It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why sinners hate God.

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 04:32 AM
link   
A well written article covering a very important topic. I pray it reaches someone.

www.jesus-is-savior.com...&%20Preaching/Printed%20Sermons/charles_finney_why_sinners_hate.htm

A True Christian
In These Last Days,

James




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Have you ever heard the saying 'you can catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar,' James?




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Have you ever heard the saying 'you can catch more flies with honey instead of vinegar,' James?


Why would you want to catch flies?
_________________________________

How does one hate God?



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Queenannie38,

I prefer:




John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.


Your sweet lies are made for your listeners to hear and accept. My audience will hear God’s truth which may be bitter at first but brings about salvation and eternal life.


A True Christian
In These Last Days,

James



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Machine
Queenannie38,

I prefer:




John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.


Your sweet lies are made for your listeners to hear and accept. My audience will hear God’s truth which may be bitter at first but brings about salvation and eternal life.


What is the truth?

How do you go about accepting Jesus into your life?



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
You don't even understand what that verse truly means, James. Because you are not free--you are still bound in your own prison.

Religion has never made any soul truly free--if it did, then it wouldn't cause the strife that it does.

I have a question, James--do you hate God, too? Or are you no longer a 'sinner?'

And what exactly defines a person as a 'sinner?'



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer

Why would you want to catch flies?

Heh heh

To keep them from landing in my pie, I guess!


How does one hate God?

I'd say one sure way to go about it would be slandering His character.




posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
What is the truth?

How do you go about accepting Jesus into your life?

From a strictly biblical standpoint:

At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.
John 14:20-21 KJV

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
John 14:23-24 KJV

The 'commandments' are love God and each other as much as you love yourself. No selfishness allowed!

The 'sayings' can be found grouped together in Matthew 5-7 (The Sermon on the Mount), it would seem, as evidenced by the ending passage:

And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
Matthew 7:26-29 KJV



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I suspect we really need to define "religion." Unfortunately, Annie never explained what she meant on the other thread (name escapes me) by there being no religion.

The book of Acts, and all the epistles explain that fellowship with other believers is paramount in our walk with Christ. At the same time, Christ advocated "religion" as the Jews knew it, because every Saturday he would be in a Synagogue teaching. When He was a youngin', He would discuss deep theological things with the Rabbis, as well.

So if you mean that religion in the sense of fellowship with fellow believers, and having teachers anointed by God preaching and explaining the Word, the Bible, from the Gospels to Revelation says otherwise. If, by religion, you mean man's attempt to corrupt the message for political gain, please say so. Religion, in my mind, is following God's calling for yourself in the church, because we clearly need fellowship. The entire New Testament is clear on that.

Paul did make clear that a church can be corrupted in First Corinthians, though. The Corinthians were accepting people who were preaching a different gospel into their church, and changing things to make it more acceptable to those who did not follow the true Gospel. In possibly the most scathing epistle, Paul told them to stop this behavior, and to kick those corrupting the gospel out of the church. The Christian religion, as described in the Bible, is not a bad thing, it is a wonderful thing. The Christian religion as some political players trying to make a name for themselves, or some "new" agers skewing the message delivered in the Bible, is evil, because it's not what God wanted His church to become.

Before it comes up, yes, the Bible states that we must love our neighbors more than ourselves, but primarily we are to love God. If those neighbors are corrupting God's will and Word for any reason, they must be rebuked or removed from the church. To do otherwise would be to say you prefer their love over God's. That's what Paul was talking about in Corinthians.



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I suspect we really need to define "religion." Unfortunately, Annie never explained what she meant on the other thread (name escapes me) by there being no religion.
Fair request. For the sake of keeping this inline with scripture, I will offer my definition as the same given for the Greek word translated 'religion' in the NT, according to Strong's Concordance.

Oddly enough, in the first instance of 'religion' in the KJV, in Acts 25:19:

But had certain questions against him of their own superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive.

we find the word is actually 'deisidaimonia', #G1175 and is defined as:
From the same as G1174; religion: - superstition.

with G1174 being 'deisidaimonesteros':
The compound of a derivative of the base of G1169 ('deilos': From deos (dread); timid, that is, (by implication) faithless: - fearful.) and G1142 ('daimon': From daio (to distribute fortunes); a demon or super natural spirit (of a bad nature): - devil.); more religious than others: - too superstitious.

Then, next, in Acts 26:5, we have a the more commonly used word translated 'religion':
Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

Which is #G2356, 'threskeia':
From a derivative of G2357; ceremonial observance: - religion, worshipping.

with #G2356 being 'threskos':
Probably from the base of G2360; ceremonious in worship (as demonstrative), that is, pious: - religious.

and #G2360 being 'throeo':
From threomai (to wail); to clamor, that is, (by implication) to frighten: - trouble.

Pretty much, I find this to be saying that religion, to the writers of the time, meant worship of God that was of a ceremonial and demonstrative nature. That's pretty much how I define it, too--although many times there seems to be a lot of 'deisidaimonia' mixed in with the 'pious observances.'

This is some pretty firm support in favor of my statement that Christ did not come for the purpose of starting a new religion--He came to bring the existing one to fruition by fulfilling its purpose.




The book of Acts, and all the epistles explain that fellowship with other believers is paramount in our walk with Christ. At the same time, Christ advocated "religion" as the Jews knew it, because every Saturday he would be in a Synagogue teaching. When He was a youngin', He would discuss deep theological things with the Rabbis, as well.
Fellowship is not worship. Worship is adoration. Getting together for strength and edification can certainly honor God's name--but it doesn't constitute 'worship.'

Worship (#G4352, proskuneo) is defined as:
From G4314 and probably a derivative of G2965 (meaning to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand); to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): - worship.

Fellowship is something God has given us for our own joy and uplifting--because the world is a lonely place for those who truly seek God.


So if you mean that religion in the sense of fellowship with fellow believers, and having teachers anointed by God preaching and explaining the Word, the Bible, from the Gospels to Revelation says otherwise.
But we are not told we need any other anointed teacher other than the one we have already been given...

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
John 14:26 KJV

But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
John 15:26 KJV



If, by religion, you mean man's attempt to corrupt the message for political gain, please say so. Religion, in my mind, is following God's calling for yourself in the church, because we clearly need fellowship. The entire New Testament is clear on that.

I really don't think it is--when you dig deep into words and what they mean and how they were written. It is commonly believed the bible says this, but on close examination divorced from men's doctrines, it says nothing of the sort.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mark 7:7

But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
John 4:23-24 KJV


Paul did make clear that a church can be corrupted in First Corinthians, though. The Corinthians were accepting people who were preaching a different gospel into their church, and changing things to make it more acceptable to those who did not follow the true Gospel. In possibly the most scathing epistle, Paul told them to stop this behavior, and to kick those corrupting the gospel out of the church.
And yet the very same things he admonished against continue to this very day!


The Christian religion, as described in the Bible, is not a bad thing, it is a wonderful thing.
Where do you find a description of the 'christian religion' in the bible?


Before it comes up, yes, the Bible states that we must love our neighbors more than ourselves, but primarily we are to love God. If those neighbors are corrupting God's will and Word for any reason, they must be rebuked or removed from the church. To do otherwise would be to say you prefer their love over God's. That's what Paul was talking about in Corinthians.
Yet we are told by Christ:

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
Matthew 5:23-24 KJV

and the second chapter of James offers some exposition upon this point, and closes his letter with:

Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.
James 5:19-20 KJV

And Jude also:

Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Jude 1:21-23 KJV

The way we love God and glorify His name is by loving each other and showing a merciful nature. We are not here to judge one another but that is what religion does--whether it seems like it or not, and even if it is not within the walls it happens toward the community. I always feel the people's love for God inside a church. But it's not that way amongst themselves. Christ says:

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Matthew 5:44-48 KJV

This has nothing to do with what Paul is talking about--the Corinthians let others come in and direct them away from the gospel--the let the adversary rule their assembly (or 'church'). They had no call for that, Paul had started them off and the Holy Spirit could take over. But not if they put someone else in the position the Spirit is to occupy, at the Head of the Body as representative of the Father in the name of Christ.

What does Paul say about the deacons (servants) to the assemblies?

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
2 Timothy 2:24-26 KJV

To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
Titus 3:2-3 KJV

But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.
James 3:17-18 KJV



posted on Oct, 17 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Machine
A True Christian
In These Last Days,

James


Can I have your stuff?



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Does a fly have a soul? Can I kill flys?

No I am serious? What does the bibl say about mass murder to bugs?

Or animals?



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Can I have your stuff?


Rant, Rant.... Come on now.

Just what are you going to do with 40,000 Dominionists handout tracts, 3 used nativity scenes, and a lifetime membership to the PTL Club?



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   
This really has to be said again because it's making a fool of everyone who posts on this site.

I'll repeat for the 10000 time

STOP USING BIBLE QUOTATIONS TO BACK UP CHRISTIANITY

Have you any idea how ridiculous it is using a CHRISTIAN TEXT , written by CHRISTIANS to promote and glorify CHRISTIANITY to back up arguments about the orgin of Christianity and the existence of Jesus.

It's idiocy on a massive scale and it scares me to bloody death that some people cannot see that....USE A BIT OF COMMON SENSE FOR F***S SAKE.

Do you not appreciate how scary it is for people who don't beleive in Christianity?

It's damn terrifying because we are living with around 2.1 billion people on the planet who have faith and belief that a book written by MEN...a couple of thousand years ago is 100% fact and not open to question.

I've had enough of politeness and from now on I'm just going to say it as it is. Skipping around and being polite has gotten us nowhere because they just throw back the same old Dogma....again and again and again.

CHRISTIANITY IS BASED ON LIES, PROPAGANDA, POWER,CONTROL AND WEALTH AND IF YOU CAN'T SEE THAT THEN YOU ARE A SERIOUSLY DELLUDED INDIVIDUAL WHO NEEDS TO SORT THEIR S**T OUT SHARPISH

There you go, no quotations to back it up and no links to badly designed websites just a plain and simple statement based on good old fashioned COMMON SENSE.

From now on if ANY Christian uses the Bible to back up their argument then this will be reposted.

"One book to fool them all".......Tolkien knew the score methinks



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by BobDylan
Have you any idea how ridiculous it is using a CHRISTIAN TEXT , written by CHRISTIANS to promote and glorify CHRISTIANITY to back up arguments about the orgin of Christianity and the existence of Jesus.


And yet this simple and obvious logical fallacy pays the bills and lines the pockets of the biggest group of manipulators and con-artists (not to mention murderers) in history.



Do you not appreciate how scary it is for people who don't beleive in Christianity?


No, they actually don't, or if they do they think that is a good thing. Fear the Lord!



It's damn terrifying because we are living with around 2.1 billion people on the planet who have faith and belief that a book written by MEN...a couple of thousand years ago is 100% fact and not open to question.


Here you have hit upon the main reason that societies governed by religion can never peacefully co-exist with secular societies. Religion is irrational. Secularism is rational. When you can't trust someone's obviously incorrect perception of reality, you can't co-exist with them for any significant length of time. They won't let you. Apparenty, the nature of their delusion requires that they constantly have to re-enforce it by making as many other people as possible share in it. Delusion, like Misery, loves company, I guess.

Why do they use the subject of the argument to support the arguement? Why do they try to prove the validity of the Bible by using the Bible? I honestly couldn't tell you.

I have a theory that many many people just don't bother to do the headwork. Its possible that a lot of people are just not as deep as I give eveyone credit for. They have been indoctrinated since birth in many cases, and have never challanged themselves to think beyond what they have been told.

I think deep down they don't want the responsibility of not being certain. They fear the unknown so they produce fantasy to take its place, or more correctly, lacking imagination they adopt someone elses. The Bible is the absolute basis of this shared fantasy made into a solid tangable form. The same could be said of the Koran. No wonder they cling to it and don't question it. They don't have anything else to support their beliefs with.

I've been reading a few posts by the original poster of this thread. It's pretty facinating in a morbid sort of way. I encourage people to check out what this individual has to say. I think what he has written and his attitude in most cases would seem to back up a lot of the points I make in this post.

Yes, the title of this thread did lure me in with a likely opportunity to bash on a Zealot. Yeah, Machine, I called you a Zealot. It's only a personal attack if its not true.

The concept of one human calling another human a "sinner" would crack me up if it wasn't so blatantly arrogent and judgmental. Brings me running everytime.

:bash:

I feel better.

[edit on 18-10-2005 by Ambient Sound]



posted on Oct, 18 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Bob, there's something you have to understand on these boards. To some people here, the Bible is a legitimate source from which to make an argument, to others it is not. QueenAnnie was quoting scripture in regard to my response. She knows that I see the Bible as a legitimate source, so she is using it to defend her viewpoint with me. If she was talking to you about something, then yes, quoting the Bible would make no sense, as your angry post demonstrates what you think of scripture.

I find it interesting that you have pointed out that it's your way or the highway as far as being "intelligent" goes, and that it's frightening to you that not everyone agrees with your beliefs. We're stupid and have no common sense if we don't agree with you, yet you said, "From now on if ANY Christian uses the Bible to back up their argument then this will be reposted." Do you suspect that if something doesn't work the first time, doing exactly the same thing again will yield different results? This is the very definition of insanity.

Finally, am I to understand that it is common sense to debate with someone only using sources that they may not accept? If you're debating with me, scripture is a powerful source of information. If I'm debating with you, scripture is worthless. Why should QueenAnnie have to limit an argument with me by not posting scripture because you don't accept it?

Ambient Sound, when you said, "The concept of one human calling another human a "sinner" would crack me up if it wasn't so blatantly arrogant and judgmental", I would agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that the person stating that feels the same way themselves. "Sin" is a religious term used instead of saying screwing up, making mistakes, or blatantly going against what you know is right. Am I to understand you've never done that before? You've never done something that you regret? I would propose that saying you're not a sinner, or one who has made and probably will make mistakes in the future is extremely arrogant. To date, I have not met a single person who does not regret something they have done in the past, and only one comes to mind who was under the belief that they would never screw up again in their lives.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake

Ambient Sound, when you said, "The concept of one human calling another human a "sinner" would crack me up if it wasn't so blatantly arrogant and judgmental", I would agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that the person stating that feels the same way themselves. "Sin" is a religious term used instead of saying screwing up, making mistakes, or blatantly going against what you know is right. Am I to understand you've never done that before? You've never done something that you regret? I would propose that saying you're not a sinner, or one who has made and probably will make mistakes in the future is extremely arrogant. To date, I have not met a single person who does not regret something they have done in the past, and only one comes to mind who was under the belief that they would never screw up again in their lives.


Actually, JJ, I never said I wasn't a "sinner" nor have I ever claimed to be perfect. What's more, I'll be the first to admit that anything and everything I say may be 100% wrong. My ego doesn't require me to be right. My beliefs don't require certainty or that anyone else acknowledge them as correct. In fact, I believe that anyone who makes a claim of certain knowledge is not being intellectually honest with themselves or with the rest of us.

Dictionary.com defines sin as:

1. A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
2. Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God.
a. A condition of estrangement from God resulting from such disobedience.
b. Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong.

Seems a little more specific than calling any mistake a sin. Sure, I've made mistakes, and I do deliberately break various religious "laws" on a regular basis, but "sin" doesn't mean the same thing to you that it means to me. If I don't accept or believe in your version of God, then I am under no obligation to accept or believe in your definition of sin.

As far as labeling someone a "sinner", I think anyone who does so is commiting an act of arrogence and hubris. Sorry, thats what I believe. I expect that when Machine calls someone a sinner, he intends it as an insult in the worse and most derogatory way. In your mythology, isn't judgement reserved for God? By your own religious teachings, is anyone on this planet perfect enough that they have the right to judge and punish others? Apparently Machine thinks he is. At least that is what his postings would lead one to believe.

I suppose in a way that I have singled Machine out as an example of dangerous intolorance and circular dogma in religion, as well as a prime example of using God's name to spread what I can only interpret as hatred. It is my right and I believe my responsibility to speak out against things I think are dangerous and that I believe do harm to others. I see his zealotry as being of the same stripe as that which produced the Crusades, the Inquisision, and most of the other unspeakable horrors that we all can thank the Church for through the years.

It's my right (God-given if you want) to think it, and my privilage to post it here on BTS. My words may be a little harsh. Some may feel singled out. Isn't it your own book that says something about reaping what you sow?

JJ, I've read many of your posts and dispite the fact that I personally feel that what you believe is factually incorrect, I think your heart is in the right place and I do see that you try to project positive energy. Even though I think your information is wrong I think that your motives are fairly pure. That is a big difference from Machine, who I feel is just looking to ego trip and enjoy his petty self-rightousness as he tries to pedestal himself by chopping others down.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 05:04 AM
link   
Jungle Jake...



To some people here, the Bible is a legitimate source


The bible is not legitimate source for the following reason

It's a bias concoction of dogma, propaganda, half truths, outright lies and embellished stories.

It wasn't written by the Hand of God it was written by MEN...it's a fact, deny it untill the cows come home but it's a plain and simple fact.




I find it interesting that you have pointed out that it's your way or the highway as far as being "intelligent" goes, and that it's frightening to you that not everyone agrees with your beliefs


That's not true in the slightest as I have no solid system of belief..or should I say i beleive that many things are possible but the origin and story of Christianity isn't one of them.

Though I will be honest and say that I think Christians who have truely investigated their faith and the bible that whole faith is based on and still come to the conclusion that it is the word of God need their heads examining.

If you haven't investigated the faith then at least you can plead ignorance and it's not really those people who concern me...it's supposed "intelligent people" and people with power, wealth and influence who fly the flag of faith that scare the living daylights of of me.

You see the problem is JungleJake believeing in what you believe doesn't make you a bad person and I echo ambient Sound when he says that your motivations are pure but it troubles me deeply that so many otherwise rational people beleive and follow this religion which has very little foundation in historical fact and is totally open to even the wildest of interpretations.

It seems obvious to me that it will all one day be exposed for what it really is but untill that day comes man will always be divided by their imaginary friends.

It needs to stop now, but it could take a Millenia and that is the ongoing tragedy of the world we live in today.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by BobDylan
Jungle Jake...



To some people here, the Bible is a legitimate source


The bible is not legitimate


So let me get this straight...We disagree on the validity of the Bible. That's fine, you're not the only one who disagrees with me, and I'm not the only one who thinks it's a credible source. Now, from what I understand in reading your post, you want people to have to conform to your accepted sources to converse with one another. If you're going to debate with someone, you expect them to abandon sources they feel are valid, and possibly accept sources they see as invalid in order to allow you to convince them that their stance is wrong?

Bob, debate is about meeting your opponent on a level where you use sources and information they already accept to persuade them to accept a concept they currently do not.

For example, let's say I really believed the earth was flat, and you did not. (I'm assuming I got your stance right, I know I got mine absolutely wrong
). Now, I'm going to try to convince you that the Earth is, in fact, flat. If I use documents published in the 1600s, and complement them with Flat Earth Society literature, from the get-go, you're going to reject everything I just said. From the moment I opened my mouth, either internally or externally you're laughing at my foolishness. On the other hand, if I were to present you with scientific evidence (it doesn't exist, but this is a hypothetical), evidence giving weight to a conspiracy by NASA and other space agencies, etc. You're going to listen, at least, and refute probably with the same sources. There will be discourse, though, and, who knows, maybe if my argument was strong enough, it might open your mind to the possibility of the Earth being flat, or even change your mind.

To sum up, if you expect everyone to accept what you accept when you enter into a conversation, argument or debate, you're going to be frustrated, think that other person is extremely ignorant because they just won't listen, and you're both going to walk away feeling bitter towards one another. If, on the other hand, you recognize your audience and cater your argument to what you know that person already does accept, you're going to have a much better chance of opening their mind to your point of view, and of engaging in a meaningful, worthwhile conversation where, even if you and the other person do not agree, you're not going to walk away feeling like you just lost x number of minutes of your life.

A perfect example of this has taken place right here on this thread. As I said earlier, QueenAnnie knows I see the Bible as legitimate, but she also knows that what she believes is in stark contrast to what I believe. When I saw her response, I printed it out and have been jotting notes on it as I look into the information she presented. She opened my mind to the possibility, and I'm exploring to either agree or disagree. On the other hand, your response to me got a laugh. I chuckled, and wrote this. Did I give any weight to your case that the Bible isn't legitimate because you say it's a fact without anything supporting it? No, no I did not. I've had conversations with people about the legitimacy of the Bible, many here on this website, that have been very interesting and I have really enjoyed. This is not one of those conversations.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Machine
My audience will hear God’s truth which may be bitter at first but brings about salvation and eternal life.

A True Christian
In These Last Days,

James


Your audience? What is this, another performance? A contest? A battle? A war? Your audience? Oh, brother!
You know 'God's truth', do you?

You start a thread about why other people hate, and hate God at that! You start a thread that is obviously designed to incite argument, offense, anger and, yes, hatred. In the name of God. :shk:

How about these question?
"Why is God so embarrassed by some who prefess to follow him"?
"What does God think about people speaking for Him"?
"What does God have to say about people judging others as sinners"?
"How does God look upon religious arrogance"?
"Why do people claim to be 'true Christians' yet constantly attack others"?
"Why must one say they're a "true" Christian, instead of just a Christian"?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join