to believe or not to believe...

Status
Not open for further replies.
chirowife03 said:
I highly recommend and challenge you to read the book of mormon. It is another testiment of Jesus Christ. Its a companion to the Bible. (you can find it by calling the LDS church missionaries) It is written for us in the Latter days. Written by Prophets just like the bible. Many have said to me, "its so like the bible".. its becuase it has the same author. It is inspired by God like the bible. You will find many plain and precious truths in the Book of Mormon. Like proper baptism, proper preisthood authority, prayer, how to pray, how to recognize real answers, heaven, temples, eternal marriage, pre existance, and signs for the second coming. I promise you that if you read this book and you are prayerful about it.. asking god in faith to find out if its true and that church is true.....(the church of jesus christ of latter day saints) you WILL be answered. Just know that when you find out, it will change your life. You will know if you really want to know. He will answer you.
Click to expand...
Mormon is another gospel because it is a cult. Mormon can hurt you. Please keep in mind that I do not hurt you against the mormon.
 
Well, if you look up 'cult' in the dictionary- its definition is ANY RELIGIOUS GATHERING. Every church then would be considered a cult. :)

And I am only aware of ONE gospel, ONE god and ONE savior.
 
And now ladies and germs, we have the stage set for a classic my denomination has a bigger (censored) than your denomination tete-a-tete Tyson-Holyfield style! Will Tyson bite Holyfield's ear again? Stay tuned for more just after this toilet bowl cleaner commercial, you fantastic, booming audience, you!

:cheers: :popcorn:
 
Well, I was not the one criticizing anothers church. I don't appreciate that. Everyone has a right to beleive what they want and respect others church and beleifs.

Thanks-
 
darkangel8603 said:
...If god was real, then why didnt he answer my prayers when i asked him for some help in past?
Click to expand...
God is real. There are several reasons why God doesn't seem to answer our prayers the way we want Him to answer. I don't know why God didn't answer your specific prayers the way you wanted or expected. I can just give you some reasons, and you will have to think about which reason or reasons might apply to your situation.

1. Did God hear your prayer?
a. God hears every person's sincere prayer requesting salvation.
b. God hears the prayers of saved believers.
(1) God ignores prayers for wrong things (like doing illegal or immoral things)
(2) God ignores prayers while fellowship between Him and believer is broken (while the Christian has unconfessed sin or wrong attitude)

2. If God heard your prayer, then He can answer three ways:
a. yes
b. no
c. wait

Sometimes we think that we know the right answer to a prayer because we can only see what is happening here and now. God knows the future, and He knows what is happening to everyone around the world. That means, He knows that the best answer for your situation might be something you can't see. For example: Suppose you are praying very hard for a vacation trip that is very important for you. You worked hard, saved your money for a long, and want to take that trip. You buy the plane tickets and make your reservations. You are praying for a week's vacation from work. Your boss refuses. You are very disappointed and have to cancel your vacation, and you lose the money for the tickets and reservations. Why did God say "no" to your vacation prayer?

A week later, you watch the TV news. The plane that you had tickets for crashed. Everyone on the plane was killed.

Understand? God knew the future. He knew what was best for you, in His plan.


How do we know if the bible is real? what if someone from thousands of years ago just thought it up and wrote it themselve claiming that god wrote it?
Click to expand...
That is a good question. We do have to be careful about what we read and trust.

Here are some ways to check the Bible:

1. Preservation Since many centuries, many people have tried to destroy the Bible. They tried to destroy the "Old Testament" books of the Jews, and they tried to destroy the "New Testament" books of the Christians, called "The Holy Bible." No matter how hard they tried, God protected His Word.

2. Archaeology Archaeologists have dug up and discovered that the Bible stories about ancient history were true. They have found the old cities and documents that support the Bible.

3. Fulfilled Prophecy That means, future events that were prophecied in the Bible, came true. Some prophecies were fulfilled during the prophets' lifetimes, and some were fulfilled many years later.

4. Transformed Lives People who truly accept Jesus as Savior will change their lives. God changes lives. He uses His Bible to change lives.

5. Spirit of God Made It Real The Spirit of God can make it real to your heart and life.

The final proof is in your own heart/soul, thru faith. God can give you that faith, if you ask Him. He won't force you.

To be honest, if someone doesn't want to believe that the Bible is God's Word, then all the proof in the world won't make a difference. Even when Jesus was alive on earth, walking, talking, fellowshipping, and touching people, some people did not believe Him.

If someone truly wants to know God, He will show His truth and provide the faith thru His grace.


In last few years, i never really thought about relgions and christianity etc, i never really believed in god or that kind of stuff. Now i am curious about it and want to know more about it etc.
Click to expand...
I'm glad to know that you are curious. I was not a Christian myself until I was almost 28 years old. I searched thru many "religions" and beliefs before I accepted Jesus as my Savior.


I feel like i don't know myself, i don't belong anywhere in this world. Just being invisble in a dark hole. I wish i could understand the whole thing and understand myself more relate to these issues.
Click to expand...
God created Man (all people) with a special place inside each soul that is just for His Holy Spirit. We are each born with that "empty" space in our heart/soul. Sometimes we try to fill that emptiness with "religion" or drugs or alcohol or sex or excitement--but nothing truly fits that space. Only the Holy Spirit of God can fit that space. Until He enters in and fills that space, we will always feel "lost" or "incomplete". God put that space in us so that we will want to seek Him.
 
darkangel8603 said:
I have been going through this stage of practicing religion and that stuff etc, for the last couple of years...

I never know what to think or believe for relgions and stuff. I always question if god do exist or not, and where proof of that. I never understand the whole thing about god and christianty.

I never know what to believe, and what not to believe. My mom's side of family is catholic, and my dad's side don't practice relgion. While i was bapsited when i was a baby, and attended church til i was 9 or 10 years old, although i never listen because of my deafness. I never learn or anything about that stuff.
Click to expand...
I don't want to criticize or compare different "religions". Let me just tell you about Jesus. :)

Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all God. They are the three persons of God. They are all equally God but they each have specific roles or "jobs" as God. They all have the same goals (unity). They have no jealousy or disagreement of each other.

Thousands of years ago, it was Jesus' "job" to create the universe. He made the stars, planets, moons, and sky. He made the oceans and lands. He made the plants and trees on the land. He made the fish in the sea, the birds in the air, the animals on the land, and the bugs in the dirt. Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, agreed to make Man in their likeness. That is, Man has three "parts" like God has three parts. Man has a spirit, soul, and body. God made Man, and then He made Woman from Man. God made Man and Woman perfect and eternal. God warned them if they sinned they would die. But Man and Woman sinned (disobeyed God). That sin started their death punishment. That sin also effected the whole planet. The sin in Man passed down from the first Man (Adam) thru all the generations forever.

Romans 5:12
"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

That sin separated Man (all people) from God. There was only one way back to God. That was thru a blood sacrifice. Only a perfect, sinless blood sacrifice good enough to forgive all the sin guilt of the whole world. Who could do that? Jesus. How? Jesus lived in Heaven. There was no way He could die as a sacrifice. The solution? Jesus had to be born in a human body so that He could become a blood sacrifice. His human body could bleed and die. That is the reason that Jesus left Heaven's glory, and was born as a poor baby. He was still God but He was inside a human body. That body could feel the same pain as all people. When the time was right, Jesus was crucified on the cross for the sins of EVERYONE. All people, past, present, and future. Jesus never did any sin Himself; He never even thought a sin Himself. He was clean and innocent. But He loved us (all sinners) sooooo much that He sacrificed His body for us.

Romans 5:8
"But God commendeth [showed] his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

His blood poured out of His body for us. He died. His friends buried His body.

The end? No! Three days later, Jesus arose! He resurrected--He left His grave. Jesus was alive again! He is still alive. He will never die again. He showed us His resurrection to prove that we also will live again forever. How? If we accept Him as Savior.

Accept Jesus as Savior--what does that mean?

First, you must confess that you are a sinner. That means, you know that you have sinned.

Romans 3:23
"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

It doesn't matter if it is just one "little" sin long ago, or many awful sins every day. Even just one sin prevents you from fellowship with God, and prevents you from eternal life in Heaven.

Romans 6:23a
"For the wages of sin is death."

Next, you must repent. Repent means feel very sorry for your sins, AND turn away from sin.

Acts 3:19
"Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;"

Then, you must accept that Jesus did die on the cross for your sins, was resurrected, and lives eternally. He will then give you eternal life:

Romans 6:23b
". . . but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."

Romans 10:9, 13
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. . . For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

If you truly believe, and pray to Jesus to save you, He will. Then, you will be "born again", and a child of God. You will actually even get a new "birth certificate"! Where? In the Bible:

I John 5:11-13
"11 And this is the record [certificate], that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."


All that I tell you is in the Bible. You can read it for yourself, and you can decide for yourself. No one can force you. Jesus wants volunteers only.
 
My son told us few days ago that he don´t beleive that God is exist. He beleive Evolution.

I asked him why?

He explained that our blood could be SAME if we came from Eve and Adam time... He don´t understand why we have different blood groups... It could not be from Eve and Adam... :shock: but cavemen.... stone aged...

He also said that Jesus could be exist at that time and got his 12 apolostles to write the "bible" for him... The people worship him as "King of Iseral" but he don´t beleive that Jesus is son of God...

He also said... Why we have different reglious for...?

He has a good point... :shock:

What do you think?
 
Liebling--I'll get back to you later this evening with my take on your questions. I have a feeling I'll take a lot of criticism from some of the more fundamentalist Christians on here, but I'll just give you a little preview and say that I think there is absolutely no conflict whatsoever between science and religion.

I'll come back later when I can do these questions justice (or come closer!). :)
 
You cannot look at Spiritual things thru scientific eyes...

Find a watch in the desert, but there is no watch maker..............

OK
 
Liebling:-))) said:
...What do you think?
Click to expand...
Your son might find this interesting:

Creation, Mutation, and Variation (#89)
by Gary Parker, Ed.D.
"Enormous," "tremendous," "staggering"—all these are adjectives used by geneticist Francisco Ayala to describe the amount of variation that can be expressed among the members of a single species.1 Human beings, for example, range from very tall to very short, very dark to very light, soprano to bass, etc., etc. This tremendous amount of variation within species has been considered a challenge to creationists. Many ask: "How could the created progenitors of each kind possess enough variability among their genes to fill the earth with all the staggering diversity we see today and to refill it after a global flood only a few thousands years ago?"

If we use Ayalas figures, there would be no problem at all. He cites 6.7 % as the average proportion of human genes that show heterozygous allelic variation, e.g., straight vs. curly hair, Ss. On the basis of "only" 6.7 % heterozygosity, Ayala calculates that the average human couple could have 102017 children before they would have to have one child identical to another! That number, a one followed by 2017 zeroes, is greater than the number of sand grains by the sea, the number of stars in the sky, or the atoms in the known universe (a "mere" 1080)!

A single human couple could have been created with four alleles (two for each person) at each gene position (locus). Just two alleles for vocal cord characteristics, V and v, are responsible for the variation among tenor (VV), baritone (Vv), and bass (vv) singing voices in men, and hormone influences on development result in soprano (VV), mezzo-soprano (Vv), and alto voices (vv) as expressions of the same genes in women. Furthermore, several genes are known to exist in multiple copies, and some traits, like color, weight, and intelligence, depend on the cumulative effect of genes at two or more loci. Genes of each different copy and at each different locus could exist in four allelic forms, so the potential for diversity is staggering indeed!

Even more exciting is the recent discovery that some genes exist as protein coding segments of DNA separated by non-coding sequences called "introns." In addition to other functions, these introns may serve as "cross-over" points for "mixing and matching" subunits in the protein product.2 If each subunit of such a gene existed in four allelic forms, consider the staggering amount of variation that one gene with three such subunits could produce! It is quite possible that such a clever—and created—mechanism is the means by which the information to produce millions of specific disease-fighting antibodies can be stored in only a few thousand genes.

Besides the positive contributors to genetic diversity described above, there is also one major negative contributor: megation. Believe it or not, orthodox evolutionists have tried to explain all the staggering variation both within and among species on the basis of these random changes in heredity called "mutations." What we know about mutations, however, makes them entirely unsuitable as any "raw materials for evolutionary progress."

As Ayala says, mutations in fruit flies have produced "extremely short wings, deformed bristles, blindness and other serious defects." Such mutations impose an increasingly heavy genetic burden or genetic load on a species. In her genetics textbook, Anna Pai makes it clear that "the word load is used intentionally to imply some sort of burden" that drags down the genetic quality of a species.3 The list of human mutational disorders, or genetic diseases, for example, has already passed 1500, and it is continuing to grow.

By elimination of the unfit, natural selection reduces the harmful effects of mutations on a population, but it cannot solve the evolutionists genetic burden problem entirely. Most mutations are recessive. That is, like the hemophilia ("bleeder's disease") gene in England's Queen Victoria, the mutant can be carried, undetected by selection, in a person (or plant or animal) with a dominant gene that masks the mutant's effect.

Time, the usual "hero of the plot" for evolutionists, only makes genetic burden worse. As time goes on, existing mutants build up to a complex equilibrium point, and new mutations are continually occurring. That is why marriage among close relatives (e.g. Cain and his sister) posed no problem early in human history, even though now, thanks to the increase in mutational load with time, such marriages are considered most unwise. Already, 1% of all children born will require some professional help with genetic problems, and that percentage doubles in first-cousin marriages.

Genetic burden, then, becomes a staggering problem for evolutionists trying to explain the enormous adaptive variation within species on the basis of mutations. For any conceivable favorable mutation, a species must pay the price or bear the burden of more than 1000 harmful mutations of that gene. Against such a background of "genetic decay," any hypothetical favorable mutant in one gene would invariably be coupled to harmful changes in other genes. As mutational load increases with time, the survival of the species will be threatened as matings produce a greater percentage of offspring carrying serious genetic defects.1,3

As the source of adaptive variability, then, mutations (and orthodox evolution theories) fail completely. As a source of "negative variability," however, mutations serve only too well. Basing their thinking on what we observe of mutations and their net effect (genetic burden), creationists use mutations to help explain the existence of disease, genetic defects, and other examples of "negative variation" within species.

Mutations are "pathologic" (disease-causing) and only "modify what pre-exists," as French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé says, so mutations have "no final evolutionary effect."4 Instead, mutations point back to creation and to a corruption of the created order. There are 40-plus variants of hemoglobin, for example. All are variants of hemoglobin; that points back to creation. All are less effective oxygen carriers than normal hemoglobin; that points back to a corruption of the created order by time and chance.

At average mutation rates (one per million gene duplications), a human population of one billion would likely produce a thousand variant forms of hemoglobin. Lethal mutants would escape detection, and so would those that produced only minor changes, easily masked by a dominant normal gene. It is likely then, that the 40 or so recognized hemoglobin abnormalities represent only a small fraction of the genetic burden we bear at the hemoglobin position.

According to a new school of thought, "the neutral theory of molecular evolution," much of the staggering variation within species is due to mutations that are either neutral (without effect) or slightly deleterious.5 Such a theory offers no comfort to the evolutionist trying to build grander life forms from mutations, but it is an expected consequence of the creation-corruption model. Interestingly, says Kimura, the amount of variation within species is too great for selection models of evolution, but too little for the neutral theory. He suggests that recent "genetic bottlenecks" have set back the "molecular clock" that otherwise ticks off mutations at a relatively constant rate. Scientists who recognize the fossil evidence of a recent global flood are not at all surprised, of course, that data suggest a recent "genetic bottleneck" which only a few of each kind survived!
Click to expand...
 
Part 2:

Now, what about the time factor in the creation model? How long would it take, for example, to produce all the different shades of human skin color we have today?

There are several factors that contribute subtle tones to skin colors, but all people have the same basic skin coloring agent, the protein called melanin. We all have melanin skin color, just different amounts of it. (Not a very big difference, is it?) According to Davenport's study in the West Indies, the amount of skin color we have is influenced by at least two pairs of genes, A-a and B-b.

How long would it take AaBb parents to have children with all the variations in skin color we see today? Answer: one generation. Just one generation. As shown in the genetic square, one in 16 of the children of AaBb parents would likely have the darkest possible skin color (AABB); one brother or sister in 16 would likely have the lightest skin color (aabb); less than half (6/16) would be medium-skinned like their parents (any two "capital letter" genes); and one-quarter (4/16) would be a shade darker (3 capital letter genes) and a shade lighter (1 capital letter).

MAXIMUM
VARIATION
AaBb x AaBb

What happened as the descendants of our first parents (and of Noah's family) multiplied over the earth? If those with very dark skin color (AABB) moved into the same area and/or chose to marry only those with very dark skin color, then all their children would be limited to very dark skin color. Similarly, children of parents with very light skin color (aabb) could have only very light skin, since their parents would have only "small a's and b's" to pass on. Parents with genotypes AAbb or aaBB would be limited to producing only children with medium-skin color. But where people of different backgrounds get back together again, as they do in the West Indies, then their children can once again express the full range of variation.

Except for mutational loss of skin color (albinism), then, the human gene pool would be the same now as it might have been at creation-just four genes, A, a, B, b, no more and no less. Actually, there are probably more gene loci and more alleles involved, which would make it even easier to store genetic variability in our created ancestors. As people multiplied over the earth (especially after Babel), the variation "hidden" in the genes of two average-looking parents came to visible expression in different tribes and tongues and nations.

The same would be true of the other created kinds as well: generalized ("average. looking") progenitors created with large and adaptable gene pools would break up into a variety of more specialized and adapted subtypes, as descendants of each created kind multiplied and filled the earth, both after creation and after the Flood.

There is new evidence that members of some species (including the famous peppered moth) may actually "choose" environments suitable for their trait combinations.6 If "habitat choice" behavior were created (and did not have to originate by time, chance, and random mutations!), it would reduce the genetic burden that results when only one trait expression is "fittest," and it would also greatly accelerate the process of diversification within species.

Research and new discoveries have made it increasingly easy for creationists to account for phenomenal species diversification within short periods of time. These same discoveries have only magnified problems in orthodox neo-Darwinian thinking. It is encouraging, but not surprising, therefore, that an increasing number of students and professionals in science are accepting the creation model as the more logical inference from scientific observations and principles.

The scientist who is Christian can also look forward to the end of genetic burden, when the creation, now "subjected to futility" will be "set free from its bondage to decay, and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Romans 8).

References

1. Ayala. Francisco, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, V. 239, No. 3, 1978, pp. 56-69.
2. Kolata, Gina, "Genes in Pieces." Science, V. 207. No. 4429, 1980, pp. 392-393. (Note also the emphasized quotation on P. 393: "A number of molecular biologists believe there is more to the extra DNA than the evolutionary theories imply.")
3. Pai, Anna. Foundations of Genetics New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1974, pp. 248-249.
4. Grassé, Pierre-Paul, Evolution of Living Organisms, New York: Academic Press, 1977, as quoted by William Bauer, "Review of Evolution of Living Organisms" " Acts and Facts, Impact No. 76, 1979.
5. Kimura, Motoo, "The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution," Scientific American V. 241, No. 5, 1979, pp. 98-126.
6. Powell, Jeffrey, and Charles Taylor, "Genetic Variation in Diverse
Environments," American Scientist, V.67, No. 5, 1979, pp. 590-596.
*Dr. Gary E. Parker is a Research Associate in Bioscience at the Institute for Creation Research and teaches Genetics and Biosystematics at Christian Heritage College, El Cajon CA. He is the senior author of several programmed instruction textbooks in biology.
Click to expand...
 
To Chirowife--No, you cannot look at spiritual things through scientific eyes, but you can look at scientific things through spiritual eyes. To me, all of our ways of knowing about the world, be they science or philosophy, fall under a single discipline that is driven by the understanding of Christ. This way of thought pre-dates the break between the studies of science and religion that occurred in the "Enlightenment" period.

Liebling:-))) said:
My son told us few days ago that he don´t beleive that God is exist. He beleive Evolution.

I asked him why?

He explained that our blood could be SAME if we came from Eve and Adam time... He don´t understand why we have different blood groups... It could not be from Eve and Adam... :shock: but cavemen.... stone aged...
Click to expand...

I know some of the more conservative people here will get upset with me, but I don't see why God could not have used the mechanisms science describes as "evolution" in order to do His will. I see the evidence of His artistry in the elegance of the sciences and mathematics as well as in the Bible, and that He ordained the physical constants just as He ordained moral and ethical law. I do not see any conflict between the Biblical and scientific accounts of Creation. I see no reason why the Genesis account cannot be a poetic rendering of the same events described by science, from the Big Bang right to the moment God first put an intelligent, self-aware soul into one of His creations. I will never forget when, at five years of age or so, I realized the two seemingly conflicting accounts were one and the same. One account (scientific) explains the mechanisms God used and the other (Biblical) explains why His work is significant and what it should mean to us in our lives and how we ought to treat what He has made.

Some say that evolution is random. I say it is not...things could have gone another way, but they happened THIS way, and behind that there is a purpose. Even the apparent "accidents" or extinct species that we encounter have a purpose--either they were needed to lead up to the proper conditions that humanity would need in order to thrive, or sometimes they are there to teach us. What I mean by the second one is, whenever we learn about a species that did not thrive, we learn something about how this world works: we learn what works well in a certain kind of environment and what does not. These are lessons I think God would want us to pay attention to because we can see before us the potential consequences of doing too much damage to this world He created. This is because I believe in a God who wishes us to learn about the world He has created, to discover how it works. I am not a pantheist who believes that God IS all nature, but I believe that nature and science are His work just as an artist has his or her work.

Sometimes He does His works through ways that seem to defy what we know of science. But at other times, I think He uses the very mechanisms that He created to accomplish His will--it may seem a little less dramatic and harder for us to observe when He chooses this route, but I think it's no less His work.

Now about the deal with Adam and Eve...I think they were the first, male and female, into whom God put the kinds of souls that you and I have--the first that He created to be more than just animals. If there were cavemen and other hominids before Adam and Eve, their purpose for existing was as preparatory work for the bodies that Adam and Eve would soon need.

He also said that Jesus could be exist at that time and got his 12 apolostles to write the "bible" for him... The people worship him as "King of Iseral" but he don´t beleive that Jesus is son of God...
Click to expand...

You may be interested to read earlier in the thread where Endymion and I were having a discussion about the literary forms that existed back in the time of the Bible's writing. Put simply, neither the idea of historical fiction in novel form (what the Gospels would be if they were untrue) nor the idea of epistolary fiction (what the writings of St. Paul would be if they were untrue) were anywhere near coming to exist in the time the Bible was written. It would be a literary innovation of well over a thousand of years into the future, for the Apostles to have done the kind of forgery some suggest they did.

He also said... Why we have different reglious for...?
Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind, but I'll give you a link that says a lot of the things I feel about this--except a lot better. The source is Greek Orthodox, so I imagine many here will disagree. But, I put it out here for you, Liebling, to read and decide for yourself what you think of it.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp

With all due respect to those of you here who disagree with me, you will neither be able to change my mind nor affect my private relationship with God. I would ask that anyone responding please not attempt to criticize my faith as being any lesser than theirs. Thank you.
 
What does the Bible say about "another gospel?"

Galatians 1:6-9
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: 7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
 
I am not claiming that there is another Gospel, and I would thank you not to start acting as if you know what my status at the Judgment will be. Please be careful--you're getting awfully close to doing what should be left to God by passing judgment upon me. I am comfortable in my relationship with Christ and I do not fear for my eternal fate. And let me make it very clear that I would not claim to know YOUR eternal status just because I happen to disagree with you. I hope you consider that NONE of us is entirely right in our understanding of God, so do not be so sure you're invulnerable. Whichever of us is incorrect, that person has Christ's forgiveness. Of that I am sure.

Without the Bible, what we see in nature is not entirely clear and easily perverted. But, I can point you to a number of places in Psalms, and another in Romans, in which it's stated very clearly that God's nature is visible in His works in nature to where even unbelievers can see it. Rarely is my faith stronger than when I learn about the mechanisms with which God created this universe--physics, mathematics, biology, and the like. He designed these laws. Without the Bible, we cannot have a full understanding of WHY he did it...to take science by itself is dangerous because of the possibility we might think we can live amorally: the idea that we should push the envelope just because we can. Rather, I think that science can be accepted with no problem--but putting first the guidance of Christ in how to deal with its implications. Regardless of what you may think you know about my way of thought, this is indeed what I do.

P.S.: It was the quickness of Christians to condemn fellow Christians that very nearly drove me away from Christianity. I never lost faith in God--but the behavior of Christians spoke very badly for this religion. I am much more confident now and will not be swayed as I was when I was little--but think carefully before you condemn lest you have effects on someone you didn't consider. Nothing turns my stomach worse than Christians damning other Christians to Hell.
 
Rose Immortal said:
I am not claiming that there is another Gospel, and I would thank you not to start acting as if you know what my status at the Judgment will be. ..
Click to expand...
Are you referring to my post? I wasn't responding to your post. I hadn't even read your post before I made mine.

Or maybe you are referring to another post? Sorry, sometimes I read these postings out of sequence.

:confused:
 
Hi,
I'm not judging anyone.. I just know there is only ONE truth. One God. If there were more than one truth, meaning.....rose immortal......we cannot all be right. If that were the case then God would be devided against himself. Which cannot be.

There is but one truth- The beauty is that one day every knee shall bow and tongue confess. Everyone will know that one and only truth.

I'm not trying to convert you but correct your information. I understand your desires to remain in one place and I am in no way trying to make you fall from that place. You are where you need to be right now. I would much rather someone beleive in God than not at all. :)

Nothing turns my stomach more as when some non christian throws every christian in one pile as if they were all the same. We are not all the same. I got news for ya.

There is but one truth-one god-one faith. If that were not the case, again, God would be devided against himself. So there must be only one...that does not mean not everyone will go home to him one day, but to get there you will have to SEE and HEAR snd KNOW the one truth, one God and one faith.

My best regards
PEnni
 
Reba said:
Are you referring to my post? I wasn't responding to your post. I hadn't even read your post before I made mine.

Or maybe you are referring to another post? Sorry, sometimes I read these postings out of sequence.

:confused:
Click to expand...

I'm sorry for the mistake...I thought your post was referring to mine.

Please forgive me for taking so long to come back...I usually stay away from a thread for a day or two when I think someone might be angry with me, so that way I'm less likely to be upset or snap at anyone.

Tell me if you'd like to edit out some of the parts of my post that were directed at you. I'd like to keep the parts that were additional explanation of my beliefs, but I'll try to soften the edges a bit. Or maybe I can merge the explanation parts with my longer post, and delete the more recent one.
 
Rose Immortal said:
I'm sorry for the mistake...I thought your post was referring to mine.
Click to expand...
I thought maybe it was a mistake.

Normally, I try to link my replies to the original posts, like I am doing now, to avoid confusion. Sometimes if I'm in a hurry I don't link. My boo boo.

Please forgive me for taking so long to come back...I usually stay away from a thread for a day or two when I think someone might be angry with me, so that way I'm less likely to be upset or snap at anyone.
Click to expand...
I understand.

Tell me if you'd like to edit out some of the parts of my post that were directed at you. I'd like to keep the parts that were additional explanation of my beliefs, but I'll try to soften the edges a bit. Or maybe I can merge the explanation parts with my longer post, and delete the more recent one.
Click to expand...
Either way is fine with me. I think this subsequent post straightens things out OK.
 
chirowife03 said:
Well, if you look up 'cult' in the dictionary- its definition is ANY RELIGIOUS GATHERING. Every church then would be considered a cult. :)

And I am only aware of ONE gospel, ONE god and ONE savior.
Click to expand...
And... that is still a cult. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top