• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Dan56

  • Rank
    Priceless Being

Helpful Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Friendly Details

  • Doctrine /Affiliation

Other Details

  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

3,897 profile views
  1. A dictionary gives definitions of what means what. God says, "I AM THAT I AM". So what's the definition of that? My point being, "God is good" is not found in Websters dozens of applications for the word 'good'. The knowledge of what makes something good or evil is not encompassed in a single dictionary definition. God is good, God is light, God is righteous, etc, are not definitions, but pronouncements of what is. Water is wet would mean nothing to someone who never encountered water, just as 'good' has no relevance without God.. i.e; an Atheist disbelieves, but the definition has no application of why, while God is the explanation of good..... This may all be a bit above your pay grade, but 'good' in the divine sense goes beyond a dictionary reference, e.g; cake is good...
  2. "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him" (John 14:21). That's Christianity in a nut shell. Your brand of love is tolerating any and everything, but watching sinful acts and blessing those who conduct themselves in ungodly ways, is not the biblical definition of love. What you really want is for Christians to condone all manner of sin, and when they don't, your quick to allege that they're void of love. Giving a thumbs-up to evil is no demonstration of love. Most 'leaders' have the support of their people. It wasn't just the Pharaoh who benefited from slavery in Egypt. Going along makes everyone culpable. We are all morally wrong, but who bore the punishment for our transgressions? God is good. I know its a stretch, but there's a remote possibility the He who created all that is, might know a tad bit more than you do about fairly administering justice? Compare Christ to yourself, which of you would you honestly classify as 'good'? Refusing to condone sin is not discrimination. Your insisting that Christians alter their moral values, and refusing to do so makes them bigots. Treating others equally is good, but it doesn't entail embracing their moral standards, or the lack thereof. "Doing unto others" does not always necessitate favorable treatment, e.g; If I stole a car I'd expect to be locked up, likewise if someone stole my car, I'd want them locked-up. God is never outside of a Christian life, but its not unacceptable to have common goals with non-Christians. I just feel that something like the Samaritan's Purse was a specific group, and being a Christian operation did not require it to be all-inclusive to everyone opposing the values it represented. "God is good" is a statement of fact, its not a characterization of what you determine is good or bad. God is not subordinate to anything. "Good" is not Websters definition, its what God is.
  3. The greatest commandment is; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind". So how do you love something that you have no faith in? Faith is trust, and love is demonstrated by trust, you can't have one without the other. No spin, you just can't love a God that you don't believe exist! The Egyptian pharaohs had enslaved the Israelites for 400 years. A previous pharaoh, possibly even the pharaoh in question, ordered that male Israelite babies be killed at birth (Exodus 1:16). The pharaoh God hardened was an evil man, and the nation he ruled agreed with, or at least did not oppose, his evil actions. Second, on least a couple occasions, Pharaoh hardened his own heart against letting the Israelites go: “But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:15). “But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:32). It seems that God and Pharaoh were both active in one way or another in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart. We are socially commanded to love one another, but condoning sin is not an act of love. Jesus himself didn't give everyone a thumbs up. Did Jesus treat the Pharisees the same as his disciples? "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him " (Luke 17:3). Remember the woman caught in adultery, Jesus told her to stop sinning (John 8:11). Loving/praying for your enemy doesn't necessarily mean an exchange of polite etiquette, correcting a wrong just as a parent corrects a child is also considered an act of love.
  4. Everyone is not the same, you treat them differently when they are different. Faith in God is the highest form of love, putting people secondary is not discrimination, its just having your priorities in order. If a leader is given an ultimatum and refuses to comply, who's really responsible for the repercussions? God is good, people aren't... 400 hundred years of slavery and your sympathy goes to the Pharaoh?
  5. Yes, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment". God comes first. "Of faith hope and love the greatest is love" (1 Corinthians 13:13). This is in reference to God, not a love for sin. Free medical help for everyone exemplifies love for others. Nothing wrong with associating with sinners, we are all sinners, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32). Jesus was our example, which is why you don't include those who would outwardly deny him to engage in his work (wolves in sheep's clothing). You don't invite Caesar to work in the Temple, you call disciples who believe to do the work. Graham would eat with sinners, but not use Atheist to spread the gospel. That's correct, "He" is the ultimate objective in all that we do in his name. The Samaritan's Purse is a missionary pursuit to do just that (being a Good Samaritan). Refusing to sign a statement of faith is a form of denying him. It would also reflect poorly on a Christian hospital if those working there were non-christian, that's a "Statement of Confliction".
  6. Many, or at least some Christians, place nothing above God.. So in that sense, yes its discriminatory because God gets priority. Graham doesn't differentiate between the mission and God. Its purpose was in His name, which supersedes the objective. That's considered faith, not hypocrisy. The greatest commandment comes before the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40).
  7. I've posted that same definition before, so its nothing new. Most Americans do support that inscription. And I believe any exclusive group should be allowed to choose people who are compatible and aligned with their groups interest.. Its not prejudicial because I'd also support a Gay club or Atheist organization who refused to accept Christian members or volunteers. When we are denied the comradery and familiarity of freely associating with like-minded people, its the majority discriminating against individuality. I don't think my opinion has waivered on that? Right or wrong, I may be the most consistent person here!
  8. The dictionary isn't a point of view, it factually defines words. Atheist, noun meaning "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods". Your essentially implying that in time, the definition will change and 'Atheist' will not mean, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"? Nonsense... But just for fun, what do you think 'atheist' will mean 100 years from now? I do not argue with the dictionary. The only time I generally argue the meaning of a word is in relation to the correct translation of a word, i.e; Hebrew to English or Greek to English. Example; "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26 NKJV). "Hate" is a bad translation, the Greek is 'miseo', better translated as 'love less' in English. How in the world am I arguing that the meaning of 'Atheist' is anything other than what Websters describes it as meaning? If you choose to spin it to mean something different than the dictionary definition, then its not me who's applying a double standard! And give a direct example of how I contradict my stated belief? Just more nonsense, because its never happened.
  9. I can relate to that ..... The simple remedy is a dictionary, but Atheist don't seem to like that definition.
  10. I've been preaching this for years Cool, but if its not in an illusive 2000 year old history book, nonbelievers won't accept it.. Nearly all of the Apostles were persecuted, imprisoned, beaten and killed, which to me speaks volumes that they didn't suffer such fates to protect a lie. There was no earthly upside for professing Christ and human nature demonstrates that they would not hold to an untrue account in a life & death situation. Even if an unbiased nonreligious historian did record the events as accurately portrayed in the gospels, nonbelievers would not accept that as proof either.. jmo
  11. There were 2 angels at the tomb. Matthew 28:5-6 quotes one angel who spoke to the women outside of the tomb, saying; "He is not here... come see". Mark 16:5 quotes another angel inside the sepulcher who told the women; "He is risen...go tell his disciples". But Luke 24:4 and John 20:12 both confirm there were 2 angels at the tomb. A partial report is not a false report. Just because each gospel author doesn’t report every detail of a story doesn’t mean it’s inaccurate. A divergent account is not a false account. For example, Matthew speaks of one angel at Christ’s tomb whereas John mentions two. A contradiction? Not at all. Simple math says if you have two, you also have one. Matthew did not say there was only one angel; if he had then we would have a true contradiction. Instead, he just records the words of the one who spoke. The same critics who try and point out contradictions in the gospels would no doubt cry 'collusion' if they found exact verbal parallelism and a singular account of the resurrection. The recordings of the resurrection found in the four gospels are found to harmonize quite well upon closer examination . An angel rolls away stone from tomb before sunrise (Matt. 28:2-4). The guards are seized with fear and eventually flee Women disciples visit the tomb and discover Christ missing (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1-4; Luke 24:1-3; John 20:1) Mary Magdalene leaves to tell Peter and John (John 20:1-2) Other women remain at tomb; they see two angels who tell them of Christ’s resurrection (Matt. 18:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-8) Peter and John run to the tomb and then leave (Luke 24:12; John 20:3-10) Mary Magdalene returns to the tomb; She see's 2 angels standing at the head and feet of where the body had lain (John 20:12). Christ appears to her (Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18). Jesus appears to the other women (Mary, mother of James, Salome, and Joanna) (Matt. 28:8-10). The fact that John only mentions Mary Magdalene going to the tomb is not a contradiction, because its true. John chose to just focus on Mary Magdalene, but failing to mention the other women does not constitute a contradiction or even a discrepancy. Mark mentions 3 women, Luke just specifies women, and Matthew mentioned the 2 Mary's. Having something mentioned in one gospel but not another does not constitute a contradiction. Now if one gospel said that 'no' women went to the sepulcher while the others said they did, then you would have a contradiction. And in regard to the day of the crucifixion, I believe there were 2 separate Sabbaths during the week Jesus died, so no contradiction. WEDNESDAY CRUCIFIXION – SATURDAY RESURRECTION
  12. Its futile because the evolutionary theory is just that, and is not scientific fact. . Who is it that always demands objective evidence to prove something? Now all of the sudden your willing to accept a subjective hypothesis as acceptable proof? While I admit that my belief is accepted by faith, your convinced that your belief in macro--evolution is substantiated by proof, but its not. Perhaps its you who dismisses creationism because it destroys your belief system? Facts matter, but you have no more facts than I do.
  13. Factually tell (show) me the origin of bacterium, and then demonstrate how unicellular microorganisms evolved into every other type of life form on earth.... You can't, because the evidence isn't there. What's non-responsive is the absence of acceptable evidence, so I can't accept something that does not currently exist. And when I say "show me", I'm not referring to an artist rendition of a monkey to ape to man. Creatures with similar characteristics provides zero evidence that one evolved into the other.
  14. Lots of conjecture, but no objective evidence that proves macro-evolution, which is evidence based on provable facts. Looking at fossilized creatures and comparing them to more advanced fossilized creatures, is not evidence that one evolved into the other.
  15. There's no good reason not to believe its true either. If you've got a better explanation for a first cause, I'd like to hear it.. But until that day arrives, accepting that God is the uncaused cause of all that exist is as good of an explanation as anything else.. I simply believe in God because I don't know of any better answer, while you believe in nothing that's unknown (unproven). Some folks just need to have peace of mind and believe there's a meaning and purpose to life beyond what's physically apparent. Do we exist in a brief vacuum of time by remarkable accident or is there some higher power that arranged it all for a reason. Your content with the former, I choose the latter.