and about
>> the physical world around them (while they hypocritically
>> claim that they are all about the spiritual), then to them,
>> the Bible is just a waste of paper and ink. Sad! (:
>>
>> In other words, take away their end times discussion
>> and they just simply aren't interested in the Bible.
>
> Which denominations are you talking about?
It isn't a denominational thing.
> I don't think anyone's seen him yet. The bible
> also said "all eyes" would see him etc.
No, it doesn't. Not in the way you mean it.
Again, you are relying on what Futurism claims
and making statements about the faith, as if
Futurism is true, period. I know you will deny
that, but your statements line up with what
Futurism says and you simply cannot help
being influenced by it, thinking that it is
Christianity. It isn't. It is just a doctrine.
>> My answer would be that we would need to discuss that
>> in more detail, but to offer a quick answer, I would say
>> that He did return and that it is the "how" that the Futurists
>> make their mistake about and I can prove that to anyone
>> who is willing to be unbiased about the subject and is also
>> willing to stick to the rule that all are supposed to stick to,
>> which is that any text interprets itself and that is always
>> how meaning is gleaned from it from the outset. Any
>> scholar worth his/her salt, can tell you that.
>
> But this is just YOUR opinion of it.
Then you claiming that He didn't return is nothing more
than your opinion. And if you say otherwise, then you
have placed Futurism, which is what you're quoting from,
whether you want to acknowledge it or not, as the truth
of what Christianity is.
The fact is, that with any text, the text interprets itself.
That's simply a fact of proper textual criticism, period.
So to throw that rule out with the Bible, is hypocrisy.
>> But whether or not they decide to believe the Bible is
>> up to them.
>
> But again Mr. Dave... what is it they should believe and why?
This isn't a discussion about that. That was my point.
So why try to turn it into one?
>> My goal was merely to discuss with them
>> "how" it is that He would have returned, based on
>> the Scriptures themselves and not whether or not
>> they should convert to Christianity.
>
> The bible doesn't say HOW he'll return but did say
> trumpets would sound and all eyes would see him.
> That makes it pretty clear to people.
No, it doesn't. Not in the way that you think it means.
That way is what those ignorant of the Scriptures think
it means. It says that all eyes would see Him, but what
is actually being said there? You are relying on what
you have been told by the common reading of it and
that, in the English language.
>> I.e., If you see that what someone says makes sense,
>> then the honest approach is to say that it does, which
>> is not the same as saying that you now believe that
>> you should convert to Christianity, agreed?
>
> It would have to make sense, yes.
Okay, so if you do not know the texts very well,
then why immediately and automatically conclude
that you know that what it says must be what
Futurists claim? You may not have mentioned
them specifically, but it is their views that you
are stating and claiming are what it says and
you leave no room for any other possibilities.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation
was founded... by Christians... not on religions, but on
the Gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry
Sockie
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:42:45 -0600, "Sockie"
> <Socki...@Socksland.com> spake thusly:
>
>
> Okay, first of all, let me say that in my opinion,
> you have fallen for the claims of atheistic minds
> that have said that certain things are "science",
> when they are either pure fantasy, or at best,
> someone's hypothesis and falsely called "theory".
>
> Claiming something is science does not make it so,
> nor does wide acceptance of it.
Again, you're being very BROAD in your statements. What have they claimed
to be "science" which isn't? The fossil record? How life evolved on the
earth? Ancient skeletons of early man? Why not accept "science" since
there is evidence for their claims?
And to say that
> something must be "peer reviewed" is the atheists
> way of saying that they automatically exclude any
> scientists, no matter how well educated they are,
> if they do not agree with those atheistic ideas
> and it is those atheistic minds that control the
> journals and they exclude anything that doesn't
> line up with the status quo of atheistic thought
> and so, .........
What's your problem with something being peer reviewed? If scientists
disagree with their fellow scientists, let them produce the irrefutable
evidence they have. Do they have the physical evidence to prove their
fellow scientists wrong?
a requirement to be "peer reviewed"
> by these atheistic minds simply means nothing
> more than, "It must appear in our journals and
> we must approve of it, which will never happen
> and then we will say it's not valid science because
> it's not peer reviewed".
Where do you get this information from? Why make such false claims?
>
> But don't believe me. Investigate this for yourself.
I already have some years back. I saw no such thing as you're claiming.
Scientists are among the hardest working, often underpaid professionals
there are. The spend days in the brutal sun digging out fossils, going over
their finds and finds of their peers, dating ancient artifacts and more. To
as much as claim they're all dishonest liars is outrageous. If some fellow
scientists came to them (and the press) with irrefutable scientific physical
evidence they would be happy to look at at. Going to a scientist with a
"scripture" and the claims of Bronze age scribes wastes their time.
>
>
>> Is there some kind of "god" behind the big bang?
>
> We don't know that there was a Big Bang. It is not
> a proven concept. Nor can any scientist who thinks
> it did happen tell you what happened. And making
> the claim that nothing exploded and here we are,
> if you read it in the Bible, would be rejected by you
> immediately. Yet when fallible men in white coats
> say it, you'll argue to the end that its "science".
Because they have evidence for a huge explosion. The universe is still
expanding. There is no evidence everything just suddenly appeared in the
universe and on the earth as we see it now. We don't know and can't know
what caused the explosion that created the expanding universe. It could have
been an intelligent being, a God to some people, or some natural happening
we may or may not discover someday. But like an onion being peeled layer by
layer, science is unraveling the mystery of life, evolution, the universe,
etc. Someday we will most likely will know these things...........
> How is one any different than the other?
Because there is EVIDENCE for a huge explosion and none that it all suddenly
appeared as we see it now. How can you not know this?
There is
> only one difference. In my belief system, there
> was a cause for matter to be here.
Exactly! But we don't know what that cause was.
In your belief
> system, there was no cause and matter appeared
> from nothing, with no cause.
>
> Think about it. Which one makes more sense? :)
Dave, you're making the same mistake again by telling people what they
believe as though you were a psychic. Agnostics have a wide range of
beliefs just as do devout Jews or Christians or Muslims. Why would there
need to be a supernatural CAUSE for a natural happening? We don't know
where matter came from. But an atheist might ask.... where did the god come
from? How could a god come from nothing? What was the *cause* behind the
god? An Agnostic would most likely say we don't know yet, but one day may
have the answers. Look how much we learned about life (DNA/RNA/inheritance
ect) in the past 50 years. Things once thought of as "miracles" are being
understood as natural happenings, thanks to science.
>
> I think we both know, even scientifically, the one
> with a cause makes more sense. And yet it is
> the one with no cause that is called, "science".
>
> Huh??? :)
But here again Dave, YOU see a supernatural cause. Others many not see a
such a other worldly "cause." The "cause" may have a rational natural
non-supernatural and non-superstitious cause. We just don't know yet. Why
are you so eager to grasp at a supernatural cause?
>
>
>>> And to begin the discussion (should you decide to have one)
>>> on a fair platform, I will tell you what mine are, since just as
>>> I'm sure you feel, I don't like anyone sneaking up on me and
>>> so, I make sure not to do it to others. So I will state that yes
>>> I do believe the Bible to be God's word and 100% accurate
>>> and 100% truth.
>>
>> And just why do you believe this in face of the scientific evidence
>> we now have to the contrary? Again, this does not mean some
>> kind of "god" doesn't exist. Even the RCC Pope believes in the
>> theory of evolution.
>
> I don't care what the Pope believes. What I do know however,
> is that evolution as you believe it happened, is not science.
Like the rest of us, you're entitled to your opinion. ;-) What do you
consider science? The bible's version of supernatural happenings? ?!?!?!
>
> Science absolutely requires one of two things to be present:
>
> 1) Direct observation.
The Universe has been observed expanding for some time now. Stars have been
seen exploding and new stars born. You should know this.
>
> 2) Repeatable testing with repeatable results.
Such as? What testing would convince you? What testing has your scientists
done?
>
> If one of those two things is not present then it is not science.
Again, that's your opinion and cannot be forced on others. You seen to be
totally unaware of what science has found concerning fossils, early man and
evolution in general. HOW life started will one day be discovered just as
chromosomes and genes were discovered.
>
> Evolution, as you believe in it, has neither. And all you will
> see when someone claims otherwise, is the type of evolution
> that is science, which is microevolution. You probably didn't
> know that there are six types of evolution and that micro
> and macro are two of them.
I'm aware of this.
>
> Microevolution is what we do see and directly observe,
> such as the fact that we have hundreds of types of dogs.
> And they all probably came from a common ancestor.
> A dog. And that dog probably did come from its ancestor,
> which is claimed to be a wolf. And I wouldn't argue that,
> as both dogs and wolves are canids. They are of the
> same "kind".
Right. And where the original canid came from, from which line it evolved, I
no longer remember.
> Macroevolution however, says that these canids came from
> a non-canid and so on and so forth, until we get back to
> a single celled organism, which was supposedly the first
> life and that came from a rock.
A rock? That's now what I read and was taught in school. Life didn't come
from rocks but from a rich warm saline sea.
And that, has never been
> directly observed and there are no tests that can be done
> to show that to happen.
There are the fossils this early life left behind in the sediments. Sea
life. A "rock record" if you will. A "creation" by a god was never
observed either and no tests can be done to show a god created anything.
>
> Therefore, microevolution is science and macroevolution
> is not science.
>
> Furthermore, evolutionists will claim macroevolution and
> then when you ask for proof, you will never get it.
What proof would satisfy you if you reject the last 150 years of scientific
discovery? Reject fossils. Reject the ancient bones of early man.....
All you
> will ever be presented with, is examples of microevolution
> and personal attacks for daring to question their religion.
As I recall there was someone named Budikka who produced site after site
with scientific information on both micro and macro evolution and the
believers refused to read the information and discuss it with her/him. Not
one believer would read the information she/he produced.
> And a religion is what it is, since it does not qualify as
> science, when it does not have the support of one of
> the two requirements to make it science.
You're entitled to your opinion as are they and Agonistics. Where is you
scientific or physical proof of a creation or supernatural beings?
>> Unfortunately I see to many self-proclaimed Christians
>> in these groups who lie-for-God. They don't realize
>> the disservice they do to Christianity by lying and
>> making false accusations.
>
> Amen! :)
>
>> Agreed. I always believed Jesus meant "their" generation,
>> not ours or the one after or before us, but HIS generation.
>> However, he never returned and I read that many fell away
>> from his teachings when they realized all his followers,
>> and he himself, died and never came back.
>
> It is your opinion that He never returned.
I'm going by the bible itself. No trumpets and no "all eyes will see him."
>But your opinion
> has been skewed. And that is not your fault. It is the fault
> of the Futurists, who put a bad spin on what Jesus' words
> meant. I.e., they read it as if Jesus was a 21st century
> Gentile and as if He spoke that way. And some of them,
> when confronted with this, even do say that yes, He was
> in reality, ignoring the people He spoke to, to speak to
> us today.
It sure didn't come across to me that way. I believe he was speaking of his
own time.
>
> There is a good post that I sent out, that I think you
> should read, if you would take a little time to do so.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y8s5tun
>
>
>> It was difficult to tell in those days.
>
> No, it wasn't at all. And the Romans were well known
> for their proficiency in killing and for making sure
> people were dead. Furthermore, you haven't even
> begun to look at what He went through and let's
> not forget the spear in the side.
Again Dave... that's just the writing of a scribe years after Jesus death.
The dead do not come back to life. After 3 to 6 minutes the brain dies.
There's no coming back. Even his friends didn't recognize the man who
claimed to be Jesus "returned." We don't know who stood in for him after his
death and it doesn't matter. There are those who disbelieve a Jesus ever
existed since there is no evidence for it. A man who supposed to be the
savior of the world yet left no evidence of his existence. No writings, no
children, nothing! What do I believe? I believe a Jesus existed and was a
charismatic teacher. Intelligent. Sincere. Honest. Well meaning and most
likely an attractive man. If he died on the cross, he died and that was it.
Scribes also wrote things like the talking animals, a pregnant virgin etc.
so why not a man coming back to life? It was a superstitious unscientific
society and so such claims were to be expected.
>
> Furthermore, no one would have considered Jesus
> crawling out of a tomb in that shape, to be the
> risen Messiah. Nor have you taken into account
> the fact that the tomb was guarded and to fail
> at that job, meant one's life and so, no bribe
> by someone is going to get you in the tomb,
> nor would there be any benefit for the Apostles
> to do that.
See above. Scribes made some truly outrageous claims. You cannot deny that.
We don't know what really happened to the man Jesus if he were truly dead
when taken down from the cross.
>
> You also are thinking like a 21st century Gentile
> and not even considering their way of life.
Please don't tell people how they think. I'm well aware of how primitive
violent societies such as Jesus lived in were. They were superstitious,
gullible, easily manipulated, easily frightened with tales of demons and
monsters, mostly uneducated and violent.
>
>
>>> Of course, when it is explained that it cannot be that they
>>> were inspired by God and wrong at the same time, they
>>> try to deflect, by saying they don't want to talk about it
>>> (when that's what they spend most of their time on) and
>>> that the subject, "isn't that important anyway". Sure. :)
>>
>> I believe they wrote what they believed at the time.
>
> I'm sorry, but that is too simple and they would have
> no reason to believe it, if they had not experienced it.
That's your opinion. The way you cut the paragraph up, I'm not sure what
you're even referring to.
>
> This was not like some nut today making claims and
> it's no big deal! These people would have been giving
> up an entire life and risk being immediately stoned.
Stoned for what? Writing about someone 150 years after his death? By then
few would care what the people thought of the crucifixion of one man among
thousands 150 years in the past. Whether the claims were true or not
wouldn't matter.
>>
>> On some of these boards Christians aren't always known
>> to be 100% honest about the subject. ;-)
>
> When it comes to questioning Futurism, I have not seen
> even one of them stay honest. :)
Which makes one wonder what else they lie about......
>>
>> You're entitled to your opinion. I really have no idea
>> why they feel that way but see above. Only the JWs
>> were obsessed with the end times.
>
> That is not correct and that statement, no offense,
> ignores what has and what is going on.
Ignores WHAT that is going on? ???? No Christians I know dwell on the end
of the world or when they die.
>>>
>>> In other words, take away their end times discussion
>>> and they just simply aren't interested in the Bible.
>>
>> Which denominations are you talking about?
>
> It isn't a denominational thing.
Then what is it? Only the JWs I know dwell on the "end times."
>
>
>> I don't think anyone's seen him yet. The bible
>> also said "all eyes" would see him etc.
>
> No, it doesn't. Not in the way you mean it.
So now we've got to where you're going to tell me the bible doesn't really
mean what it says - because it disagrees with something you believe in.
That's typical on these Boards. ;-) I'm sure it doesn't mean Mary got
pregnant by a God or that a stick turned into a snake either, right? It
didn't mean there was another city in Genesis where A&Es children found
mates. It didn't mean the donkey talked.......
>
> Again, you are relying on what Futurism claims
> and making statements about the faith, as if
> Futurism is true, period. I know you will deny
> that, but your statements line up with what
> Futurism says and you simply cannot help
> being influenced by it, thinking that it is
> Christianity. It isn't. It is just a doctrine.
Just like you're doctrine. I'm not denying anything. The bible said what it
said, and YOU can't change that because it disagrees with you.
>
>
>>> My answer would be that we would need to discuss that
>>> in more detail, but to offer a quick answer, I would say
>>> that He did return and that it is the "how" that the Futurists
>>> make their mistake about and I can prove that to anyone
>>> who is willing to be unbiased about the subject and is also
>>> willing to stick to the rule that all are supposed to stick to,
>>> which is that any text interprets itself and that is always
>>> how meaning is gleaned from it from the outset. Any
>>> scholar worth his/her salt, can tell you that.
>>
>> But this is just YOUR opinion of it.
>
> Then you claiming that He didn't return is nothing more
> than your opinion.
It's not my opinion. That's what the bible said! All eyes will see him and
the trumpets will be blaring. He's to make quite a splash according to the
bible, no one will miss his return.
And if you say otherwise, then you
> have placed Futurism, which is what you're quoting from,
> whether you want to acknowledge it or not, as the truth
> of what Christianity is.
So the bible (NT) is WRONG? The scribe lied? If you don't go by the bible,
you're not a Christian. Are you Muslim? Jewish?
>
> The fact is, that with any text, the text interprets itself.
Double talk. LOL!!! :-)
> That's simply a fact of proper textual criticism, period.
> So to throw that rule out with the Bible, is hypocrisy.
That's a Dave rule. I've never heard of such a rule. ;-)
>
>
>>> But whether or not they decide to believe the Bible is
>>> up to them.
>>
>> But again Mr. Dave... what is it they should believe and why?
>
> This isn't a discussion about that. That was my point.
> So why try to turn it into one?
Because you keep bringing "THEY" up. Why do you care what THEY, whoever
THEY are, thinks?
>>
>> The bible doesn't say HOW he'll return but did say
>> trumpets would sound and all eyes would see him.
>> That makes it pretty clear to people.
>
> No, it doesn't. Not in the way that you think it means.
So the bible (NT) is WRONG? The scribe lied? If you don't go by the bible,
you're not a Christian. Are you Muslim? Jewish?
> That way is what those ignorant of the Scriptures think
> it means.
So Mary didn't have a baby with God either? Apparently nothing in the bible
means what it says but has other meanings altogether. May as well toss the
book out then since we can all make up what fits our beliefs... we'll all
rewrite the bible to suit ourselves. What a concept. :)
It says that all eyes would see Him, but what
> is actually being said there? You are relying on what
> you have been told by the common reading of it and
> that, in the English language.
Now you're going to give me YOUR interpretation of it? Yours is no better
or worse than anyone else's.
>
>
>>> I.e., If you see that what someone says makes sense,
>>> then the honest approach is to say that it does, which
>>> is not the same as saying that you now believe that
>>> you should convert to Christianity, agreed?
>>
>> It would have to make sense, yes.
>
> Okay, so if you do not know the texts very well,
> then why immediately and automatically conclude
> that you know that what it says must be what
> Futurists claim?
I never made that claim. You're the one who keeps referring to these
"futurists."
You may not have mentioned
> them specifically, but it is their views that you
> are stating and claiming are what it says and
> you leave no room for any other possibilities.
What other possibilities? That the scrib lied about the trumpets and all
eyes?
Pastor Dave
<Socki...@Socksland.com> spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:42:45 -0600, "Sockie"
>> <Socki...@Socksland.com> spake thusly:
>>
>> Okay, first of all, let me say that in my opinion,
>> you have fallen for the claims of atheistic minds
>> that have said that certain things are "science",
>> when they are either pure fantasy, or at best,
>> someone's hypothesis and falsely called "theory".
>>
>> Claiming something is science does not make it so,
>> nor does wide acceptance of it.
>
> Again, you're being very BROAD in your statements.
This is not about detailed discussions about
a hundred different things. This was about
the return of Christ and the posts that one
person sends out about them. That's it.
> What have they claimed to be "science" which isn't?
> The fossil record? How life evolved on the earth?
> Ancient skeletons of early man? Why not accept
> "science" since there is evidence for their claims?
There isn't. You are just accepting what they tell you
about the things you listed. But again, this is not a
discussion about evolution and you should stop trying
to divert down different paths and stick to the subject.
You asked a question and to be polite, I gave you an
answer. I then went back to the subject at hand.
If you are interested, then do the research. I do not
have the time, nor the inclination, to try to instruct you
as to what's what about the many claims of evolutionists.
>> And to say that
>> something must be "peer reviewed" is the atheists
>> way of saying that they automatically exclude any
>> scientists, no matter how well educated they are,
>> if they do not agree with those atheistic ideas
>> and it is those atheistic minds that control the
>> journals and they exclude anything that doesn't
>> line up with the status quo of atheistic thought
>> and so, .........
>
> What's your problem with something being peer reviewed?
I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem
with what atheistic minds claim "peer reviewed" means.
>> a requirement to be "peer reviewed"
>> by these atheistic minds simply means nothing
>> more than, "It must appear in our journals and
>> we must approve of it, which will never happen
>> and then we will say it's not valid science because
>> it's not peer reviewed".
>
> Where do you get this information from?
> Why make such false claims?
If you don't know where I got the information from,
then you cannot know it is false.
But again, this is not a thread about evolution.
>> But don't believe me. Investigate this for yourself.
>
> I already have some years back.
No, you looked at things friendly to evolutionists.
>>> Is there some kind of "god" behind the big bang?
>>
>> We don't know that there was a Big Bang. It is not
>> a proven concept. Nor can any scientist who thinks
>> it did happen tell you what happened. And making
>> the claim that nothing exploded and here we are,
>> if you read it in the Bible, would be rejected by you
>> immediately. Yet when fallible men in white coats
>> say it, you'll argue to the end that its "science".
>
> Because they have evidence for a huge explosion.
That is not true. Background radiation is what we have,
which could have more than one cause and there are
other theories out there.
>> How is one any different than the other?
>
> Because there is EVIDENCE for a huge explosion
> and none that it all suddenly appeared as we
> see it now. How can you not know this?
You snipped what I asked. One has a cause.
One does not. Yet you believe nothing exploded
without a cause and here we are. That's religion.
>> Science absolutely requires one of two things to be present:
>>
>> 1) Direct observation.
>
> The Universe has been observed expanding
> for some time now. Stars have been seen
> exploding and new stars born. You should
> know this.
Some say expanding, some say contracting now.
Irrelevant. That doesn't prove nothing exploded
without a cause and here we are. You think
they get to say that it's contracting and then
make up whatever they want to explain it and
that makes the explanation science. It doesn't.
The fact is, what you are citing would be considered,
"indirect observation". You're looking at what you
*results* of what you *believe* was the Big Bang.
Direct observation requires seeing the Big Bang
itself happen.
And no, telling me that we could not have seen it
will not change the definition of direct observation.
Direct observation requires seeing the event itself
happen, period. We don't have that with either
the Big Bang, nor with macroevolution.
>> 2) Repeatable testing with repeatable results.
>
> Such as? What testing would convince you?
Is that your response? How is that response science?
Translation: Okay, so we can't do that, So what.
Why would you need it?
Answer: Gee, maybe because without it, it's just you
claiming it's so and not science, while you
hypocritically demand that I produce God?
>> If one of those two things is not present then it is not science.
>
> Again, that's your opinion
No, it is not an opinion. It is a fact. One of those two
is required for something to be science and I will not
argue it with you. You realizing that the Big Bang
and evolution do not fit the requirements of science
and not liking that, is your problem, not mine. But
don't tell me that you're being scientific and I'm not
and that your belief is science and mine is not, since
using your lack of requirements for what you believe,
yours is no more science than mine and if you claim
that mine is religion, then so is yours, since neither
can be demonstrated by at least one of the two
requirements for something to be science.
>> All you
>> will ever be presented with, is examples of microevolution
>> and personal attacks for daring to question their religion.
>
> As I recall there was someone named Budikka
> who produced site after site with scientific
> information on both micro and macro evolution
> and the believers refused to read the information
> and discuss it with her/him. Not one believer
> would read the information she/he produced.
That's a lie. I myself took him on. And he ran away
in shame. He then came back ridiculing me and
personally attacking me, cursing at me, etc..
I kill filed him.
Then he later came back with his supposed list of
something like 100 different "proofs", which message
I just happened to see through someone's response
to him. So I took him out of my kill file long enough
to respond to his supposed "list of proofs".
I told him flat out that he doesn't get to copy & paste
and long list and think that I'm going to spend months
research and typing, but that I would pick three at
random (I even chose one that he though was simply
irrefutable) and refute them and that would be it
and that if he was honest, he would admit it when
I did that.
So I did just that. I provided a refutation, with exact
reasons why what he provided was not proof of
macroevolution at all.
Now, when I did that, his response was not to discuss
my response, but rather, he ignored what I said and
started in with the personal attacks again and claimed
that I had never responded to it.
So I just kept posting the response that I had provided
and kept asking him why he wouldn't deal with it and
asking him why he kept attacking me.
He just kept on with the same thing and posting the lie
that I had never responded to his "list".
I was his biggest enemy in his mind, because I was
the guy that nailed down whatever he presented
(which is why he ran away for a while and then came
back with this "list") and it frustrated him so badly,
that he began chasing me from thread to thread
and from group to group, posting new thread after
new thread with my name in the subject lines, even
for a long time after I had stopped bothering with him.
What you are doing, is confusing his claims that no one
would respond, with no responses. And you may have
even caught it during a time when people weren't
responding, because he was denying that anyone had,
when they had and then ruthlessly attacking them.
People simply got tired of it.
And to this day, he still lies about me and mentions me.
Do you think that's because I never responded to him?
The fact is, I am not "some dumb preacher". I do
know the involved sciences and can go into each
subject in detail and on a scientific level, while the
evolutionists just copy & paste and parrot what they
hear and read, with no understanding. I have engaged
evolutionists many times, here and in persona and I have
never lost a debate with anyone, because they are liars.
There is no proof for macroevolution and not even
one single example and everything that they claim
is "evidence", is easily refuted.
But I do not do it any longer, at least not here,
because all we have here, is liars who will not
admit to even one point made and turn to
personal attacks and insults and will lie about
what happened and will not concede even
one point and I won't waste my time on these
wannabees anymore, who pretend to be what
they're not and are only here to hate God and
those who serve Him and not to have honest
discussions.
Nor will I allow you to turn this into a discussion
about evolution vs creationism. That is not what
this thread is about and we can either get back
on track, or say goodbye. I will not engage in
what I know will turn out to be you trying to
drag me into a big circle that keeps going
round and round, back to the same subjects,
as if I had not already dealt with them and
that is what will happen. That is what always
happens in usenet, when dealing with evolutionists.
>>> Agreed. I always believed Jesus meant "their" generation,
>>> not ours or the one after or before us, but HIS generation.
>>> However, he never returned and I read that many fell away
>>> from his teachings when they realized all his followers,
>>> and he himself, died and never came back.
>>
>> It is your opinion that He never returned.
>
> I'm going by the bible itself.
No, you're going by what Futurism says that means.
>>> It was difficult to tell in those days.
>>
>> No, it wasn't at all. And the Romans were well known
>> for their proficiency in killing and for making sure
>> people were dead. Furthermore, you haven't even
>> begun to look at what He went through and let's
>> not forget the spear in the side.
>
> Again Dave... that's just the writing of a scribe years
> after Jesus death.
Translation: If Dave can dispute my claim about making
sure someone was dead, then I'll just say
that it doesn't matter, because we don't
even know that it happened anyway.
That's a dishonest method of argument and that is
exactly what I'm talking about, when I talked about
trying to have a discussion with an evolutionist! (:
>> Furthermore, no one would have considered Jesus
>> crawling out of a tomb in that shape, to be the
>> risen Messiah. Nor have you taken into account
>> the fact that the tomb was guarded and to fail
>> at that job, meant one's life and so, no bribe
>> by someone is going to get you in the tomb,
>> nor would there be any benefit for the Apostles
>> to do that.
>
> See above. Scribes made some truly outrageous claims.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't wash. Witnesses are
mentioned and you can't just come back to the
same town and make claims like that and claim
that these people saw Him alive, if they didn't.
>> You also are thinking like a 21st century Gentile
>> and not even considering their way of life.
>
> Please don't tell people how they think.
I will, because you are. Don't tell me I don't
recognize something, when I do.
>> This was not like some nut today making claims and
>> it's no big deal! These people would have been giving
>> up an entire life and risk being immediately stoned.
>
> Stoned for what?
Thank you for proving my point.
> Writing about someone 150 years after his death?
Now you want to make that disproved claim?
Hint: We have pieces of Scripture from the 1st century,
that match what we have today.
I don't think this discussion is worth continuing with,
because it doesn't matter what I say. You're going
to keep dodging it and trying to throw another
wrench in the works and you have shown me
that you have looked at only what makes you feel
okay for believing what you want to believe. That
is your choice. But I won't pretend that it somehow
adds up to real, honest research. It simply doesn't.
Nor was this discussion even about anything that
you keep trying to add to it.
So you enjoy your beliefs and I'll enjoy mine.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
When blondes have more fun, do they know it?
Sockie
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 00:44:16 -0600, "Sockie"
> <Socki...@Socksland.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:42:45 -0600, "Sockie"
>>> <Socki...@Socksland.com> spake thusly:
>>>
>>> Okay, first of all, let me say that in my opinion,
>>> you have fallen for the claims of atheistic minds
>>> that have said that certain things are "science",
>>> when they are either pure fantasy, or at best,
>>> someone's hypothesis and falsely called "theory".
>>>
>>> Claiming something is science does not make it so,
>>> nor does wide acceptance of it.
>>
>> Again, you're being very BROAD in your statements.
>
> This is not about detailed discussions about
> a hundred different things. This was about
> the return of Christ and the posts that one
> person sends out about them. That's it.
>
>
>> What have they claimed to be "science" which isn't?
>> The fossil record? How life evolved on the earth?
>> Ancient skeletons of early man? Why not accept
>> "science" since there is evidence for their claims?
>
> There isn't.
You're claiming the fossil record doesn't exist? The ancient skeletons of
man don't exist?
You are just accepting what they tell you
> about the things you listed.
As you just accept what your pastor or priest tells you, yet YOU have no
evidence for it. Scientists do.
But again, this is not a
> discussion about evolution and you should stop trying
> to divert down different paths and stick to the subject.
> You asked a question and to be polite, I gave you an
> answer. I then went back to the subject at hand.
>
> If you are interested, then do the research. I do not
> have the time, nor the inclination, to try to instruct you
> as to what's what about the many claims of evolutionists.
Nor do I have the time to teach you the discoveries of 150 years of science.
>
>
>>> And to say that
>>> something must be "peer reviewed" is the atheists
>>> way of saying that they automatically exclude any
>>> scientists, no matter how well educated they are,
>>> if they do not agree with those atheistic ideas
>>> and it is those atheistic minds that control the
>>> journals and they exclude anything that doesn't
>>> line up with the status quo of atheistic thought
>>> and so, .........
>>
>> What's your problem with something being peer reviewed?
>
> I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem
> with what atheistic minds claim "peer reviewed" means.
You apparently have a problem with anything science produces that goes
against your belief system. And that's OK since it wont change the facts.
:)
>
>
>>> a requirement to be "peer reviewed"
>>> by these atheistic minds simply means nothing
>>> more than, "It must appear in our journals and
>>> we must approve of it, which will never happen
>>> and then we will say it's not valid science because
>>> it's not peer reviewed".
>>
>> Where do you get this information from?
>> Why make such false claims?
>
> If you don't know where I got the information from,
> then you cannot know it is false.
You get it from creationist sites as that is the only place I ever saw such
silly claims.
>
> But again, this is not a thread about evolution.
>
>
>>> But don't believe me. Investigate this for yourself.
>>
>> I already have some years back.
>
> No, you looked at things friendly to evolutionists.
And you looked at things friendly to creationists. I looked at both.
>
>
>>>> Is there some kind of "god" behind the big bang?
>>>
>>> We don't know that there was a Big Bang. It is not
>>> a proven concept. Nor can any scientist who thinks
>>> it did happen tell you what happened. And making
>>> the claim that nothing exploded and here we are,
>>> if you read it in the Bible, would be rejected by you
>>> immediately. Yet when fallible men in white coats
>>> say it, you'll argue to the end that its "science".
>>
>> Because they have evidence for a huge explosion.
>
> That is not true. Background radiation is what we have,
> which could have more than one cause and there are
> other theories out there.
The universe is still expanding - how would you explain that if there was no
Big Bang? What other theories are out there other than a supernatural God?
>
>
>>> How is one any different than the other?
>>
>> Because there is EVIDENCE for a huge explosion
>> and none that it all suddenly appeared as we
>> see it now. How can you not know this?
>
> You snipped what I asked. One has a cause.
The CAUSE cannot be known at this time.
> One does not. Yet you believe nothing exploded
> without a cause and here we are. That's religion.
You can't know what people believe and yet you claim you can read minds and
KNOW the thoughts of total strangers. Your religion teaches you this?
There is no evidence of a God magically creating the Universe. There is
evodence of a BigBang or explosion.
>
>
>>> Science absolutely requires one of two things to be present:
>>>
>>> 1) Direct observation.
>>
>> The Universe has been observed expanding
>> for some time now. Stars have been seen
>> exploding and new stars born. You should
>> know this.
>
> Some say expanding, some say contracting now.
> Irrelevant. That doesn't prove nothing exploded
> without a cause and here we are.
What cause? What would cause such a huge explosion? Some day we may know
the cause. Right now we don't know the cause.
You think
> they get to say that it's contracting and then
> make up whatever they want to explain it and
> that makes the explanation science. It doesn't.
No one has said it's contracting now. There is no evidence it's contracting.
Where did you read the scientific evidence it's contracting?
>
> The fact is, what you are citing would be considered,
> "indirect observation".
They can see the planets moving farther away.......
You're looking at what you
> *results* of what you *believe* was the Big Bang.
>
> Direct observation requires seeing the Big Bang
> itself happen.
Or seeing a God create the universe.
>
> And no, telling me that we could not have seen it
> will not change the definition of direct observation.
> Direct observation requires seeing the event itself
> happen, period. We don't have that with either
> the Big Bang, nor with macroevolution.
Nor with a God magically creating the Universe.
>>> 2) Repeatable testing with repeatable results.
>>
>> Such as? What testing would convince you?
>
> Is that your response? How is that response science?
Is that your answer? Tell me, what would convince you? A straight answer
please.
>
> Translation: Okay, so we can't do that, So what.
> Why would you need it?
If you're going to answer for me and pretend you can read minds you're
wasting my time.
>
> Answer: Gee, maybe because without it, it's just you
> claiming it's so and not science, while you
> hypocritically demand that I produce God?
And you hypocritically demand I produce the BigBang.
>
>
>>> If one of those two things is not present then it is not science.
>>
>> Again, that's your opinion
>
> No, it is not an opinion. It is a fact.
So I suppose science doesn't exist then............ because Dave said so.
One of those two
> is required for something to be science and I will not
> argue it with you. You realizing that the Big Bang
> and evolution do not fit the requirements of science
> and not liking that, is your problem, not mine.
Then how do you explain the expanding universe and fossil record? Are you
claiming magical Gods are science?
But
> don't tell me that you're being scientific and I'm not
> and that your belief is science and mine is not, since
> using your lack of requirements for what you believe,
> yours is no more science than mine and if you claim
> that mine is religion, then so is yours, since neither
> can be demonstrated by at least one of the two
> requirements for something to be science.
Then how do you explain the expanding universe and the fossil record? Are
you claiming magical Gods creating universes are science?
>
>
>>> All you
>>> will ever be presented with, is examples of microevolution
>>> and personal attacks for daring to question their religion.
>>
>> As I recall there was someone named Budikka
>> who produced site after site with scientific
>> information on both micro and macro evolution
>> and the believers refused to read the information
>> and discuss it with her/him. Not one believer
>> would read the information she/he produced.
>
> That's a lie. I myself took him on. And he ran away
> in shame. He then came back ridiculing me and
> personally attacking me, cursing at me, etc..
> I kill filed him.
Please produce the Google URLs to back that claim. I never saw one believer
who read those sites and discuss it rationally with Budikka.
>
> Then he later came back with his supposed list of
> something like 100 different "proofs", which message
> I just happened to see through someone's response
> to him. So I took him out of my kill file long enough
> to respond to his supposed "list of proofs".
>
> I told him flat out that he doesn't get to copy & paste
> and long list and think that I'm going to spend months
> research and typing, but that I would pick three at
> random (I even chose one that he though was simply
> irrefutable) and refute them and that would be it
> and that if he was honest, he would admit it when
> I did that.
Where are those threads? Most believers kill file him only because he
proves them wrong every time. He only leaves a thread when someone starts
the stupid name calling, and insulting him. And why shouldn't he? Why waste
his time with people who refuse to discuss it rationally and cooly?
>
> So I did just that. I provided a refutation, with exact
> reasons why what he provided was not proof of
> macroevolution at all.
>
> Now, when I did that, his response was not to discuss
> my response, but rather, he ignored what I said and
> started in with the personal attacks again and claimed
> that I had never responded to it.
>
> So I just kept posting the response that I had provided
> and kept asking him why he wouldn't deal with it and
> asking him why he kept attacking me.
>
> He just kept on with the same thing and posting the lie
> that I had never responded to his "list".
Dave, we've both been on Usenet a long time and we both know not all servers
pick up all messages. Why accuse him of lying when he may not have seen your
reply?
>
> I was his biggest enemy in his mind, because I was
> the guy that nailed down whatever he presented
> (which is why he ran away for a while and then came
> back with this "list") and it frustrated him so badly,
> that he began chasing me from thread to thread
> and from group to group, posting new thread after
> new thread with my name in the subject lines, even
> for a long time after I had stopped bothering with him.
Where are these threads? I can't see how I could have missed that many
posts/threads.
>
> What you are doing, is confusing his claims that no one
> would respond, with no responses. And you may have
> even caught it during a time when people weren't
> responding, because he was denying that anyone had,
> when they had and then ruthlessly attacking them.
> People simply got tired of it.
>
> And to this day, he still lies about me and mentions me.
> Do you think that's because I never responded to him?
See above. My NSPs also miss messages, but seldom entire threads.
>
> The fact is, I am not "some dumb preacher". I do
> know the involved sciences and can go into each
> subject in detail and on a scientific level, while the
> evolutionists just copy & paste and parrot what they
> hear and read, with no understanding.
That's just YOUR opinion. Insulting them wont bring about rational
discussion about the fossil record or evolution. BTW, when he asked you to
produce irrefutable scientific evidence for a God or a creation... what was
your reply? So far not one person produced the evidence Budikka asked for.
I have engaged
> evolutionists many times, here and in persona and I have
> never lost a debate with anyone, because they are liars.
> There is no proof for macroevolution and not even
> one single example and everything that they claim
> is "evidence", is easily refuted.
Then why don't you go on TV with all your proof and prove God exists, there
was a magical creation and evolution never happened??? Why make claims here
on Usenet? Prove all those scientists are liars.
>
> But I do not do it any longer, at least not here,
> because all we have here, is liars who will not
> admit to even one point made and turn to
> personal attacks and insults and will lie about
> what happened and will not concede even
> one point and I won't waste my time on these
> wannabees anymore, who pretend to be what
> they're not and are only here to hate God and
> those who serve Him and not to have honest
> discussions.
That's irrelevant babble Dave. What point have you made to disprove the
bigbang or evolution? I've never seen any scientific evidence shown for a
God or a creation. This is why I remain Agnostic as do so many others.
>>>
>>> It is your opinion that He never returned.
>>
>> I'm going by the bible itself.
>
> No, you're going by what Futurism says that means.
So he returned and the bible was wrong since "all eyes" never saw him nor
heard the trumpets? I never read the Futurism book. ;-)
>>
>> Again Dave... that's just the writing of a scribe years
>> after Jesus death.
>
> Translation: If Dave can dispute my claim about making
> sure someone was dead, then I'll just say
> that it doesn't matter, because we don't
> even know that it happened anyway.
TRANSLATION: I can read people's minds........
>
> That's a dishonest method of argument and that is
> exactly what I'm talking about, when I talked about
> trying to have a discussion with an evolutionist! (:
I'm an an Agnostic. I don't take the bible word or word as "truth." ;-)
>
>
>>> Furthermore, no one would have considered Jesus
>>> crawling out of a tomb in that shape, to be the
>>> risen Messiah. Nor have you taken into account
>>> the fact that the tomb was guarded and to fail
>>> at that job, meant one's life and so, no bribe
>>> by someone is going to get you in the tomb,
>>> nor would there be any benefit for the Apostles
>>> to do that.
>>
>> See above. Scribes made some truly outrageous claims.
>
> I'm sorry, but that doesn't wash. Witnesses are
> mentioned and you can't just come back to the
> same town and make claims like that and claim
> that these people saw Him alive, if they didn't.
First, you don't know if they went back to that town or not, or what would
happen if they made any kind of claim. Why assume so much? Witnesses? We
can't know if there were or weren't, in truth, witnesses. They are not
*named* so it wouldn't matter what a scribe claimed.
>
>
>>> You also are thinking like a 21st century Gentile
>>> and not even considering their way of life.
>>
>> Please don't tell people how they think.
>
> I will, because you are. Don't tell me I don't
> recognize something, when I do.
What did I claim you didn't recognize?
>
>
>>> This was not like some nut today making claims and
>>> it's no big deal! These people would have been giving
>>> up an entire life and risk being immediately stoned.
>>
>> Stoned for what?
>
> Thank you for proving my point.
Your point is to say anything to make your beliefs believed by someone else!
With no witnesses *named,* there would be no basis to stone them. Who could
make the complaint?
>
>
>> Writing about someone 150 years after his death?
>
> Now you want to make that disproved claim?
Where is it shown that it was written while he was alive and at the time of
his death?
>
> Hint: We have pieces of Scripture from the 1st century,
> that match what we have today.
Hint: Pieces! That's all we have. No one knows what was actually on the
originals.
>
> I don't think this discussion is worth continuing with,
> because it doesn't matter what I say. You're going
> to keep dodging it and trying to throw another
> wrench in the works and you have shown me
> that you have looked at only what makes you feel
> okay for believing what you want to believe.
Instead of what YOU want me to believe.... you're right. We're both wasting
our time. Once you start calling all scientists who have often spent thier
entire lives studying the fossils, often working under harsh conditions,
money not great, liars, you lose credibility with me.