The Gospel

[Ducky]

...<snip>...a good person won't get us into heaven. <snip>...

We only get into heaven if we agree with you, then. Is that it?

Do you even see how you are sounding?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Do you realize that expecting anything to reach the glory of God is exactly what got Satan cast out of heaven and exactly what got Adam and Eve kicked out of Eden.

Ofcouse nothing reaches the glory of God . . . HE'S GOD!

KK, I'd love an answer to this directly, please.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Well it would appear there as many twistest beleifs in the followers of Mohammed as there are false teachings everywhere else. The question that comes to my mind is why so many believed Mohammed's claim to be Christ's Successor?This really concerns me.

Twisted beliefs in the followers of Mohammed. How about twisted beliefs in the followers of Jesus? You should look into Gnostics, Ebionites and Arians. Huh ho! Mormons, Jehova's Witness. Aw man.

 

[Cleon]

Well I don't find it very ammusing! And people wonder why I don't respond? Gee I wonder, it's like talking to a wall.

Dear Mr. Kettle,

I regret that I have to inform you that I am being increasingly concerned about your hue. It seems to have a slightly darkish color, possibly even black. Please rectify this situation as soon as it's convenient.

Thanks,

Pot

Honestly I don't know why I even try to talk with you when all I get is disrespected for it.
Anyways Dr. A seems to kind of familiar with the Islam religion so I have been studying up a bit on the differences. Here an interesting article....
http://www.equip.org/free/DI209.htm

Keep reading. Try a real source of information, for starters.

The weird thing is there are similarities with some people here on these two issues alone mentioned in CRI's article byJerry L. Buckner
The Bible. Although they do make use of it when it does not contradict their own teachings, the Nation of Islam believes the Bible has been tampered with by the white man.

The Nation of Islam is a tiny cult; it is only loosely connected with international Islam.

Members of the Nation of Islam do not believe in the hereafter, whether it be heaven or hell.

This is not correct.

In any event, the Quran is rather explicit on the subject; Islam believes in both heaven and hell.

Doesn't seem to much different from the way some of you professing atheists view it if you sak me!

We didn't. And you don't know what you're talking about.

But I would suggest learning something about Islam that doesn't involve cutting and pasting from a Christian website.

 

[Cleon]

Well it would appear there as many twistest beleifs in the followers of Mohammed as there are false teachings everywhere else. The question that comes to my mind is why so many believed Mohammed's claim to be Christ's Successor?This really concerns me.

Are you referring here to Mohammed the Prophet (pbuh), founder of the Muslim religion?

Or are you referring to Elijah Mohammed, founder of the Nation of Islam?

My suspicion, given your lack of knowledge about the subject, is that you don't really know the difference.

 

[UrsulaV]

The question that comes to my mind is why so many believed Mohammed's claim to be Christ's Successor?This really concerns me.

Maybe he really was?

After all, there's exactly as much proof of the truth of Mohammed as the truth of Christ--a book written about it that purports to be divinely inspired. You accept the Bible without question, and have frothed about it quite convincingly. Why is it so hard for you to understand that other people may feel the same way about their own Holy Book, and accept it without question?

Since Dr. A's irony's been passing you by, I'll spell it out--Why are you asking people to question the validity of the Holy Book that they believe in, when you are completely unwilling to question the validity of your own?

To a lot of us, you and a devout Muslim look exactly the same.

 

[delphi_ote]

Well it would appear there as many twistest beleifs in the followers of Mohammed as there are false teachings everywhere else.

Right. Like the teachings of Christianity. I see we're making progress now!

The question that comes to my mind is why so many believed Mohammed's claim to be Christ's Successor?.

Why did so many believe Christ's claim to be David's successor?

 

[Roadtoad]

It's not an assumption. God has revealed himself to me! You are the one that doesn't believe it is possible!!

Wrong, Kathy. It's not that we don't believe it's possible. It's that we see what you have to say, and we know it's not happening. If anything, it's convincing some of us that not only are you not seeing God revealed, it's strongly suggesting to at least one of us that God is simply not there.

To put it as bluntly as I can to you: If you are in such direct communion with the Risen Lord Jesus, why are you so dishonest? Why are you so lacking in compassion? Why do you seem to groove on the misery of others? When I read my Bible, I don't see those things as traits to which I would attribute to Jesus. In fact, it suggests to me that if there were an connection between you and God, that God is every bit the vengeful, hateful SOB which we see illustrated in the OT.

You remind me of a Baptist deacon I used to know. At one point, he told me that he was so close to Jesus, that he had not sinned in over 20 years. He was so close to perfection, that I could learn from him by his actions what a truly spiritual man was like.

(Please note: I've never been one to put up with such BS. Even in my most fundamentalist mode.)

I looked him in the eye and told him, "Gee, 20 years, and in one fell swoop, you blew it with your conceit."

Odd. I don't think he got my point.

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Here's another article that you may be interested in...http://www.equip.org/free/DM822-1.htm

I read the article. I agree with the author's opinion that Malik's basis for argument is weak, that suppression of the Sana's manuscripts is suspicious, that pushing Mohammed in to the gospel of John is weak, and that many arguments Muslims use to testify the Qu'ran's veracity are disingeuous.

However the author says, "We must communicate to the Muslim who doubts the veracity of Scripture the truth that there has never been a time in the history of the world when any one person, one group, or one church had the ability to go throughout the world and collect all the manuscripts of the Bible and make the kind of purposeful alterations Muslim apologists claim were made in the text of the Bible. The wholesale insertion of entire doctrines into literally hundreds of passages across the entire scope of the Bible is simply impossible on any historical basis, and this would be required if, for example, the deity of Christ had been interpolated into a text that originally did not teach it. The manuscript tradition would contain clear and unmistakable evidence of these changes, and yet it does not."

This completely ignores the Council of Nicea, the fact that the oldest known manuscripts come decades after the events they depict, and the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls show differences in today's Bible and that of ancient times, as well as the argument that "wholesale insertion of entire doctrines" could have occured during the oral transmissions of what became the New Testament.

Thank you for the article, nonetheless.

 

[RandFan]

That's okay, play your games if it makes you feel better.

You're the one ignoring questions. I'm afraid you are the one playing games.

I am just here to share what I have found to be true. You can believe if you want to, or you can stay in denial to the only one that can save anyone from themself, JESUS!

Been there, done that. Sorry, that is mythology. That you believe it doesn't make it true.

 

[RandFan]

Where's the proof?

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKING!!!!

There is one statement I always like to remember that I think all humans can benefit from."It is wise for a person to remember while you are pointing your finger at somebody else for their faults, you have got three more fingers pointing right back at yourself." Something to think about guys.

?

Do you have something a little less sophomoric?

 

[Genesius]

Somehow it's the skeptic board's fault that the guy you quoted also molested people?

Sheesh, blame the messenger...

Where's the proof?
All I see is someone throwing accusations around about that without any evidence that it really happened. Anyways, I am not willing to play that game.

There is one statement I always like to remember that I think all humans can benefit from."It is wise for a person to remember while you are pointing your finger at somebody else for their faults, you have got three more fingers pointing right back at yourself." Something to think about guys.

Well, I'm in a good mood tonight, so here's the proof. From http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3643364&ft=lg

November 17, 2005 - A settlement has been reached in connection with a Roman Catholic priest accused of sexual abuse. At least six adults claimed father John Powell abused them in the late 60's and 70's. No criminal charges were filed against Powell but the priest has admitted to the abuse.

Bolding mine. So Kathy, you might want to consider the source before you go throwing quotes around. Apparently your Christian heroes aren't as holy as you think. . .

 

[RandFan]

Bolding mine. So Kathy, you might want to consider the source before you go throwing quotes around. Apparently your Christian heroes aren't as holy as you think. . .

So Kathy, you demanded proof and you got it. Now will you answer some questions?

 

[kurious_kathy]

You've admitted you don't know anything about Islam. You clearly aren't qualified to make this statement.

Hey delphi, I do not claim to be an apologeticist, but I am learning more each day about the different teachings in and out of the Christian faith.
I guess what I am learning most right now is the basics about what holds up to the Law of Love?

Here's another statement I found in the book I'm reading by F.S Coplestone.

Man's disobedience has robbed God of honour and glory which obedience would have brought to him. Therefore the Divine plan of redemption (delivering man from sin) needs to restore to God all the honour and glory lost through man breaking the law of love. If this were not so then God would be the eternal loser (as a result of man's sin) which is impossible. In light of this, the one true religion,(based only on supernatural revelation), needs to reveal that Divine plan of salvation has restored to God all honour and glory lost through mans sin. Any doctrine that fails to do this cannot be true.

Would you care to give me an opinion on this last statement?

 

[SuperCoolGuy]

Man's disobedience has robbed God of honour and glory which obedience would have brought to him. Therefore the Divine plan of redemption (delivering man from sin) needs to restore to God all the honour and glory lost through man breaking the law of love. If this were not so then God would be the eternal loser (as a result of man's sin) which is impossible. In light of this, the one true religion,(based only on supernatural revelation), needs to reveal that Divine plan of salvation has restored to God all honour and glory lost through mans sin. Any doctrine that fails to do this cannot be true.

Would you care to give me an opinion on this last statement?

Man broke the law of love? I thought Man ate an apple God forbade to eat.

God had a plan for redemption that NEEDS to RESTORE to God all the honour and glory LOST, or else God would be the eternal loser?

Does this mean not a single human is going to Hell? Because if one did, isn't that person's share of honour and glory ETERNALLY LOST from God?

KK, do you understand that you are making God WEAK and NEEDY. Does God NEED our LOVE? Has God existed without our love before we existed? Does God NEED honour and glory? Can I, a human, take anything away from God? Can I take his glory? We fall short of his glory. Can I even the playing field by taking some of his? Are these not the seeds of pride?

I'd understand you thought God wanted these things. But NEED?!?!?!?!

KK, recognize what this author is saying. He's saying you need a divine plan (based squarely on Christian doctrine). Then to find the one true religion, you need to find the religion (Christianity, based on Christian doctrine) that satisfies the divine plan (based on Christian doctrine).

This is not an argument that makes any logical sense in proving a particular religion is true.

 

[Ducky]

Hey delphi, I do not claim to be an apologeticist, but I am learning more each day about the different teachings in and out of the Christian faith.

You may not claim to be, but by definition you are an apologist.

I guess what I am learning most right now is the basics about what holds up to the Law of Love?

Please cite the "Law of Love" from source and give all applicable bylaws.

Here's another statement I found in the book I'm reading by F.S Coplestone.

Man's disobedience has robbed God of honour and glory which obedience would have brought to him. Therefore the Divine plan of redemption (delivering man from sin) needs to restore to God all the honour and glory lost through man breaking the law of love. If this were not so then God would be the eternal loser (as a result of man's sin) which is impossible. In light of this, the one true religion,(based only on supernatural revelation), needs to reveal that Divine plan of salvation has restored to God all honour and glory lost through mans sin. Any doctrine that fails to do this cannot be true.

Would you care to give me an opinion on this last statement?

It is pure crap. It makes broad sweeping statements and assumptions without providing evidence to support the position. While it doesn't specifically state Christianity as the one true religion, it assumes it, and it does nothing to show why that brand of mythology is any better or worse than other mythologies. It cites "man's disobedience" but does not explain what, why, who and how it comes to the conclusion man is disobedient at all.

Now, how about you address the proof that Rev. Powell molested those women. Do you do any research on who you quote?

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

I'd understand you thought God wanted these things. But NEED?!?!?!?!

In the immortal words of William Shatner: "Excuse me, but what does God need with a starship?

I know that sounded glib but for some reason I found it appropos considering SuperCoolGuy's previous questions.

 

[kurious_kathy]

You may not claim to be, but by definition you are an apologist.



Please cite the "Law of Love" from source and give all applicable bylaws.



It is pure crap. It makes broad sweeping statements and assumptions without providing evidence to support the position. While it doesn't specifically state Christianity as the one true religion, it assumes it, and it does nothing to show why that brand of mythology is any better or worse than other mythologies. It cites "man's disobedience" but does not explain what, why, who and how it comes to the conclusion man is disobedient at all.

I think my question for you personally FS is how do you define love? I know how I define it personally and scripturally. The scriptural basis is obvious, Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and then love your neighbor as yourself.
A personal perception of what I would define as the ideal love would have to be unconditonal. I think true love is really when we give it away expecting nothing in return. Call me a dreamer if you like, but I do believe many of us are capable of love on this level. Or are you going to tell me the idea of love is a myth too?

 

[Ducky]

You may not claim to be, but by definition you are an apologist.



Please cite the "Law of Love" from source and give all applicable bylaws.



It is pure crap. It makes broad sweeping statements and assumptions without providing evidence to support the position. While it doesn't specifically state Christianity as the one true religion, it assumes it, and it does nothing to show why that brand of mythology is any better or worse than other mythologies. It cites "man's disobedience" but does not explain what, why, who and how it comes to the conclusion man is disobedient at all.

I think my question for you personally FS is how do you define love? I know how I define it personally and scripturally. The scriptural basis is obvious, Love God with all your heart, mind, and soul, and then love your neighbor as yourself.
A personal perception of what I would define as the ideal love would have to be unconditonal. I think true love is really when we give it away expecting nothing in return. Call me a dreamer if you like, but I do believe many of us are capable of love on this level. Or are you going to tell me the idea of love is a myth too?

You fail to grasp that you are asking for a definition in such a broad sense as to make it meaningless. But if you want a definition of love you can look here:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=love

Sorry, you can't shift this onto me. You cited the Law of Love. I asked you to explain it. So explain it.

Nothing to say about the molestor preist, eh?


Ps. learn to use to quote function properly so those quoting you don't have to fix your posts.

 

[Ossai]

kurious_kathy

I am just here to share what I have found to be true.

That’s the thing, you haven’t found it to be true. You have found that it makes you feel better. That’s a very distinct difference.

If you want to continue believing it, fine. Just realize that it is your feeling and nothing more. If you continue to proclaim it truth you will continue to be called on it until clear evidence is presented.

I myself will be forever greatful for this gift of grace. Jesus died to redeem us from our crummy sinful world! If you want to get mad at someone, why don't you look at Adam or Satan first? At least this is what I reflect on. We live in a fallen world.

You’re trying to play first cause again. That goes all the way back to YHWH. YHWH created Adam and YHWH created Satan. Since YHWH is omnipotent he created them exactly like he wanted, flawed. So again all the blame for the fallen world rests on YHWH.

Ossai