Two! Four! Six! Eight! JaySecrets Prevaricates!

[Bn2f]

Praise be then to Allah.

 

[ll74]

Read the text and its full context for yourself. So far you have just quoted others about the text.

I have presented you their interpretation. I am not defending how they interpreted your text. I am showing you that interpretation is subjective, no matter how you try to say otherwise. I haven't even touched the subject of translation which also changes interpretation. Your understanding is based on both .

Science requires observation based on reputation. If you see a drop of water and I see a body of water, you and I cannot repeat the same tests and even attempt to reach the same conclusions.

 

[Bn2f]

And that, my friend, is a statement you will answer to Him for one day... as you bow the knee in worship.

You support Donald Trump. Whatever heaven you aspire to go to or church you worship in I want no part of. Send me straight to hell then! Though science hasn’t proven either exists. And if I Went to ask another Christian, I would get two different answers. The Bible is flawed and I would like something more concrete to hang the balance of my soul to. TYVM.

 

[SmokingFap]

I have. Every one of them use bad psudo-science and circular reasoning. That is, the so called science actually violated known scientific law, ignores glaring contributions in the fossil layers, involves outright fraud in the "missing links", and has way too many cases of 1 cites 2 cites 3 cites 4 cites 1, so 1 is really just citing himself in a big loop.

Of course, you HAVE to think that way, because reality challenges your bizarre "man in the sky created everything" views. Your beliefs fall apart with any sort of logic and reasoning, no science needed to prove the insanity of them. If it makes you treat your fellow man better, then I don't begrudge you your beliefs. You're just so annoying with them on here.

 

[ll74]

Of course, you HAVE to think that way, because reality challenges your bizarre "man in the sky created everything" views. Your beliefs fall apart with any sort of logic and reasoning, no science needed to prove the insanity of them. If it makes you treat your fellow man better, then I don't begrudge you your beliefs. You're just so annoying with them on here.

Worth noting that circular reasoning explainer here says that his book explains his book.

 

[SmokingFap]

What is a Muslim? Regardless of how people want to define it, a Muslim is one who follows the teachings of Mohammed in the Koran and the Hadiths. A Buddhist is one who follows the teachings of Buddha. A Hindu is one who follows the teachings of the Vedas. One who follows the faith tradition of the Native American would be identified by his or her spirit walks. In other words, there are objective definitions telling what a person's faith is regardless of that person's claims.

A Christian is defined, not by self-identifying as believing Jesus was a real and a real nice person and just "being a good person". Atheists and Muslims and followers of the Spaghetti Monster can fit the same definition. Christian literally means "little Christ" (when it was first used) or follower of Christ's way. And when He defines His Way very clearly, when He directs His followers to give full weight to Scripture, and when He lays out what Kingdom people believe in no uncertain terms, when He says He is God, says that He would prove it by rising from the dead then doing it, when He says that He alone stands before the Father as mankind's representative..... The definition of Christian gets REALLY narrow out of Christ's own mouth, regardless of how people want to soften and redefine the word.

So then you concede that most so-called Christians are not actually Christians then, right? At least, not in terms of actually living by the guidance that Jesus left them.

 

[SmokingFap]

Worth noting that circular reasoning explainer here says that his book explains his book.

That's the first argument I would make myself.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Read the rest of the passage. "With men it is impossible, but with God all things are possible." The disciples had been stunned because they got it. The standard was perfection. If you aren't perfect, you fail. That's the standard a Holy God must have. But that was the point of all those sacrifices leading up to the Cross. They were demonstrations of faith in the coming Messiah, God in flesh. Then He came. And lived the only perfect life ever lived. Then died, the innocent for the guilty. Then was vindicated in His innocence in His rising from the dead. And now the offer of Heaven given because Jesus suffered your hell is freely given to all who will receive it. With men it is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.

So again, to clarify, because you talked about something completely different, you’re going to Hell for owning a computer. Because no one 2000 years ago could have afforded one, and by the definition that God clearly set out in scripture you’re rich, and have no chance of getting into heaven. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Why can’t The People’s Republic of California mind there own damn business

Alabama proclaims Alabama law supersedes California law, so California needs to 'mind there (sic) own damn business"?

Not a fan of state sovereignty, are you?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

We aren't talking general, broad statements that could apply in several places. We are talking kings named by name before their kingdom ever existed. We are talking cities, not even major ones, listed by name with their fate spelled out in detail. We are talking exact times and dates of events in nations not Israel under kings who had no interest in Scripture. We are talking humanly impossible prophecy.

No you are talking that, not me. The Bible isn't a book of prophecy.

It's an edited conglomeration of written works, complied by different churches under different leaders over 2000 years. With books added, and other dropped depending upon how the church wanted it's views passed down to the members.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

No, I deny MACRO-evolution. Adaptation is not evolution. What you require for what you say happened is new code. There is not one example of any mutation in the DNA anywhere producing one new piece of new code. Every known mutation ends up LOSING information. That's exactly what the evolution you claim can't have happening for it to work.

lol, so now you know more about Genetics than those who hold PHD's....this coming from a guy who took a couple college courses???

Simple. Known variations in kind inside the same kind.

So we have to take it on faith that it happens over billions of years because it can't be observed. That's not science.

But it is observed, it is written in ROCK. Rock millons of years old. Those same rock you claim are only 6-10 thousand years old.

https://educateforlife.org/false-missing-links/

Yet you have to accept that on blind faith because no evidence supports it

Show me a post where I mention "missing links". What I posted was a question about three direct relations, one of which still exists and thrives. DNA from all three exist in us. So why did God wipe out two of the three? Were Neanderthals and Denisovian sinners?

 

[JaySecrets]

So then you concede that most so-called Christians are not actually Christians then, right? At least, not in terms of actually living by the guidance that Jesus left them.

I never said most. I said some.

 

[JaySecrets]

lol, so now you know more about Genetics than those who hold PHD's....this coming from a guy who took a couple college courses???

Nope. But I trust geneticists with PHD's who have rather impressive bios when they disagree with PHD's from public and elitist universities who know that if they dare challenge the narrative they lose grants and funding and lose their jobs

But it is observed, it is written in ROCK. Rock millons of years old. Those same rock you claim are only 6-10 thousand years old.

But even your own geologists have disagreed drastically on the age of the rock, their carbon dating results on the same rocks differing by millions based on what fossil they were told was found around it. In other words, they are liars pushing a narrative.

Show me a post where I mention "missing links". What I posted was a question about three direct relations, one of which still exists and thrives. DNA from all three exist in us. So why did God wipe out two of the three? Were Neanderthals and Denisovian sinners?

Read the whole article. The point is that "Neanderthal" was proven to be nothing more than a normal man with ricketts. There were none of the so-called transactional men, because there was no transition between ape and man. There was always only apes and men. Separate. Never the same. Man made in God's image. Apes part of the animal kingdom.

 

[JaySecrets]

No you are talking that, not me. The Bible isn't a book of prophecy.

It's an edited conglomeration of written works, complied by different churches under different leaders over 2000 years. With books added, and other dropped depending upon how the church wanted it's views passed down to the members.

Problem is that we have manuscript evidence from long before the Church and the 1st century of the Church (before denominations) by the thousands showing that to be untrue.

 

[JaySecrets]

So again, to clarify, because you talked about something completely different, you’re going to Hell for owning a computer. Because no one 2000 years ago could have afforded one, and by the definition that God clearly set out in scripture you’re rich, and have no chance of getting into heaven. Thanks for clearing that up.

Read what was said. Wealth doesn't damn. Putting trust in wealth, not God does. You again ignored the text and what was said. All you are proving is that you choose not to read what is actually said and impose your views and opinions about the text, ignoring answers given, pretending they never happened. In other words, you are a fool. Goodbye.

 

[JaySecrets]

Worth noting that circular reasoning explainer here says that his book explains his book.

If a Book proves itself, by several means and varied ways, including opposition testimony, to be absolutely authoritative and trustworthy, and has never been shown wrong, it can in fact be its own authority.

And what I said, in context, is that if we are talking presentation of information, the text itself is always the authority on what that text is claiming. You don't get to impose outside ideas on the text. On that principle, it doesn't guarantee the information is right, but it means you don't get to attribute to any text what isn't there.

 

[ll74]

If a Book proves itself, by several means and varied ways, including opposition testimony, to be absolutely authoritative and trustworthy, and has never been shown wrong, it can in fact be its own authority.

Yes, circular reasoning....exactly
The book is right because the book says it's right.

And what I said, in context, is that if we are talking presentation of information, the text itself is always the authority on what that text is claiming. You don't get to impose outside ideas on the text. On that principle, it doesn't guarantee the information is right, but it means you don't get to attribute to any text what isn't there.

And yet people read the same text and come to different conclusions about what it says.

Subjective.

And everything is "outside the text" because there are no authors of the text available to comment.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Nope. But I trust geneticists with PHD's who have rather impressive bios when they disagree with PHD's from public and elitist universities who know that if they dare challenge the narrative they lose grants and funding and lose their jobs

LOL you back whomever agree's. That's all. I don't care about who is what, nor their beliefs. If the science is provable, that is all that matters.

But even your own geologists have disagreed drastically on the age of the rock, their carbon dating results on the same rocks differing by millions based on what fossil they were told was found around it. In other words, they are liars pushing a narrative.

See my post above.

Read the whole article. The point is that "Neanderthal" was proven to be nothing more than a normal man with ricketts.

Oh so there is a whole society of men with "ricketts", and that explains the larger skull and front lobe. Too fucking funny.

There were none of the so-called transactional men, because there was no transition between ape and man. There was always only apes and men. Separate. Never the same. Man made in God's image. Apes part of the animal kingdom.

lol sure bozo sure....

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Read what was said. Wealth doesn't damn. Putting trust in wealth, not God does. You again ignored the text and what was said. All you are proving is that you choose not to read what is actually said and impose your views and opinions about the text, ignoring answers given, pretending they never happened. In other words, you are a fool. Goodbye.

So again, to clarify, the Bible strictly says that a rich man has no chance of entering Heaven. You can’t deny the word of God.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

while we're on the Bible n' Jesus kick,

just love this cartoon. It's so evergreen.

 

[ll74]

while we're on the Bible n' Jesus kick,

just love this cartoon. It's so evergreen.

 

[JaySecrets]

while we're on the Bible n' Jesus kick,

just love this cartoon. It's so evergreen.

Seeing as conservatives and Christians are far more likely to be actually taking their own money and using it to help the poor, as opposed to demanding the government take others' money, I think this is far more applicable to the DNC.

 

[JaySecrets]

So again, to clarify, the Bible strictly says that a rich man has no chance of entering Heaven. You can’t deny the word of God.

It doesn't say no chance. It says WITH MAN it is impossible, just as with many it is impossible for anyone (read Romans 3). It also says WITH GOD, ALL things are possible. You might want to read the whole of the text you are citing, and relevant cross referencing in other parts of the text. That's how actual students study.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

So Jesus was wrong and a rich man has a good chance to get into heaven? According to Jesus a rich man gets into heaven as often as a camel passes through the eye of a needle.
And that still doesn’t explain how they define “rich”.

It doesn't say no chance. It says WITH MAN it is impossible, just as with many it is impossible for anyone (read Romans 3). It also says WITH GOD, ALL things are possible. You might want to read the whole of the text you are citing, and relevant cross referencing in other parts of the text. That's how actual students study

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Seeing as conservatives and Christians are far more likely to be actually taking their own money and using it to help the poor, as opposed to demanding the government take others' money, I think this is far more applicable to the DNC.

The Bible doesn’t define rich or poor. I know some people experiencing homlessness that own a car, 2000 years ago they’d be the richest person in the world.