Dan56

It must come to pass. False prophecies never materialize because God never ordered the mind of the person proclaiming it. Also, knowing if a prophecy is from God would not necessarily relate to whether foretold events come to pass or not, but whether the substance of the message being preached agrees with, or is based on, what God has revealed to us in the Bible. So a prophecy from God will line up with the word of God, meaning it will either be foretelling or forthtelling. A true Prophet will be 100% accurate, and never gives his private interpretation.

If God gives a prophet a vision, then the revelation is God's but transcribed by men. According to Christ, the Pharisee's were spreading their own traditions, and their own doctrine was self-serving, probably inspired by greed. "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matthew 15:3&9). Of course it was my own thoughts that accepted what I ultimately came to believe. But its not so much as aligning my beliefs with my thoughts, but altering my thoughts to conform with my belief. In other words, I can't align what Christ taught with what I think, I can only alter my thoughts to conform to his teachings. My own preferences or preconceptions are secondary to what the scriptures actually say and teach. The reason we probably have hundreds of denominations is because people alter their beliefs to conform to what they think. Sure I do, I just don't see macro-evolution as a natural process as you do.. There's absolutely no evidence of it naturally happening via genetic mutation.

No need to apologize, because these guys don't believe man descended from a lesser form of a created human either, because they don't believe in creation at all.. They think we all evolved from pond scum that came into existence all by itself. And they think Christians are gullible!!

Most objective evidence is based on physical & material Information which is proved through analysis, measurement, and observation. But you can't verify a nonphysical being that exist in the spiritual realm with quantitative information or scientific research. The evidence for a transcendental God is cumulative, and its that subjective evidence that is acceptable proof... For me anyway And how did the people react way back then when they got plenty of proof? Perhaps faith is a virtue because verifiable facts were discarded in the past. People tend to adhere to what they love & cherish, not the miraculous miracles that prove God is real. The best way to identify a false teacher is by being familiar with the Word of God. There are many verses that warn us to check them out. (1 John 4:1-6, Romans 16:17-18, 2 Peter 2:1, Ephesians 5:11, 2 John 1:9, 2 Timothy 4:3). Yes men wrote the bible, but since all scripture is God inspired (2 Timothy 3:16-17), its reliable. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:20-21) And no, I adjusted my own thoughts to what I chose to believe is true. The faith I decided to accept did not originally align with what I personally think, in fact, it often conflicted with my thoughts. Facts can be established by eye witness testimony, confirmation of governors, kings, and places that existed surrounding the described events, and by prophetic realizations. The existence of objective moral values is explained by the existence of God. Consider that the inability of science to explain how life began, or for that matter, how anything began, leads to the inevitable conclusion that it only offers speculative & inadequate answers. So in the absence of any objective evidence, creative design seems like a much more credible answer. For myself, when the DNA genome code was unraveled, the evidence for design became undeniable. The existence of life demanding a life-source, and the scientific evidence of an extremely complex DNA code is in the make-up of life.. Imo, to call it all accidental is "factless opinion"

Its really not a conundrum, there's just no material proof for God’s existence in the material world. Christians believe in an immaterial God, so to demand material proof of his existence is nonsensical. This is why we say that God is transcendent or supernatural. Since God is beyond nature, he is not an item within the universe, or the nature that he created. So the physical evidence humans demand to prove God's existence could never be available or applicable towards substantiating a spiritual entity existing in another dimension. The truth is the truth, it can be nothing else. Christ said he was the truth (John 14:6), the manifestation of God in the flesh (John1; 1&14), no other religious leader has ever claimed such. When one has faith that Christ is the Truth, they aren't gambling that they're right, but convicted by the truth they've accepted. That truth is not oppressive to Christians because there are no consequences, adherence to the faith is not based on a negative ultimatum, but a desire towards the promise of everlasting life (John 3:16). There are many faiths (religions), but one truth. I'm personally nondenominational, I didn't chose a faith that aligns with what I think, but rather have faith in the Truth (Christ) of which I try to align myself with. "Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it" (Matthew 7: 13-14).

You can't....... Nothing spiritual can be proven by science or physical evidence. jmo

I'm not defending slavery, but because of the socioeconomic situation of old testament Israel, God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence. If the alternative is starving to death, then I believe slavery is defensible, and God was right to allow it under prescribed rules. How would you have provided for the poor, the hungry, the homeless? Letting them die in the streets is what's not defensible! Exactly God said, "Thou shall not steal", did that clear prohibition stop stealing? God set the terms which regulated how servants were treated, but American slavery violated nearly all of them. So why would God prevent a war to correct the problem? The gospels don't bring forth nasty fruit, but people not adhering to the gospels do.. And God plans to uproot the tree, no one escapes judgement. "For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things" (Philippians 3:18-19) "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death" (Exodus 21:16). Putting someone to death is a permanent solution. God is not an employment agency, nor does He provide public housing for the poor widows in the street, so without direct intercession, letting the poor be servants was a means to meet their needs. We are flying to SW Florida tomorrow because the cold has gotten to us, so I will be incommunicado for a few days.

Non-defendable? So you would prefer people be homeless, starving, and dying in the streets, because you think selling their services in return for having all their needs met is worse? Having no job or means of support is not a preferable form of freedom. Indentured servitude was a viable means of survival, a necessity of the times and even in some places today. The incident itself wasn't a parable, the fig tree is a metaphor for Israel and also symbolic of Israel itself. It then becomes a prophecy when Jesus said; "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh" (Matthew 24:32). The parable of the fig tree itself came earlier: "He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." (Luke 13:6-9) So Jesus referred the disciples to the parable in order to help them understand the symbology of him having cursed the fig tree. The laws given to Moses did not include symbolic hand washing prior to eating. This was a non-scriptural invention, a religious creation after the traditions of men, not God. So modifications and additions had nothing to do with what never existed in the first place. The Civil war addressed a form of slavery not endorsed by the bible. Slavery in the bible was not based on ones nationality or skin color, but on economics and social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. There were rules (Deuteronomy 15: 12-15, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 4:1). "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death" (Exodus 21:16). Stealing Africans to sell as slaves was never biblical in the first place. So why would God prevent a Civil war that was fought to uphold what God had instructed? I agree, over zealous Christians tend to put God's stamp of approval on things not associated with God. It should read "In Government We Trust". Perhaps some greedy preachers wanted people to render unto them what they proclaimed belong to God

Matthew 15:1-20 is the incident where Jesus rebuked the Pharisee's for complaining that his disciples did not engage in their ceremonial hand washing. This was never a law, but their own tradition. Jesus was simply admonishing them for disobeying real laws while clinging to their own "tradition of the elders". The only scripture for hand washing was Exodus 30:17-21, but this only applied to Aaron and Levitical Priest to wash prior to approaching the alter in the tabernacle. Jesus focused on the idea that spiritual uncleanness is of the heart, it does not come from eating without washing the hands. The fig tree represented Israel, Christ was the blessing (Luke 4:16-21), but Israel rejected him, so the tree (Israel) was cursed, not blessed. Slaves were part of the culture, if people were not purchased for servitude, they might die of starvation or be rendered homeless. There were no safeguards back then, so voluntarily selling yourself to survive was a necessity. What might the outcome have been if Christ outlawed a means of survival? We obviously see things differently, but I did ask, so thanks for answering.

Christians tend to put their trust in God, they don't have faith in money, its value is only backed by the “full faith and credit” of the government mint. But I see "In God We Trust" on currency as a strange place to advertise a faith, it seems out of place and should be removed. If I were non-Christian, public prayer wouldn't bother me, I'd respect the majority and tolerate their right to practice what they believe. But your point of 'time & place' is taken, the minority should not be subjected to a constant barrage of what could be construed as Christian salesmanship. Advertisements should be restricted to billboards or other invitations, and not solicited or sponsored via government currency, courts, etc. That's the separation of church & state. I agree that God gave us brains to distinguish between hogwash and truth. Its why I also reject Mormonism & Scientology. But no faith is solidified by evidence, our brains are also wired to make decisions when all facts cannot be substantiated. When a couple gets married, they 'trust' the marriage will last, but that notion cannot be factually confirmed, its a decision based in love & intuition, without the need for conscious reasoning. If you drop a pencil and it falls to the floor, you don't need faith to know that repeating that test will yield the same result. No choice or decision is necessary to accept a proven fact. I also believe evidence counts, and I've previously pointed out some that renders verification to what I believe. Religion aside, can you point out 3 things Jesus said that ain't true? Three things he did that were wrong? Or even 3 things he taught that you adamantly disagree with? My choice is based on the fact that I couldn't point-out one thing. The truth is usually simple and uncomplicated, not a complex equation that requires a superior intellect to decipher. When sufficient evidence is unavailable, the truth can still be recognized. People just tend to over-think what's plain as day.

I'm not sure if speaking about painful episodes in our life is any antidote, but I reckon sharing in whatever misery that has befallen us might provide encouragement that others have endured similar painful experiences, whether they be physical, emotional, economical, or tragedy. If I ever experience self-pity or complain about hardships, I always consider what Christ endured, and my troubles don't seem so significant. As Paul wrote; "I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content" (Philippians 4:11)... Easier said than done. Welcome aboard Mike... Interesting topic

I may have misunderstood your original post, it sounded like you were saying Christians shouldn't pray aloud but go into a closet. But it did occur to me that Christ never prayed among unbelievers. He didn't pray with gentiles or ask Pilate to join him in prayer, he only prayed with believers as did the apostles. So we may actually be on the same page for once, I don't think Congress should open a session with prayer, graduation ceremonies shouldn't include prayer, or any other public event. That would be force feeding a belief down the throats of a captive audience. So I see your point of cultural dominance on that subject. Man can never prove God, only God himself can do that when and where he pleases. He calls us by faith for a reason, because it requires us to make a choice. If God were proven to exist, no choice would be required to accept what's factually known.

For what's its worth, I don't think Christians should pray in public either... Pray aloud in church or among other Christians, sure.. My only point was that Jesus was teaching not to pray as a public spectacle or towards the admiration of men. The purpose of a prayer is what distinguishes it from being sincere of hypocritical.

Bias can also show a dislike for something, a disagreement, repulsion, intolerance, or a simple preference for something different.. A person can have their biases without denying equality. I agree, science can and has been proven wrong.. Science has not proved or discredited creationism, so imo its as much of a possibility as unproven macro-evolution, which is speculation at best. Your correct, true belief cannot be disrupted, but it doesn't prevent others from running constant interference. I'd disagree with your view of macro-evolution, there's no robust evidence to even suggest that we evolved from pond scum to apes to humans. It doesn't do God an injustice to believe the story of creation, I don't believe its a myth. And while I appreciate your faith in science, I don't think its reached a level of sophistication which teaches us how God works, and I sincerely doubt it ever will. But hey, I'm a fundamentalist, so I don't expect others here to think or interpret things like I do. It would be a boring place if we all had the same point of view.

You need to look at the over-all context of what's being said, not just pull out a couple words and contort them to reinforce and fit your opinion.. Its not incredible, its just reading the whole paragraph to gain a correct understanding.

Yes, I presumed your faith would lie in unprovable science

Both Jesus and the apostles prayed in public, so it would be hypocritical for them to call others who do likewise hypocrites.. They didn't.. Jesus was not condemning people for praying aloud, but for putting on a public display for their own benefit. Their motive was to be seen of men, not a sincere prayer, but empty words meant for the ears of other people. After the verses you quoted, Jesus prayed in public (Matthew 6:9) There's absolutely no evidence of macro-evolution (one species changing into another).. Its all speculative conjecture with no fossil records to substantiate the gradual transformation of any species evolving into a completely different or new creature.. Micro-evolution is observable, but imo macro-evolution is a myth. Isaiah 40:22 mentions "the circle of the earth", which would indicate the earth is round.

I get that... I would not want to live in a Islamic dominated country that was intolerant of other religions. I understand that government is not suppose to endorse or favor any one specific belief over another, and I honestly wouldn't care if they took "In God We Trust" off of everything. But Jonathan goes beyond that, he believes freedom of religion requires freedom from religion. For example, teaching evolution in schools is okay, but he objects to teaching creationism, even though macro-evolution is as much of a hypothesis as creationism is.. That is not a demonstration of equality.. He also doesn't want people to exercise their individual right to pray in public, because he doesn't want to hear it.. That is what bothers him. My previous objections were not in opposition of others having the same right to celebrate their beliefs or holidays, but their deliberate desire to intentionally protest a Christian holiday. They weren't celebrating a holiday of their own, their intent was to disrupt a belief they detest.

Where have I heard that before? Don't worry about it, if atheism were dominate, no one would be allowed to mention God.

Yes, that's pretty much the definition of intolerance... Your not asking for equal treatment, your demanding that everyone else adhere to what you think. No one should dare mention God because you don't believe in him? Don't people have the right to express what they believe, even if it hurts your precious feelings? The real question is; Why in the world does it bother you so much? It would be like me throwing a fit every time I saw the Star of David in public.. Try to adjust and roll with it, what others believe shouldn't be offensive to you... jmo

Newsflash, I have a Muslim family living catty-corner across my backyard, and they don't mind me living in their neighborhood, nor I them... That's my point.

Majority-Minority, we all have the same rights.. And I think they do a pretty good job treating everyone equally. I never expressed a desire for that to happen.. In fact, I wrote that I don't mind living among them.

Perhaps your right... Maybe I should pick another religion I'd be willing to tolerate .. I guess I was counting on the good ole US constitution to separate religion from state, but if the religion is the state like in Saudi Arabia or Iran, I'd be flat out of luck.

I sincerely don't care about cultural norms because I'm not swayed or dominated by them.. I'd continue to believe as I do and would not be influenced by anything different, even if I were the only Christian in America.. But granted, its nice to have the fellowship of the majority and be in a culture that shares similar values and morals. I was referring to the USA when I said that I wouldn't care if Islam was the dominate faith.. I'm quite aware of radical countries where sharia law is applied to everyone, and I agree, I certainly would not want to live in an environment like that.

I wouldn't mind if Islam was the dominate faith. What would that have to do with me? Its not like I would be forced to attend a mosque. People have a right to believe what they want, its not disrespectful to you. No one is forcing you to go to church, mosque, or temple, so your not culturally dominated by anyone. There's not a special set of rights for the majority and a different set for the minority, we all have the same rights. I don't think that your insulted by the culture, your just intolerant of everyone who believes in something that you don't.. jmo