# Darwinism requires faith in things unseen.



## hobbs27 (Aug 30, 2014)

Sorry if this has been here before, I searched a little and didnt see it, if not enjoy, both sides should have comments on this.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 30, 2014)

My evidence would be dandelions. When I cut my grass the tall plants get destroyed and can't continue to reproduce. The shorter dandelions are saved from the lawnmower's blade and can live to reproduce. By the end of the summer the only dandelions still living and reproducing are the shorter ones. 
I would agree that it takes faith to believe in natural selection. Why aren't there any big deer in the Florida Keys? Is it because God only put small deer in the Keys or did he let science do it?
Theistic evolutionism or evolutionary creationism requires faith.


----------



## hobbs27 (Aug 30, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> My evidence would be dandelions. When I cut my grass the tall plants get destroyed and can't continue to reproduce. The shorter dandelions are saved from the lawnmower's blade and can live to reproduce. By the end of the summer the only dandelions still living and reproducing are the shorter ones.
> I would agree that it takes faith to believe in natural selection. Why aren't there any big deer in the Florida Keys? Is it because God only put small deer in the Keys or did he let science do it?
> Theistic evolutionism or evolutionary creationism requires faith.



Yep...but as the challenge goes...they are still dandelions.

 I think the video shows darwinist that their belief is not science but relies on blind faith which is the same charge they make against creationist..very interesting.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Aug 30, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Yep...but as the challenge goes...they are still dandelions.
> 
> I think the video shows darwinist that their belief is not science but relies on blind faith which is the same charge they make against creationist..very interesting.



I would agree with their charge against creationist requiring faith and not science is wrong. I don't believe science is as cut & dry as scientist and/or atheist  believe it to be. Perhaps my belief in God intervening as he deems necessary into science causes my belief. 
True the dandelion is still a dandelion and the tortoises on the Galapagos are still tortoises. Yet in understanding how God has allowed long neck tortoises to survive on the island with high vegetation and the short neck tortoises to survive on the island with only short vegetation doesn't show you personally the concept of natural selection?
You can't perceive any concept of natural selection beyond evolution? As a Christian who loves science I can't understand how my fellow Christians deny this process.
Just as I believe in limited free will, is it possible to believe in limited natural selection? Perhaps God literally created everything as in Genesis and then turned his creation over to natural selection, still intervening as necessary to make everything go according to his plan.
Everything requires faith. I recently took a trip to Orlando. I had to have faith that my car would mechanically take me there. I had to have faith that I would safely make the trip in all the traffic. I had to have faith that my wife wouldn't leave me for another man in Orlando. 
I guess I could weigh all of the odds or I could place all may faith in God and not wear a seatbelt  but regardless somewhere along the way I had to have faith. For me it was first with God, my wife, my car, and my fellow man on the highways. Could something go wrong? sure. It could be an act of God, random mechanical failure, a sleeping driver, me falling asleep, earthquake, or a weird process of natural selection where I acquired a genetically  bad heart condition from my dad and had a heart attack while driving. 
This would keep me from passing on this defect to future offspring and thus keep with God's scientific plan.


----------



## bigreddwon (Aug 31, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Yep...but as the challenge goes...they are still dandelions.
> 
> I think the video shows darwinist that their belief is not science but relies on blind faith which is the same charge they make against creationist..very interesting.





I don't think you understand the the definition of 'blind faith'.. Evolution requires no faith, at all. We have PHYSICAL. EVIDENCE. There is no 'gotcha' moment in that absurd video.


----------



## Israel (Sep 1, 2014)

Were we to suddenly have revealed, "believer" and atheist alike, all the things "unseen" we both embrace, and live by, unknowingly and unacknowledged, we may all be shocked. Or surprised, depending.
One says (maybe, a little like me) "I live by faith in God alone" and finds, when someone may be discussing the latest Kim Kardashian episode, a blind rage arise.
Another may say Jesus is bunk, and yet buys a hungry man a sandwich, and never mentions it, not even ascribing it to an unseen compassion he could never prove exists, plot out, calculate or show in a blood sample. It was just there, to be done.

It seems a sobering thought to me at times, how the Jesus I speak of may be the only reason another man says Jesus is bunk, because I have never truly been able to show the real one.

The impediment to faith may not be in them, at all, but me. For this I need Jesus, not only his mercy, but his light...to help a man who, though not saying Jesus is bunk, may need some debunking of himself.

I think of the sheep and goats...the goats easily proclaiming "all" they have done for the Lord, their many efforts and reliances on things done, perhaps even "backed up" by miracles the Lord, in mercy, saw to provide.

And I think of sheep. When told of their reception, didn't say "of course we knew to feed you when hungry, visit you when sick, clothe you when naked...what, didn't you know we read the Bible? We even read the parable of sheep and goats!"

No, they did these things, not even knowing they were, and to whom.

I am a little sobered.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 1, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Yep...but as the challenge goes...they are still dandelions.
> 
> I think the video shows darwinist that their belief is not science but relies on blind faith which is the same charge they make against creationist..very interesting.


Don't be too impressed.
Note his insistence on using "kinds". Like show me how a giraffe evolves into a mouse. Which of course is not how evolution occurs. But we'll ignore that.
And his insistence on "observable". Like I want to watch something evolve right in front of me so I can observe it.
Which of course is not how fast evolution naturally occurs. But we'll ignore that too.
And of course we will ignore the FACT that things have evolved. Including us.
His questions amount to "do you still beat your wife".
What is "very interesting" is those who don't bother to learn what evolution actually is and is not yet deny it.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 1, 2014)

Israel said:


> The impediment to faith may not be in them, at all, but me. For this I need Jesus, not only his mercy, but his light...to help a man who, though not saying Jesus is bunk, may need some debunking of himself.



Gosh.  I can't believe I'm asking this of you but could you elaborate?  

I implore you to please try to use simple language because I'm not a very eloquent person and parables go over my head.

Say it like we're sitting in a john boat together catching crappies.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 1, 2014)

bigreddwon said:


> I don't think you understand the the definition of 'blind faith'.. Evolution requires no faith, at all. We have PHYSICAL. EVIDENCE. There is no 'gotcha' moment in that absurd video.



Maybe it is you that doesn't understand the definition of Darwins theory of evolution? It requires animals to change kind, matter of fact he believed all living things came from a single living thing. Monkeys and banannas are related...To believe that requires blind faith because there is no evidence of it.

 The claim that Darwin's theory of evolution is science is also a bogus claim because it doesn't hold up to the definition of science, which must be observed.

This is not my field of passion and if you choose to believe in the theory of evolution, more power to you, but it does indeed require blind faith.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 2, 2014)

You see, in the real world, absent of mystical acts of a supernatural being, we must assume everything has a logical reason. When we don't know, we use the evidence we have to come up with theories that make sense. Other folks research and either come up with the same theory or a different one. If they come up with a different one, that theory is researched...and so on. Folks like me, who may be interested in knowing, may say, "that sounds good." Or, we may say, "I don't really care how the elephant came to be. 
Guess what, there is no repercussion for not believing the theory of evolution. No he!!, nothing. Life and death are unchanged. 

If the only evidence of evolution we had was one book, written thousands of years ago, about a theory that was introduced by a man 100 years before it was written about,  where the first part of the book was dismissed even by believers, I don't think you would have a whole lot of evolution believers.

Another big difference is, the theory of evolution is the best explanation we have at the moment. Folks are working hard to prove it or find THE answer. Most everyone hopes THE answer is found and don't really care if the original theory is correct. We just want facts. 
Finding out the truth does not scare us.


----------



## gemcgrew (Sep 2, 2014)

bigreddwon said:


> There is no 'gotcha' moment in that absurd video.


Somebody didn't watch the video.


----------



## Israel (Sep 2, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Gosh.  I can't believe I'm asking this of you but could you elaborate?
> 
> I implore you to please try to use simple language because I'm not a very eloquent person and parables go over my head.
> 
> Say it like we're sitting in a john boat together catching crappies.



To be examined without fear. To understand no fear does not mean that the examination will not show areas of blindness...areas with which I may be quite at home, but which may cause others...to trip.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 2, 2014)

I don't know of any debate within the scientific community with regards to common descent. Evidence abounds...if you look. 
I guess you could say we have 'faith' they are not lying to us. I believe we landed on the moon too.

Whales possess internally reduced hind parts such as the pelvis and hind legs.  Occasionally, the genes that code for longer extremities cause a modern whale to develop legs. On October 28, 2006, a four-finned bottlenose dolphin was caught and studied due to its extra set of hind limbs.[56] These legged Cetacea display an example of an atavism predicted from their common ancestry.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 2, 2014)

660griz said:


> I don't know of any debate within the scientific community with regards to common descent. Evidence abounds...if you look.
> I guess you could say we have 'faith' they are not lying to us. I believe we landed on the moon too.
> 
> Whales possess internally reduced hind parts such as the pelvis and hind legs.  Occasionally, the genes that code for longer extremities cause a modern whale to develop legs. On October 28, 2006, a four-finned bottlenose dolphin was caught and studied due to its extra set of hind limbs.[56] These legged Cetacea display an example of an atavism predicted from their common ancestry.




The predictions are most compelling to me.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 2, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> The predictions are most compelling to me.



What I find most compelling is the commonality of genes in DNA between all life on this planet.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 2, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> The predictions are most compelling to me.



Funny, this too is the most compelling part of my faith in Christianity, as Christ stood on the mount of olives and told his disciples of the temple, not one stone would be left upon another.

Some forty years after His death and resurrection the Romans sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the temple with catapults of brimstone and fire burned the temple, later they completely disassembled the stones and even plowed the very foundation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 2, 2014)

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> What I find most compelling is the commonality of genes in DNA between all life on this planet.



Something I find interesting is  meteorites have the same elements found on the earth like iron, nickel, etc.
I guess every planet in the universe share these same elements. Might be gold in them thar planets!


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 2, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Funny, this too is the most compelling part of my faith in Christianity, as Christ stood on the mount of olives and told his disciples of the temple, not one stone would be left upon another.
> 
> Some forty years after His death and resurrection the Romans sacked Jerusalem, destroyed the temple with catapults of brimstone and fire burned the temple, later they completely disassembled the stones and even plowed the very foundation.



In my opinion, belief in prophesy is soft minded.

http://www.godswatcher.com/hister.htm

_Many of Nostradamus' prophecies center around a mysterious person he referred to as "Hister".  Nostradamus was known to play word games with the names of famous people.  The word "Hister" is thought by many to be a combination of the two words "Hitler" and "Ister", thus providing both Adolph Hitler's name and place of origin.  Ister was the Latin name for the Danube region of Germany where Hitler was born.

    It is thought by many that Adolph Hitler was the second of two antichrists coming to bring much death and destruction to the world.  Napoleon is thought to be the first of these two antichrists described in Revelation 13.  These two Last Days antichrists were also described in the book of Revelation Chapter 13, where the first beast has seven heads (Bible Code:leads a seven-nation empire) and the second beast has two horns (Bible Code:heads an empire led by two military leaders).  There are many references to Adolph Hitler in Nostradamus' famous book, the Centuries, that do indeed seem to represent actual historical events surrounding the life and career the infamous National Socialist (NAZI) leader.  The following quatrains are the only quatrains specifically referring to "Hister":





     NOSTRADAMUS QUATRAIN #2 - 24

   Wildmen ferocious with anger, crossover rivers,

   Bestes farouches de faim, fleuves tranner,

   The greater part of the battlefield will be against Hitler;

   Plus part du champ encontre Hister sera;

   In armor of steel the great (army) will make the assault,

   En caige de fer le grand fera treisner,

   When the child of Germany shall heed no one.

   Quand rien enfant de Germain observera.



  CLICK HERE   FOR OLD FRENCH DICTIONARY



   The above quatrain describes the last days of the NAZI empire.   Allied troops, fed up with the long war, are finally able to crossover Germany's rivers and make their final assault on Berlin.  Hitler, behaving like an angry child, sat in his bunker in Berlin and refused to take the advice of his generals to surrender.  The NAZI leader ultimately shot himself in the head, and his body was burned by his assistants and dragged into the streets where it would not be recognized.  The charred body of Hitler's double was left for the allies to discover.





     NOSTRADAMUS QUATRAIN #4 - 68

   In a place very close, not far from Venice,

   En lieu bien proche non eslignie de Venus,

   The two (agree to) expand into Asia & Africa

   Les deux plus grans de Asia & Afrique

   From the Rhine & that Hitler will now speak for Venice;

   Gu Rhin & Hister qu'on dira sont Venus;

   Cries, tears, at Malta & the coast of Liguria.

   Cris, pleurs, a Malta & coste Ligustique.



  CLICK HERE   FOR OLD FRENCH DICTIONARY



   The above quatrain tells us about a secret meeting that took place between Adolph Hitler and Italy's dictator Benito Mussolini on June 2, 1940 at the Brenner Pass near Venice, to discuss Italy's formal entry into WWII.  It was agreed at this meeting that Mussolini would declare war on Britain and France, and that Italy would initiate an African campaign.  Adolph Hitler would then sign the Tripartite Treaty with the Japanese, expanding the war into Asia.  Just over a week later, on June 10th, 1940, Italian forces began their attacks on Malta and the Ligurian coast of France.





     NOSTRADAMUS QUATRAIN #5 - 29

   Liberty is not able to be recovered,

   La liberte ne recouvree,

   They shall be occupied by a dark, fierce, iniquitous villain;

   L'occupera noir, fier, vilain inique;

   When the edicts of the pope will be overruled

   Quand la matiere du pont sera ouvree

   By Hitler, and Italy becomes a fascist republic.

   D'Hister, Venice fashee la republique.



  CLICK HERE   FOR OLD FRENCH DICTIONARY



   The NAZI (National Socialist) leader Adolf Hitler and Italian (Fascist) leader Benito Mussolini, act together to remove the influence of the Pope from all sectors of the nation of Italy.  Mossolini was then established as the military dictator of the new Fascist republic.  The freedom of the people of Italy was ended, and a state of martial law was instituted in all parts of the new fascist/socialist state. _


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 2, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> SomethingI find interesting is  meteorites have the same elements found on the earth like iron, nickel, etc.
> I guess every planet in the universe share these same elements. Might be gold in them thar planets!



True, but elements on their own don't evolve. I like what the rest of the universe would seem to hold in store for us, but the commonality of life on genetic scales, but diversity in macroscopic scales, is truly amazing. 

NDT had a cool metaphor for this, us versus animals and us versus aliens, that put the whole thing into perspective for me one evening. 

Started out as a 3% difference between us and out next most intelligent cousins from the tree of life; apes of some sort. That 3% gave us language, music, Einstein, and all sorts of things. Less that 3% and apes are about as comparable as our toddlers in terms of intelligence. Take just one more 3% difference from us to aliens, and humans are nothing more than children groping around making fridge paintings with our understanding of the universe. 

It certainly made me evaluate our true, versus perceived, position in a universe potentially filled with other examples of intelligent life. But that was also the point he was trying to make.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 2, 2014)

Ambush, I appreciate all the info you provided, but I'm not interested in Nostradomus anymore. His prophecies are and were false. The biblical prophecies however were true and I'm one of the few Christians that will tell you they have all come to pass just as they were told. I'm also one of the few that will say unbelievers will not burn forever. I take God at his word that through faith I will not perish but have everlasting life....to perish is to die, not live eternally in punishment.

 The Bible, The presently active God in my spiritual life are the evidences I place my faith in, it is blind to others, but not to me. So I accept from others I have a blind faith in Christ. Those believers in Darwinism, have a theory and so called experts as their basis for faith..To me that is just as blind of a faith.....agreed?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 2, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> So I accept from others I have a blind faith in Christ. Those believers in Darwinism, have a theory and so called experts as their basis for faith..To me that is just as blind of a faith.....agreed?



No. Belief in Darwinism could be stretched to include faith. Not blind faith. 
Faith can and should require some logical thinking and/or based on past experience or knowledge. 

Blind faith is absent of thinking. You just believe.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 2, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Ambush, I appreciate all the info you provided, but I'm not interested in Nostradomus anymore. His prophecies are and were false. The biblical prophecies however were true and I'm one of the few Christians that will tell you they have all come to pass just as they were told. I'm also one of the few that will say unbelievers will not burn forever. I take God at his word that through faith I will not perish but have everlasting life....to perish is to die, not live eternally in punishment.
> 
> The Bible, The presently active God in my spiritual life are the evidences I place my faith in, it is blind to others, but not to me. So I accept from others I have a blind faith in Christ. Those believers in Darwinism, have a theory and so called experts as their basis for faith..To me that is just as blind of a faith.....agreed?





660griz said:


> No. Belief in Darwinism could be stretched to include faith. Not blind faith.
> Faith can and should require some logical thinking and/or based on past experience or knowledge.
> 
> Blind faith is absent of thinking. You just believe.



Like that^^^


To the portion in blue, do you see how individual that is to you?   By the way I am always interested in specifics about how God is active in the lives of believers.  I wonder why it is so rare for them to be shared with non-believers.  I would think that they would be the best testimonies, much more powerful than ambiguously "fulfilled" prophesies.

We can all, individually find the evidence for evolution.  You can go to places where strata of a certain age is exposed and find fossils of transitional forms like Tiktaalik, dig for them and they will be just where science has predicted they would be.  You can argue about the reliability of the dating techniques, heck you could argue that god made the rocks look old to fool people; to test their faith.  It's not a new argument but there is evidence that you can hold in your hand.  You don't have to take anyone's word for it.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 2, 2014)

660griz said:


> No. Belief in Darwinism could be stretched to include faith. Not blind faith.
> Faith can and should require some logical thinking and/or based on past experience or knowledge.
> 
> Blind faith is absent of thinking. You just believe.



yawn:


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 2, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> Like that^^^
> 
> 
> To the portion in blue, do you see how individual that is to you?   By the way I am always interested in specifics about how God is active in the lives of believers.  I wonder why it is so rare for them to be shared with non-believers.  I would think that they would be the best testimonies, much more powerful than ambiguously "fulfilled" prophesies.
> ...



Christianity is a personal relationship, and it may be nice to talk someone into believing, but it doesnt happen, unless God leads them to you. Something has happened in every true believers life that has drawn them to Christ, and many of us have different stories and testimonies, but it was God that gave me faith, and I was a stubborn doubter, thats why I dont even attempt to convert non-believers. This thread was just to show that darwinism requires blind faith just as Christianity{ or at least by the claim of darwinist}. 



I have personally found the fossils. I know they exist and dont argue against an old earth. With that said, I dont believe they show animals changing kinds, especially from fish to man.... again Darwinism is a belief that requires faith, the video proves it.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 2, 2014)

Evolution did not start with Darwin.
He just gave his thoughts about it. Luckily we find out more every day that either backs up some things or takes us in another direction entirely.
I don't think faith has as much to do with it as does following a path based off of the best available evidence of the time, and being open to change.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 2, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Christianity is a personal relationship, and it may be nice to talk someone into believing, but it doesnt happen, unless God leads them to you. Something has happened in every true believers life that has drawn them to Christ, and many of us have different stories and testimonies, but it was God that gave me faith, and I was a stubborn doubter, thats why I dont even attempt to convert non-believers. This thread was just to show that darwinism requires blind faith just as Christianity{ or at least by the claim of darwinist}.
> 
> 
> 
> I have personally found the fossils. I know they exist and dont argue against an old earth. With that said, I dont believe they show animals changing kinds, especially from fish to man.... again Darwinism is a belief that requires faith, the video proves it.



Is fish to amphibian weird?  How about amphibian to lizard?  How about one cell into a different kind of cell?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 3, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> yawn:



Stay sleeping. 

The rest of us have woke up.


----------



## 660griz (Sep 3, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> again Darwinism is a belief that requires faith, the video proves it.



Do you have faith that your car will start in the morning?
If so, why? 
Probably because it has started every morning. 

Blind faith would be believing your car will start when, you don't have a car.


----------



## StriperrHunterr (Sep 3, 2014)

I think the problem is one of human time scales and perception. There are a lot of examples of intermediary species all around us, so history could be no different. 

Fish with lungs, snakes with vestigial limbs, and the list goes on. 

People who subscribe to evolution, which "theory" is a misnomer, see that for what it is. People who don't see them as fish, or snakes, with oddities but still fish or snakes. 

One has to be willing to adopt the other viewpoint for a while in order to truly understand it.


----------



## Israel (Sep 6, 2014)

I have always appreciated God's good spirit in the platypus.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Sep 6, 2014)

I think that many Christians will admit that "adaptation" exists but not full blown "evolution." Evolution takes thousands or millions of years and assumes the world was not created full-blown as it is by God via a planned event in six days. Adaptation can occur sometimes right before our eyes, which doesn't violate the Biblical view of creation. 
Adaption means God created a goat out of thin air, but in a short time goats grew a longer neck on a certain island or whatever. Evolution traces a long line back to a lifeless planet that finally got a chemistry set for Christmas. 
Sorry but adaptation is snapshot of evolution on a much smaller scale, that's all. Evolution (or Darwinism if you will) exists, period. Whether God plans it, we cannot prove.
Myself I'd trade in "miracles" for God not putting an extra chromosome in the mix (Downs Syndrome) now and again just because he can and does.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 8, 2014)

oldfella1962 said:


> I think that many Christians will admit that "adaptation" exists but not full blown "evolution." Evolution takes thousands or millions of years and assumes the world was not created full-blown as it is by God via a planned event in six days. Adaptation can occur sometimes right before our eyes, which doesn't violate the Biblical view of creation.
> Adaption means God created a goat out of thin air, but in a short time goats grew a longer neck on a certain island or whatever. Evolution traces a long line back to a lifeless planet that finally got a chemistry set for Christmas.
> Sorry but adaptation is snapshot of evolution on a much smaller scale, that's all. Evolution (or Darwinism if you will) exists, period. Whether God plans it, we cannot prove.
> Myself I'd trade in "miracles" for God not putting an extra chromosome in the mix (Downs Syndrome) now and again just because he can and does.



It's the difference between micro, and macro evolution, one is proven to exist, the other, not so much.


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Sep 8, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> It's the difference between micro, and macro evolution, one is proven to exist, the other, not so much.



So now, all of a sudden, proof is important to you?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 9, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> So now, all of a sudden, proof is important to you?


When have I indicated that it wasn't?


----------



## 660griz (Sep 9, 2014)

Israel said:


> I have always appreciated God's good spirit in the platypus.



How do you feel about God's spirit in the Ebola virus?


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 9, 2014)

660griz said:


> How do you feel about God's spirit in the Ebola virus?



He has a plan.  It involves billions of souls burning in He11 for eternity.  Some of them children.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 10, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> He has a plan.  It involves billions of souls burning in He11 for eternity.  Some of them children.



I disagree. He made a plan and it's eternal life for those that believe upon Jesus Christ, those that don't will perish. John 3:16

The English definition of the word he11 is not in the bible, when you look at the four words translated into he11. One Hebrew "Sheol", Three Greek , Hades, Gehenna, and Tarsarus. None of which means a place for eternal punishment. 
 Sorry if this is   but let's not do as most Christians do and misrepresent God's plan.


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 10, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I disagree. He made a plan and it's eternal life for those that believe upon Jesus Christ, those that don't will perish. John 3:16
> 
> The English definition of the word he11 is not in the bible, when you look at the four words translated into he11. One Hebrew "Sheol", Three Greek , Hades, Gehenna, and Tarsarus. None of which means a place for eternal punishment.
> Sorry if this is   but let's not do as most Christians do and misrepresent God's plan.



Do you think it would be torture to be apart from the presence of God for eternity?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 10, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Do you think it would be torture to be apart from the presence of God for eternity?



I dont see where nonbelievers will have everlasting life to even know they are apart from the presence, to persish is to suffer death, typically in a violent, sudden, or untimely way.
 We had a big discussion on this sometime back upstairs here:http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=799355

 Ofcourse my mind was changed as the scriptures were studied and we discussed the topic but I suspect few others were. I even bought a few books and studied it in even more detail. The idea of an eternal punishment came to Christianity via pagan belief around 300 ad. No where did the Apostles preach or teach it and it wasnt part of their doctrine. Even Jews dont believe in eternal punishment although they do believe in a temporary torments which would have been a compartment in the Old Covenant Sheol/Hades.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 10, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Do you think it would be torture to be apart from the presence of God for eternity?



You really want un-believers to suffer, don't you?  

Just wouldn't be fair if they didn't.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> Do you think it would be torture to be apart from the presence of God for eternity?



Where will the non believers be for eternity if no h3ll and they didn't make it into heaven?

Would it be torture to live "as is"...having no presence now and none then?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Sep 10, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Where will the non believers be for eternity if no h3ll and they didn't make it into heaven?
> 
> Would it be torture to live "as is"...having no presence now and none then?



The punishment will be everlasting death. God promises everlasting life. If one is dead forever he won't be alive to be tormented. His torment will be death. His punishment will be a life removed from God.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 10, 2014)

Artfuldodger said:


> The punishment will be everlasting death. God promises everlasting life. If one is dead forever he won't be alive to be tormented. His torment will be death. His punishment will be a life removed from God.


Being dead forever....one would never ever know the difference. No torment at all. Ever.

What do you remember before the age of 2yrs old?
Before 1yr old?
While in the womb?
What feelings do you remember from before conception??
Exactly...none...nada...nothing. 13.7 billion years of absolutely nothing. No torment. No recollection of anything. No feelings of being with a God. No feelings of being without a God.
Any person is lucky to have memories from about the age of 2 until the day they die. To think any different is the reason gods were created.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 10, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Being dead forever....one would never ever know the difference. No torment at all. Ever.
> 
> What do you remember before the age of 2yrs old?
> Before 1yr old?
> ...




Not all gods offer eternal life. The Saducee didn't believe in an after life.

 In the options of a life on earth and then nothing, compared to life eternal free of charge, I'll take life eternal. With that said, I can also say I truly never knew life until I knew Christ as my savior, so I can understand how a non believer could be complacent with nothingness forever.


----------



## Israel (Sep 11, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> You really want un-believers to suffer, don't you.
> 
> Just wouldn't be fair if they didn't.


That's a great question. It really cuts to the heart, doesn't it?
I could write a book, so I won't.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 11, 2014)

Israel said:


> That's a great question. It really cuts to the heart, doesn't it?
> I could write a book, so I won't.



How about a paragraph?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Not all gods offer eternal life. The Saducee didn't believe in an after life.
> 
> In the options of a life on earth and then nothing, compared to life eternal free of charge, I'll take life eternal. With that said, I can also say I truly never knew life until I knew Christ as my savior, so I can understand how a non believer could be complacent with nothingness forever.



Once dead no one will ever know nothingness forever. Ceasing to exist is just that.  There is no more.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 11, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Once dead no one will ever know nothingness forever. Ceasing to exist is just that.  There is no more.



Yes, that's my point. Non believers get just what they expect, and believers get what they expect & both come from faith.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes, that's my point. Non believers get just what they expect, and believers get what they expect & both come from faith.



Time will tell won't it?

I Disagree on the faith part.


----------



## Israel (Sep 11, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> How about a paragraph?



How about this?
Kinda what happens on both sides. Or may. 
I assert that there are some that don't like my asserting.
Blowing the robot mind is above my pay grade. 

But, kinda like this commercial, when attacked by the gospel of "I got the right God, you don't and you'll burn in heckeration, unless you believe me, andIamonlytelling youthisbecauseIloveyou gospel". (It's what the hearer may experience...kinda prompting the "could you maybe love me a little less...please? Response.)

Nonetheless, it is also what happens when the light of God shines on the aforesaid carrier of such a gospel and he finds out something he thought was "fundamental"...you know...like for babies. Like...Jesus came to save.
Dis min' blowin' bidness blows my mind.


And I do enjoy the tongues at the end.


----------



## centerpin fan (Sep 11, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> How about a paragraph?



Get used to disappointment.


----------



## Israel (Sep 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes, that's my point. Non believers get just what they expect, and believers get what they expect & both come from faith.



"Another came, saying, 'Master, here is your mina, which I kept put away in a handkerchief; 21for I was afraid of you, because you are an exacting man; you take up what you did not lay down and reap what you did not sow.' 22"He said to him, 'By your own words I will judge you, you worthless slave. Did you know that I am an exacting man, taking up what I did not lay down and reaping what I did not sow?…


----------



## Israel (Sep 11, 2014)

centerpin fan said:


> Get used to disappointment.



Ha!
Or not!


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 11, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I dont see where nonbelievers will have everlasting life to even know they are apart from the presence, to persish is to suffer death, typically in a violent, sudden, or untimely way.
> We had a big discussion on this sometime back upstairs here:http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=799355
> 
> Ofcourse my mind was changed as the scriptures were studied and we discussed the topic but I suspect few others were. I even bought a few books and studied it in even more detail. The idea of an eternal punishment came to Christianity via pagan belief around 300 ad. No where did the Apostles preach or teach it and it wasnt part of their doctrine. Even Jews dont believe in eternal punishment although they do believe in a temporary torments which would have been a compartment in the Old Covenant Sheol/Hades.



First, I'll admit that I didn't read that thread.

Do you believe that every person has a soul? If yes, do you think God destroys the unbeliever's soul when they die?


----------



## stringmusic (Sep 11, 2014)

ambush80 said:


> You really want un-believers to suffer, don't you?
> 
> Just wouldn't be fair if they didn't.


How did you get "You really want un-believers to suffer, don't you?" out of what I said?

And for the record, I don't want anyone to suffer the afterlife apart from their Creator.


bullethead said:


> Where will the non believers be for eternity if no h3ll and they didn't make it into heaven?
> 
> Would it be torture to live "as is"...having no presence now and none then?


I think non believers will live eternally apart from God.

I don't believe it's possible to live "as is" when your physical body dies, because you are a soul. Technically, I don't believe a person/soul can die, they simply lose their body.


----------



## ambush80 (Sep 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> How did you get "You really want un-believers to suffer, don't you?" out of what I said?



It was the way that you said "Don't you think that it would be torture......"   Instead of "Well, they just die and are no more."  Would that be OK with you?  



stringmusic said:


> And for the record, I don't want anyone to suffer the afterlife apart from their Creator.



No. you want everyone to convert and if they don't you are fine with them being tortured forever.



stringmusic said:


> I think non believers will live eternally apart from God.
> 
> I don't believe it's possible to live "as is" when your physical body dies, because you are a soul. Technically, I don't believe a person/soul can die, they simply lose their body.



Souls are eternal?  Do they remember who they were and what they did?  How do you know this?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> First, I'll admit that I didn't read that thread.
> 
> Do you believe that every person has a soul? If yes, do you think God destroys the unbeliever's soul when they die?



yes, and yes. Here's a video that was provided in our discussion to a great explanation, it is lengthy and many videos but I found it very informative.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 11, 2014)

stringmusic said:


> How did you get "You really want un-believers to suffer, don't you?" out of what I said?
> 
> And for the record, I don't want anyone to suffer the afterlife apart from their Creator.
> 
> ...




So where will these souls reside?
Not Heaven
Not H3ll
Where is this new place? What is it called?


----------



## Rebel 6 (Sep 12, 2014)

I'm not one to watch videos of jawflappers, but I will comment on the subject line of this thread.

Difference is:

Darwinism uses linear logic.  And there is some visible evidence that the theories exist.  It's pretty plain to see, if one has an open mind, and can actually think for oneself.  Show me something with some evidence to back it up, and I might believe it.

Religion uses circular logic.  And there is zero visible evidence that its theories exist.  Pretty easy to imagine, if one has a closed mind, and can only believe what some people tell them about a fairy tale.  It is human nature to see exactly what we are looking (and hoping) to see.

The word "faith" actually means "hope".  And that logic runs in circles so fast that it makes my head spin.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 12, 2014)

Rebel 6 said:


> I'm not one to watch videos of jawflappers, but I will comment on the subject line of this thread.
> 
> Difference is:
> 
> ...



Interesting....... Not. How is anyone suppose to take a response serious when one first pronounces their ignorance of the subject?

The jawflappers in the video do the same thing!


----------



## gemcgrew (Sep 13, 2014)

Rebel 6 said:


> Darwinism uses linear logic.  And there is some visible evidence that the theories exist.  It's pretty plain to see, if one has an open mind, and can actually think for oneself.  Show me something with some evidence to back it up, and I might believe it.


Can you tell me anything you know about evolution that is true?


----------



## Rebel 6 (Sep 13, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Interesting....... Not. How is anyone suppose to take a response serious when one first pronounces their ignorance of the subject?
> 
> The jawflappers in the video do the same thing!



Did you lay out of reading comprehension class much?  As I stated in my first sentence, I was commenting on the subject line of this thread.


----------



## Rebel 6 (Sep 13, 2014)

gemcgrew said:


> Can you tell me anything you know about evolution that is true?



Are you trolling, or asking a legitimate question?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 14, 2014)

Rebel 6 said:


> Did you lay out of reading comprehension class much?  As I stated in my first sentence, I was commenting on the subject line of this thread.



Pot meet kettle. You totally missed it.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 15, 2014)

Claim: No Scientist Understands Macro-Evolution. by world famous chemist

http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/


----------



## Terminal Idiot (Sep 15, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Claim: No Scientist Understands Macro-Evolution. by world famous chemist
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/



Interesting. I don't know anything more about the subject than Google has allowed me to learn in the last half hour. I thought this was interesting

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html 

I would throw out there that just as you say we know not of macro evolution , I say you know not of the Bible. If anyone understood the Bible, there would be no debate. And yet, for every person that posts a few floors up, you will get different answers to questions regarding the bible. Examples being, age of earth, ark, is there a he11, which stories are parable and which are 100% true as written, etc., etc. Etc.


----------



## WaltL1 (Sep 15, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Claim: No Scientist Understands Macro-Evolution. by world famous chemist
> 
> http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...t-alive-today-who-understands-macroevolution/


Just to provide a balanced view (same author) -


> Assuming that I have something significant to contribute to the evolution vs. creation debate, many ask me to speak and write concerning my thoughts on the topic. However, I do not have anything substantive to say about it. I am a layman on the subject. Although I have read about a half dozen books on the debate, maybe a dozen, and though I can speak authoritatively on complex chemical synthesis, I am not qualified to enter the public discussion on evolution vs. creation. So please don’t ask me to be the speaker or debater at your event, and think carefully about asking me for an interview because I will probably not give you the profound quotations that you seek. You are of course free to quote me from what is written here, but do me the kindness of placing my statements in a fair context.
> I have been labeled as an Intelligent Design (ID) proponent. I am not. I do not know how to use science to prove intelligent design although some others might. I am sympathetic to the arguments on the matter and I find some of them intriguing, but the scientific proof is not there, in my opinion. So I prefer to be free of that ID label.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 15, 2014)

Terminal Idiot said:


> I would throw out there that just as you say we know not of macro evolution , I say you know not of the Bible. If anyone understood the Bible, there would be no debate. And yet, for every person that posts a few floors up, you will get different answers to questions regarding the bible. Examples being, age of earth, ark, is there a he11, which stories are parable and which are 100% true as written, etc., etc. Etc.



We all agree its 100% true as written, it's just not 100% true of the way we understand it. 

The fact is we have atleast equal proof as darwinist do that our belief is correct....that is equal only to a non critical thinking person using logic alone. To those that know God its unequal.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 15, 2014)

WaltL1 said:


> Just to provide a balanced view (same author) -



Yep, appreciate that and its fair.


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Maybe it is you that doesn't understand the definition of Darwins theory of evolution? It requires animals to change kind, matter of fact he believed all living things came from a single living thing. Monkeys and banannas are related...To believe that requires blind faith because there is no evidence of it.
> The claim that Darwin's theory of evolution is science is also a bogus claim because it doesn't hold up to the definition of science, which must be observed.
> 
> This is not my field of passion and if you choose to believe in the theory of evolution, more power to you, but it does indeed require blind faith.



Not true.





hobbs27 said:


> Ambush, I appreciate all the info you provided, but I'm not interested in Nostradomus anymore. His prophecies are and were false. The biblical prophecies however were true and I'm one of the few Christians that will tell you they have all come to pass just as they were told. I'm also one of the few that will say unbelievers will not burn forever. I take God at his word that through faith I will not perish but have everlasting life....to perish is to die, not live eternally in punishment.
> 
> The Bible, The presently active God in my spiritual life are the evidences I place my faith in, it is blind to others, but not to me. So I accept from others I have a blind faith in Christ. Those believers in Darwinism, have a theory and so called experts as their basis for faith..To me that is just as blind of a faith.....agreed?



Sure about that?

Matthew 24


> 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
> 
> 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
> 
> ...


----------



## atlashunter (Sep 21, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> We all agree its 100% true as written, it's just not 100% true of the way we understand it.
> 
> The fact is we have atleast equal proof as darwinist do that our belief is correct....that is equal only to a non critical thinking person using logic alone. To those that know God its unequal.



What belief are you referring to?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> What belief are you referring to?



Devine creation.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

atlashunter said:


> Not true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



absolutely all of Matthew 24 is fulfilled, along with Revelation.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

Revelation is fulfilled?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Revelation is fulfilled?



Yes. The first verse sets the time stamp. "Things which must shortly come to pass"

I don't know about you, but 2000+ years seems a bit out of range to things which MUST shortly come to pass.....It is about the end of the age..the age of the old covenant which ended in 70 ad with the destruction of the temple.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Yes. The first verse sets the time stamp. "Things which must shortly come to pass"
> 
> I don't know about you, but 2000+ years seems a bit out of range to things which MUST shortly come to pass.....It is about the end of the age..the age of the old covenant which ended in 70 ad with the destruction of the temple.



Umm yeah but aren't you missing a couple of things that did not happen yet?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Umm yeah but aren't you missing a couple of things that did not happen yet?



Not a thing. It's all accounted for, and if I had the time I'd love to share it all with you, but I don't right now, so if you're interested in it you can research the studies of Max King, Don K Preston, John Noe, Tony Denton just to name a few.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Not a thing. It's all accounted for, and if I had the time I'd love to share it all with you, but I don't right now, so if you're interested in it you can research the studies of Max King, Don K Preston, John Noe, Tony Denton just to name a few.



I've read a bit about some of those guys and I just have a hard time with their interpretations.  Revelation tells of specific detailed events and their interpretations of what Revelation says and what they say happened that fulfilled these prophesies are a long stretch.
Preterists have a unique way of interpretation.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

It is hard for me to think prophesy was fulfilled when Revelation was written around 95 AD, not before 70AD.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I've read a bit about some of those guys and I just have a hard time with their interpretations.  Revelation tells of specific detailed events and their interpretations of what Revelation says and what they say happened that fulfilled these prophesies are a long stretch.
> Preterists have a unique way of interpretation.



Unique I agree. It's like realizing the words said were not said to the reader but to the people that were actually there listening, and then realizing what those words would have meant to those people in their culture. It also requires interpreting Jesus as one of truth and not a liar, such as when he told His disciples He would return before many of them tasted death....Unique....but not bazaar as futurist.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Unique I agree. It's like realizing the words said were not said to the reader but to the people that were actually there listening, and then realizing what those words would have meant to those people in their culture. It also requires interpreting Jesus as one of truth and not a liar, such as when he told His disciples He would return before many of them tasted death....Unique....but not bazaar as futurist.



Unique but not accurate.
They miss a lot of specific claims made in Revelation.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Unique but not accurate.
> They miss a lot of specific claims made in Revelation.



Nothing is missed, if you think so please list one or a few and I will answer any of them, I've been at this awhile.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Nothing is missed, if you think so please list one or a few and I will answer any of them, I've been at this awhile.



Christ's return and the Rapture


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

And how do you account for Revelation being written after 70AD?

Is Satan Bound?

How many Nations came against Jerusalem in 70AD? How many were destroyed?

Who was the Anti-Christ?

When did the battle of Armageddon take place?

We could go on point by point but I am not looking for symbolic answers. Do you have any literal answers?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Christ's return and the Rapture





Seriously?


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

You find the verse in the bible that mentions the word "rapture" and we can discuss it. One of Christ returns came in 70 ad to cast judgement on Jerusalem , just as He foretold in Matthew 24. Not one stone would be left upon another, in reference to the temple.Flavious Josephus recorded the events that took place at the temple destruction as an eyewitness....it fits Matthew 24 and the judgement in Revelation to a tee.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Seriously?



Is that your answer?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> You find the verse in the bible that mentions the word "rapture" and we can discuss it. One of Christ returns came in 70 ad to cast judgement on Jerusalem , just as He foretold in Matthew 24. Not one stone would be left upon another, in reference to the temple.Flavious Josephus recorded the events that took place at the temple destruction as an eyewitness....it fits Matthew 24 and the judgement in Revelation to a tee.



I am missing the part where the graves burst open and all the believers have vanished.
I cannot find that in Flav-Jo's works.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

hobbs, forgive me, but I cannot find any historical references that tell us about Locusts with the power of scorpions that have human appearances and Lions teeth, Iron breast plates and who's wings sound like the thunder of many horses and chariots rushing into battle, have harmed the people who did not bear the seal of God on their foreheads.

That is pretty specific stuff right there and I would like to know when exactly that happened.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

My computer must be on the fritz again....
It just will not bring up any information about a fiery red seven headed dragon dragging 1/3 of the stars with it's tail and hurling them at the earth.

I am relying on you having been at this awhile to clear this up.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I am missing the part where the graves burst open and all the believers have vanished.
> I cannot find that in Flav-Jo's works.



Yeah, that's not exactly how that reads either in 1 Thessalonians 4...That epistle was written to the church in Thessalonica , and it was a message of comfort to them...the word air that was translated "Meeting in the air" is not a word that describes above the atmosphere but directly surrounding the people,much like a breath...of life so to speak.

The rapture debacle is relatively new to Christianity just dreamed up in the 1800's by Mr.Darby, and many believe he came up with the idea from a teenage girl in Scotland that was practicing gifts of the holy spirit which was also unheard of in those days.

I'm writing this on my phone and just off the top of my head , I can get much more in detail later when I'm at home and have my notes, as far as exact names and dates, I'll also ad more on 1 Thessalonians....Btw, the graves did burst open in Matthew 26 just after Christ resurrection..This would have been the beginning of Jesus taking the souls out of Hades. 70 ad would have completed it.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> My computer must be on the fritz again....
> It just will not bring up any information about a fiery red seven headed dragon dragging 1/3 of the stars with it's tail and hurling them at the earth.
> 
> I am relying on you having been at this awhile to clear this up.




No problem. Apocalyptic language as that was also used in describing the destruction of Babylon, Not literal,but symbolic.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> You find the verse in the bible that mentions the word "rapture" and we can discuss it. One of Christ returns came in 70 ad to cast judgement on Jerusalem , just as He foretold in Matthew 24. Not one stone would be left upon another, in reference to the temple.Flavious Josephus recorded the events that took place at the temple destruction as an eyewitness....it fits Matthew 24 and the judgement in Revelation to a tee.



I don't think the word "rapture" is specifically mentioned in the Bible, but are you telling me the concept of rapture is not in scripture or taught from scripture?


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> No problem. Apocalyptic language as that was also used in describing the destruction of Babylon, Not literal,but symbolic.



Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I think we are done here.
I have done enough research to know those types of views are not widely accepted within Christianity let alone are in any way a convincing answer to a skeptic like me.

Cherry picking literal and symbolic only works to explain it to yourself.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I don't think the word "rapture" is specifically mentioned in the Bible, but are you telling me the concept of rapture is not in scripture or taught from scripture?



Right.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
> 
> I think we are done here.
> I have done enough research to know those types of views are not widely accepted within Christianity let alone are in any way a convincing answer to a skeptic like me.
> ...



And you care about what the majority of Christians believe? I agree its not accepted, it tears down their comfort zone, but it's 100% biblical and leaves futurist studdering in a debate, Ive watched several.

Heres a link with more info you may want to checkout. http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/preterist-questions.html...
and the locust you mentioned earlier were in reference to the Roman soldiers.

You may want to watch this too Ive post all segments upstairs in the thread titled prophecy of daniel, as the man explains some of the things you mentioned...btw, Ive read some of your posts in the reloading forum on ballistics. I know you're a smart person, but on this you're just dead wrong, and you're basing your options of death or eternal life on it.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

More on 1 Thessalonians with a link to debate.

http://mianogonewild.wordpress.com/...versial-passages-1-thessalonians-4-romans-11/


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Right.



Okay


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

The Rapture myth....http://www.bible.ca/rapture-origin-john-nelson-darby-1830ad.htm


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> And you care about what the majority of Christians believe?


I once was a Christian so I know a little bit about what I talk about.



hobbs27 said:


> I agree its not accepted, it tears down their comfort zone, but it's 100% biblical and leaves futurist studdering in a debate, Ive watched several.


It is 100% interpreted symbolically from the Bible. 



hobbs27 said:


> Heres a link with more info you may want to checkout. http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/preterist-questions.html...
> and the locust you mentioned earlier were in reference to the Roman soldiers.


Do you use Symbolic Interpretation for the entire Bible?
Are you a Preterist?



hobbs27 said:


> You may want to watch this too Ive post all segments upstairs in the thread titled prophecy of daniel, as the man explains some of the things you mentioned...


Literally ANYTHING can have enough spin put on it to explain things.
Do you honestly think your God inspired the writers to to write what he wanted written and then be interpreted symbolically which could and would be different for each reader doing the interpretation?


hobbs27 said:


> btw, Ive read some of your posts in the reloading forum on ballistics. I know you're a smart person,


Thanks I think.


hobbs27 said:


> but on this you're just dead wrong, and you're basing your options of death or eternal life on it.


My interpretations differ from yours. Eternal death does not scare me one bit.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 24, 2014)

search for
JOHN NOE'S PRETERISM REFUTED
By Joey Faust


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullet, I know you were once a Christian, and if you were taught the dispensationalist view you keep bringing up I understand why you would have started with your doubts. They're nuts.

I am a preterist, a recovering partial preterist that over a couple of years painstaking I became a full preterist. I am rejected by all mainstream churches, yet I love my Lord more now that I understand scripture better than ever before. Preterist do not interpret the bible entirely symbolic. We study the langauge if it is in the context of literal it is interpreted literal, if its apocalyptic language it gets interpreted as such, not like the futurist that interpret everything literal,  did I say they're nuts? 

Preterist didnt come up with a theology and twist the scripture to fit it, most of us come out of different backgrounds, church of christ, baptist, presbyterian, and so forth...We just somewhere along the line realized...The bible isnt matching what the church is saying, and we studied from there, and lo and behold we found others like us.

 I did mean that you are a smart person as a compliment. I'm a hobbyist reloader myself and have really enjoyed you sharing your knowledge on ballistics. And since your interpretations havent worked out so well for you, maybe you should try and disprove preterism, research it, find out where its weakness is.. I dare you.  

 Btw There is no he11 spoken of in the bible, preterist cleared that up too, but eternal life vs  eternal death, nah you shouldnt be scared but come on, it's free.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> search for
> JOHN NOE'S PRETERISM REFUTED
> By Joey Faust



Tons of negative stuff out there. read it all and make your own decision.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 24, 2014)

bullethead said:


> search for
> JOHN NOE'S PRETERISM REFUTED
> By Joey Faust



Look here , this yahoo is so caught up in end times he says preterism is a sign of the end. 

_JOHN NOE'S PRETERISM REFUTED
By Joey Faust 
I have had many recent responses to my articles from furious Preterists. 

(Some have, however, been courteous and brotherly.) Full-Preterists believe that the "last days prophecies" have ALREADY been fulfilled in A.D.70, when JerBliplem was destroyed by Rome. I view this revival of Preterism as a fulfillment of premillennial prophecy itself. The Bible predicted "scoffers" in the last days, who would mock the fulfillment of Bible prophecy in regard to the second coming (2Pet.3:3). The current popularity of (Preterist) books by R.C. Sproul, and others, is now setting the stage for this prophecy in 2 Pet.3:3. I do find it amazing. We have blip back again as a nation. (I know some Preterists continue to deny that they are "real" blips. But ask a modern Muslim what he thinks about that. 
_


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> I did mean that you are a smart person as a compliment. I'm a hobbyist reloader myself and have really enjoyed you sharing your knowledge on ballistics. And since your interpretations havent worked out so well for you, maybe you should try and disprove preterism, research it, find out where its weakness is.. I dare you.



It's weaknesses for me are 
1. I no longer believe in the God of the Bible.
2. I do not believe that the Bible is anything more than a collection of various works that were influenced by various religions and were put together over time to give hope to a culture.
3. History shows many of the events already happened before the writings so it is not exactly Prophesy. Some use their Preterist interpretive leeway to deduce Nero as being the Anti-Christ yet he died before 70AD. Historical facts get in the way of many of the interpretations.
3.A. It is all left to individual interpretation. No one could be wrong. It is basically opinion.
4. If I did believe in the first 2 above I have not found a Universal agreement among Preterists for their interpretations. As much bickering that goes on in every other denomination there is the same within Preterism. Every time someone thinks that they have figured out a new symbolic meaning, figure or way of explaining things it just sprouts another branch of Preterists to bicker with the other ones that think they have cracked the codes.

There are partial and full Preterists and it is just another way of people, who have no idea of what happened in the Bible, or what is meant in the Bible or what the heck these ancient authors mean or meant, to interject a method of understanding to themselves. The majority  of explanations require as much imaginary leeway as needed for an individual to believe it. Then another Preterist interprets it differently and each argue how the others individual interpretations are incorrect.


----------



## bullethead (Sep 25, 2014)

hobbs27 said:


> Look here , this yahoo is so caught up in end times he says preterism is a sign of the end.
> 
> _JOHN NOE'S PRETERISM REFUTED
> By Joey Faust
> ...



I am not touting that author as anything but a source.
I had no doubt you were going to pick that out of his article AND I knew in doing so you would avoid comment on his other points against Preterism.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 25, 2014)

bullethead said:


> I am not touting that author as anything but a source.
> I had no doubt you were going to pick that out of his article AND I knew in doing so you would avoid comment on his other points against Preterism.



I'm trying hard to find any points at all the man has made but one easily identified mistake he is making is mistranslating world. The KJV uses the word world in place of age...it changes the meaning completely if you are trying to say the literal end of the world vs the end of an age. The age is in reference to the old covenant age.


----------



## hobbs27 (Sep 25, 2014)

As for preterist disagreeing amongst ourselves..that's human nature and usually stems from our church background. 

 CoC members believe baptism is necessary to enter the new covenant, they believe this from what is written in the Epistles, so they will hold to that while saved by grace alone preterist look to Christ return as the coming of salvation and the final step in the atonement.

All in all we're pretty close in agreement, especially in the matters that count.


----------

