Giving 10% - Stated clearly in the Bible. (CHC just obeying)
-
Your silly juvenistic name calling reflects how butthurt you are... No love detected....
Dunno which term, ask and lemme show you...
1a : the earthly state of human existenceb : life after death —used with a qualifier <the next world>2: the earth with its inhabitants and all things upon it3: individual course of life : career4: the inhabitants of the earth : the human race5a : the concerns of the earth and its affairs as distinguished from heaven and the life to comeb : secular affairs6: the system of created things : universe7a : a division or generation of the inhabitants of the earth distinguished by living together at the same place or at the same time <the medieval world>b : a distinctive class of persons or their sphere of interest or activity <the academic world> <the digital world>8: human society <withdraw from the world>9: a part or section of the earth that is a separate independent unit10: the sphere or scene of one's life and action <living in your own little world>11: an indefinite multitude or a great quantity or distance<makes a world of difference> <a world away>12: the whole body of living persons : public <announced their discovery to the world>13: kingdom 5 <the animal world>14: a celestial body (as a planet)Hint: To find out which is the correct definition, context is the key.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Your silly juvenistic name calling reflects how butthurt you are... No love detected....
Dunno which term, ask and lemme show you...
1a : the earthly state of human existenceb : life after death —used with a qualifier <the next world>2: the earth with its inhabitants and all things upon it3: individual course of life : career4: the inhabitants of the earth : the human race5a : the concerns of the earth and its affairs as distinguished from heaven and the life to comeb : secular affairs6: the system of created things : universe7a : a division or generation of the inhabitants of the earth distinguished by living together at the same place or at the same time <the medieval world>b : a distinctive class of persons or their sphere of interest or activity <the academic world> <the digital world>8: human society <withdraw from the world>9: a part or section of the earth that is a separate independent unit10: the sphere or scene of one's life and action <living in your own little world>11: an indefinite multitude or a great quantity or distance<makes a world of difference> <a world away>12: the whole body of living persons : public <announced their discovery to the world>13: kingdom 5 <the animal world>14: a celestial body (as a planet)Hint: To find out which is the correct definition, context is the key.
Urr......so WHICH term is it? I did ask, and you had to hurl insult and play dictionary guy again. So much for being polite....
-
You mean "Playing fallacy-detective again? So which term has more than one meaning?" was you being polite? Seriously taking people as fools....
Lets make one out of you.
Even Jesus flipped tables... -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Playing fallacy-detective again?
So which term has more than one meaning?
Quote 1st.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Quote 1st.
Not submitting myself to your dictionary games. You don't wamt to say then forget it lor. A cry of fallacy is just that, not proven or shown, just alleged. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Not submitting myself to your dictionary games. You don't wamt to say then forget it lor. A cry of fallacy is just that, not proven or shown, just alleged.
Don't know? Ask.
Don't know how to ask? Suffer humiliation.Context: Creation.
Definition: #6.
Term in question: "world".Bitch please.
-
Context: Jesus on age of earth
With this:
Instead, he(unamed Melbourne professor) said that he totally agreed that Jesus believed in a recent creation of all things.
"“Jesus didn’t know as much science as we do today.”""“Ah, but that’s where it gets very complex—it has to do with the theology of the Incarnation, where Jesus deliberately laid aside many of the things that had to do with His pre-incarnate divinity.”" - unamed Melbourne professor.
And concluded this:
"Firstly, and very importantly, the professor’s comments were a clear admission that the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as recorded in the Bible, confirm that He believed that things were recently created."
Begging the question. The unnamed professor agreed that Jesus believed in a recent creation does not make " the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as recorded in the Bible, confirm that He believed that things were recently created." true."He(unnamed professor) obviously saw it as hopeless to try to claim other than what the Lord is clearly saying in this Bible text. And this is despite many attempts by others to ‘explain away’ this huge stumbling block for long-agers."
Emotional appeals abound. No actual conclusion."His(unnamed professor) way of being able to hold onto his theistic evolutionary view was to claim that Jesus was not lying, it was just that He was poorly informed. This was because when He as God the Son became flesh, laying aside aspects of His divinity included divesting Himself of all knowledge about what really happened when He had created all things."
Strawman. The professor's understanding of the bible does not make his evolutionary view false."One thing is very clear from all this. Namely, that the erroneous belief that ‘science’ insists that evolution and long ages are ‘fact’ is the most serious challenge to biblical authority, and thus to the faith in general, that Christendom has ever faced. If even Jesus’ words in Scripture can’t be trusted on some issues, how are we supposed to trust anything in the Bible at all? "
Strawman... Appeal to authority... Association fallacy... denying the antecedent....
Again, nothing on the young or old creation theory."This is all the more serious because Jesus and the apostles used the history they taught to back up the theology that they taught. The Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15), marriage (Mark 10:1–12), atonement (Romans 5:12–21), and Heaven (Revelation 21–22:5) are only a few of the areas in which compromising Christians are theologically crippled, because they don’t have the same strong stand on Genesis that Jesus and the apostles did when they taught about these areas."
Appeal to tradition, authority, emotion... Again, nothing on the young or old creation theory."What a tragedy that so many Christian leaders have been bluffed and intimidated into assuming that secular interpretations of the evidence should dictate their understanding of God’s Word. And right at a point in history when there are more scientific reasons than ever to confirm the utter rationality of trusting the Bible, not evolutionary conclusions."
Appeal to emotion.... Again, nothing on the young or old creation theory.Where in Bible did it show that Jesus was speaking around 4,000 years after creation?
I told you how I hated these fallacious sites... I am going to expose how fallacious they can be as you linked them.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Context: Jesus on age of earth
With this:
Instead, he(unamed Melbourne professor) said that he totally agreed that Jesus believed in a recent creation of all things.
"“Jesus didn’t know as much science as we do today.�""“Ah, but that’s where it gets very complex—it has to do with the theology of the Incarnation, where Jesus deliberately laid aside many of the things that had to do with His pre-incarnate divinity.�" - unamed Melbourne professor.
And concluded this:
"Firstly, and very importantly, the professor’s comments were a clear admission that the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as recorded in the Bible, confirm that He believed that things were recently created."
Begging the question. The unnamed professor agreed that Jesus believed in a recent creation does not make " the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as recorded in the Bible, confirm that He believed that things were recently created." true."He(unnamed professor) obviously saw it as hopeless to try to claim other than what the Lord is clearly saying in this Bible text. And this is despite many attempts by others to ‘explain away’ this huge stumbling block for long-agers."
Emotional appeals abound. No actual conclusion."His(unnamed professor) way of being able to hold onto his theistic evolutionary view was to claim that Jesus was not lying, it was just that He was poorly informed. This was because when He as God the Son became flesh, laying aside aspects of His divinity included divesting Himself of all knowledge about what really happened when He had created all things."
Strawman. The professor's understanding of the bible does not make his evolutionary view false."One thing is very clear from all this. Namely, that the erroneous belief that ‘science’ insists that evolution and long ages are ‘fact’ is the most serious challenge to biblical authority, and thus to the faith in general, that Christendom has ever faced. If even Jesus’ words in Scripture can’t be trusted on some issues, how are we supposed to trust anything in the Bible at all? "
Strawman... Appeal to authority... Association fallacy... denying the antecedent....
Again, nothing on the young or old creation theory."This is all the more serious because Jesus and the apostles used the history they taught to back up the theology that they taught. The Resurrection (1 Corinthians 15), marriage (Mark 10:1–12), atonement (Romans 5:12–21), and Heaven (Revelation 21–22:5) are only a few of the areas in which compromising Christians are theologically crippled, because they don’t have the same strong stand on Genesis that Jesus and the apostles did when they taught about these areas."
Appeal to tradition, authority, emotion... Again, nothing on the young or old creation theory."What a tragedy that so many Christian leaders have been bluffed and intimidated into assuming that secular interpretations of the evidence should dictate their understanding of God’s Word. And right at a point in history when there are more scientific reasons than ever to confirm the utter rationality of trusting the Bible, not evolutionary conclusions."
Appeal to emotion.... Again, nothing on the young or old creation theory.Where in Bible did it show that Jesus was speaking around 4,000 years after creation?
I told you how I hated these fallacious sites... I am going to expose how fallacious they can be as you linked them.
Nothing on young earth creation? Looks like either you can't see or you can't read.The thing I see exposed is your contempt for the plain meaning of Scripture as you clearly subject God's infallible revelation to man's fallible reason, elevating the words of men above the Word of God. Appealing to the Bible is of course an appeal to authority, God's authority no less! Everyone appeals to some kind of authority, question is, which authority? The truth is that anyone who believes in evolution or that God used evolution has placed man above God, trusting what man says instead of what God says, exchanging the authority of God's Word for a pottage of intellectual respectability from the unbelieving world.
-
"Nothing on young earth creation? Looks like either you can't see or you can't read."
Learn to read, hypocrite! The bottom 3 quoted sentences have nothing to do with arguments on Jesus believed that things were recently created.
"The thing I see exposed is your contempt for the plain meaning of Scripture as you clearly subject God's infallible revelation to man's fallible reason, elevating the words of men above the Word of God."
I see your appeal to emotion and poisoning the well is far fetched. I hold contempt on people misusing the Scriptures to their own means. The challenge is this. No way that Jesus said that he believed that things were recently created in your link or the links inside.
"Appealing to the Bible is of course an appeal to authority, God's authority no less! Everyone appeals to some kind of authority, question is, which authority?"
The authority was referring to the yec belief of a young earth. If the belief is not proven biblically, the authority is questionable.
"The truth is that anyone who believes in evolution or that God used evolution has placed man above God, trusting what man says instead of what God says, exchanging the authority of God's Word for a pottage of intellectual respectability from the unbelieving world."
Strawman. I will not allow tangents until you show that Jesus believed in a recently created earth in your link.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"Nothing on young earth creation? Looks like either you can't see or you can't read."
Learn to read! The bottom 3 quoted sentences have nothing to do with arguments on Jesus believed that things were recently created.
"The thing I see exposed is your contempt for the plain meaning of Scripture as you clearly subject God's infallible revelation to man's fallible reason, elevating the words of men above the Word of God."
I see your appeal to emotion is far fetched. I hold contempt on people misusing the Scriptures to their own means. The challenge is this. No way that Jesus said that he believed that things were recently created in your link or the links inside.
"Appealing to the Bible is of course an appeal to authority, God's authority no less! Everyone appeals to some kind of authority, question is, which authority?"
The authority was referring to the yec belief of a young earth. If the belief is not proven biblically, the authority is questionable.
"The truth is that anyone who believes in evolution or that God used evolution has placed man above God, trusting what man says instead of what God says, exchanging the authority of God's Word for a pottage of intellectual respectability from the unbelieving world."
Strawman. I will not allow tangents untill you show that Jesus believed in a recently created earth in your link.
You did not read, not me. The article clearly made the point with Scripture, even with a chart thrown in for graphical clarity, that Jesus believed in a young earth about 4000 years old when He spoke those words to the audience. You did not bother to read the footnotes. Duh. And it is silly juvenille thinking to expect every sentence in an article to be an argument about a young earth. A classic case of you missing the forest for the trees while trying too hard to play fallacy detective that it backfires on you. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You did not read, not me. The article clearly made the point with Scripture, even with a chart thrown in for graphical clarity, that Jesus believed in a young earth about 4000 years old when He spoke those words to the audience. You did not bother to read the footnotes. Duh. And it is silly juvenille thinking to expect every sentence in an article to be an argument about a young earth. A classic case of you missing the forest for the trees while trying too hard to play fallacy detective that it backfires on you.Where did Jesus say that it was 4000 yrs ago? Dr Hasel said that? By saying I did not read the footnotes reveal that you did not read it yourself. I read just to unravel these fallacies.
"Dr Hasel rightly assumed that there were no gaps in the genealogies, as will be justified below."
Begging the question. Where did this "rightly" assumptiom comes from? The table below. Where did the table comes from? Where did the chart comes from?
Instead of throwing illogical ad hominems anyhow, please get back to the topic at hand. Where did Jesus say in the Bible that it was 4000 yrs ago or He believed in a recent created earth?
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Where did Jesus say that it was 4000 yrs ago? Dr Hasel said that? By saying I did not read the footnotes reveal that you did not read it yourself. I read just to unravel these fallacies.
"Dr Hasel rightly assumed that there were no gaps in the genealogies, as will be justified below."
Begging the question. Where did this "rightly" assumptiom comes from? The table below. Where did the table comes from? Where did the chart comes from?
Instead of throwing illogical ad hominems anyhow, please get back to the topic at hand. Where did Jesus say in the Bible that it was 4000 yrs ago or He believed in a recent created earth?
Unfortunately you failed to unravel fallacious arguments, but you certainly betrayed your disbelief in the Word of God.
Must Jesus explicitly says "The earth is 4000 years old" before we can rightly conclude that this is what He believe? You questioned Hasel's "rightly assumed" but apparently failed to read what you yourself quoted. You missed the "as will be justified below" part.
Where does the table come from? Had you read the article you would not have asked such a silly juvenile question! The heading says it loud and clear that it is a tabulation of the "Chronogenealogies of the Patriarchs according to different textual traditions". Which traditions? Go find out for yourself, am not spoon-feeding you.
Where did the chart come from? This is another silly juvenile question, as silly as asking where the creeds of the early church come from. Such information is taken from the Bible and presented in graphical format lah! You got a problem with this? That's YOUR problem.
Your picture about Jesus not wanting 4 different versions is an indictment against people like you who compromise God's Word. There is only ONE version of creation in the Bible. A six day creation. Six times Genesis 1 says at the end of each day of creation that there was "an evening and a morning". Six times! Each time that phrase appears, and comes attached with a number it ALWAYS means an ordinary day. How you can squeeze billions of years into 6 days is beyond human logic. It's insane.
See also http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/jesus-and-the-age-of-earth
'Nuff said!
-
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." too much reading cause headache... i'd rather be little children, not bothered by the big book and disagreements in versions... just know that the Lord loves us and we must be good boys and girls... time for my lollipop!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Unfortunately you failed to unravel fallacious arguments, but you certainly betrayed your disbelief in the Word of God.
Must Jesus explicitly says "The earth is 4000 years old" before we can rightly conclude that this is what He believe? You questioned Hasel's "rightly assumed" but apparently failed to read what you yourself quoted. You missed the "as will be justified below" part.
Where does the table come from? Had you read the article you would not have asked such a silly juvenile question! The heading says it loud and clear that it is a tabulation of the "Chronogenealogies of the Patriarchs according to different textual traditions". Which traditions? Go find out for yourself, am not spoon-feeding you.
Where did the chart come from? This is another silly juvenile question, as silly as asking where the creeds of the early church come from. Such information is taken from the Bible and presented in graphical format lah! You got a problem with this? That's YOUR problem.
Your picture about Jesus not wanting 4 different versions is an indictment against people like you who compromise God's Word. There is only ONE version of creation in the Bible. A six day creation. Six times Genesis 1 says at the end of each day of creation that there was "an evening and a morning". Six times! Each time that phrase appears, and comes attached with a number it ALWAYS means an ordinary day. How you can squeeze billions of years into 6 days is beyond human logic. It's insane.
See also http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/jesus-and-the-age-of-earth
'Nuff said!
“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.” Mathew 10:6
Clearly the context is marriage. If one takes "...from the beginning of creation..." meant the creation of heaven and earth, the context remains.To exegrete that "...creation..." meant creation of humanity = heaven and earth would be taking it out of context to suit yec unique belief.
The site deliberately left out the part from Abraham to Jesus... and concluded with a very simplified chart....
and you can say its justified. Some exegrete you claim to be...
I see you feel uneasy to be questioned and hate to answer. If the questions are juvenile to you remember what Jesus said... “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Oh I was ninja'd by Novelltie... by 6.5 hrs. LOL
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.� Mathew 10:6
Clearly the context is marriage. If one takes "...from the beginning of creation..." meant the creation of heaven and earth, the context remains.To exegrete that "...creation..." meant creation of humanity = heaven and earth would be taking it out of context to suit yec unique belief.
The site deliberately left out the part from Abraham to Jesus... and concluded with a very simplified chart....
and you can say its justified. Some exegrete you claim to be...
I see you feel uneasy to be questioned and hate to answer. If the questions are juvenile to you remember what Jesus said... “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.�
Oh I was ninja'd by Novelltie... by 6.5 hrs. LOL
I think you excreted the wrong word. I am no exegrete. I am rather someone who thinks that it is important to exegete the Bible properly.Yes, the context was about marriage, but one should not overlook how Jesus answered the question. From the beginning of creation to His Jewish hearers meant that the creation of Adam and Eve and the institution of marriage was made during creation week about 4000 years ago. BTW, do you know what year we are in according to the Jewish calendar?
That chart is meant to show that Jesus' words make better sense within a young earth view than an old earth one. hhhh
I hate answering questions as much as you hate giving ambiguous answers.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I think you excreted the wrong word. I am no exegrete. I am rather someone who thinks that it is important to exegete the Bible properly.Yes, the context was about marriage, but one should not overlook how Jesus answered the question. From the beginning of creation to His Jewish hearers meant that the creation of Adam and Eve and the institution of marriage was made during creation week about 4000 years ago. BTW, do you know what year we are in according to the Jewish calendar?
That chart is meant to show that Jesus' words make better sense within a young earth view than an old earth one. hhhh
I hate answering questions as much as you hate giving ambiguous answers.
"I think you excreted the wrong word. I am no exegrete. I am rather someone who thinks that it is important to exegete the Bible properly."
Ah, amnesia or lying through your teeth.... Did you remember you said "Of course I take issue with his interpretation. Any good exegete would." 06 Aug `12, 8:56AM<--- implying you are a "good" exegrete? Otherwise its just you being flatuous and farting in no particular direction?
"Yes, the context was about marriage, but one should not overlook how Jesus answered the question. From the beginning of creation to His Jewish hearers meant that the creation of Adam and Eve and the institution of marriage was made during creation week about 4000 years ago"
Thus,it was taken out of context to mean time of creation of Adam and Eve= time of creation of heaven and earth.
"That chart is meant to show that Jesus' words make better sense within a young earth view than an old earth one. hhhh"
The deliberation of omitting the chronogenealogy from Abraham to Jesus is evident. With no supporting facts to complete the chronology within the linked site, its just a misleading chart to further the agenda of yec unique belief. A deliberate omission of critical information leads to misinterpreting to misinform to further a particular belief.
"I hate answering questions as much as you hate giving ambiguous answers."
Yes I do hate giving ambiguous answers.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
"I think you excreted the wrong word. I am no exegrete. I am rather someone who thinks that it is important to exegete the Bible properly."
Ah, amnesia or lying through your teeth.... Did you remember you said "Of course I take issue with his interpretation. Any good exegete would." 06 Aug `12, 8:56AM<--- implying you are a "good" exegrete? Otherwise its just you being flatuous and farting in no particular direction?
"Yes, the context was about marriage, but one should not overlook how Jesus answered the question. From the beginning of creation to His Jewish hearers meant that the creation of Adam and Eve and the institution of marriage was made during creation week about 4000 years ago"
Thus,it was taken out of context to mean time of creation of Adam and Eve= time of creation of heaven and earth.
"That chart is meant to show that Jesus' words make better sense within a young earth view than an old earth one. hhhh"
The deliberation of omitting the chronogenealogy from Abraham to Jesus is evident. With no supporting facts to complete the chronology within the linked site, its just a misleading chart to further the agenda of yec unique belief. A deliberate omission of critical information leads to misinterpreting to misinform to further a particular belief.
"I hate answering questions as much as you hate giving ambiguous answers."
Yes I do hate giving ambiguous answers.
Lying through your teeth about hating to give ambiguous answers?Again I lay no claim to being an exegrete. But I do claim to be someone serious in being a Bible exegete.
Failure to read again. Adam and Eve were created on day 6, as far as Jesus' hearers were concerned being 4000 years since creation that would put Adam and Eve practically at the beginning of creation. The chronology from Abraham to Jesus was not necessary to establish what needs to be established.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Lying through your teeth about hating to give ambiguous answers?Again I lay no claim to being an exegrete. But I do claim to be someone serious in being a Bible exegete.
Failure to read again. Adam and Eve were created on day 6, as far as Jesus' hearers were concerned being 4000 years since creation that would put Adam and Eve practically at the beginning of creation. The chronology from Abraham to Jesus was not necessary to establish what needs to be established.
Quote 1st.
"Lying through your teeth about hating to give ambiguous answers?"
I saw through your lies. Presented it in the open. If possible try not to be such a hypocrite until you read the charge/s of my lies before accusing others lying."Again I lay no claim to being an exegrete. But I do claim to be someone serious in being a Bible exegete."
"Of course I take issue with his interpretation. Any good exegete would." - BroInChrist 06 Aug `12, 8:56AM
"Failure to read again. Adam and Eve were created on day 6, as far as Jesus' hearers were concerned being 4000 years since creation that would put Adam and Eve practically at the beginning of creation."
Still its taking what Jesus said out of context to mean he meant 4000yrs.
"The chronology from Abraham to Jesus was not necessary to establish what needs to be established."
You didn't read the chart? It spans from creation to the time when Jesus spoke. The foot notes only supplied chronogenealogies from Adam to Abraham. What's missing is the chronology from Abraham to Jesus. When you said its not necessary, you are taking people as fools... What did you mean by "not necessary"?
-
Many christians seem very selective about which old testament things to apply.
-
Originally posted by alize:
Many christians seem very selective about which old testament things to apply.
Yes many do... I'm bothered by how fallacious they preach. I'm bothered by how stupidly people believe them. I'm bothered that I can't help but respond when I see such...
-
10% tithing is just one of the kinds of contributions that CHC members must make.
Don't forget offerings and building fund.
Anyway Kong Hee is not on trial for tithing. He is on trial for round-tripping, transferring money from building fund to multi-purpose fund, secretly channelling building fund donations to the multi-purpose fund, and taking from the multi-purpose fund for Sun Ho's "music".
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Quote 1st.
"Lying through your teeth about hating to give ambiguous answers?"
I saw through your lies. Presented it in the open. If possible try not to be such a hypocrite until you read the charge/s of my lies before accusing others lying."Again I lay no claim to being an exegrete. But I do claim to be someone serious in being a Bible exegete."
"Of course I take issue with his interpretation. Any good exegete would." - BroInChrist 06 Aug `12, 8:56AM
"Failure to read again. Adam and Eve were created on day 6, as far as Jesus' hearers were concerned being 4000 years since creation that would put Adam and Eve practically at the beginning of creation."
Still its taking what Jesus said out of context to mean he meant 4000yrs.
"The chronology from Abraham to Jesus was not necessary to establish what needs to be established."
You didn't read the chart? It spans from creation to the time when Jesus spoke. The foot notes only supplied chronogenealogies from Adam to Abraham. What's missing is the chronology from Abraham to Jesus. When you said its not necessary, you are taking people as fools... What did you mean by "not necessary"?
Once again yoy show yourself to be incompetent in seeing your own errors. Tell me, what in the world is an exegrete? Exegete I know but exegrete? Duh.Again there is no issue of out of context for Jesus' words. A good exegete will not fail to draw the conclusion that Jesus was talking about a real historical Adam and Eve who were created from the beginning i.e. day six of creation week. The Jews have no notion of an earth that is billions of years old. And you obviously teh gong about the Jewish calendar.
Not necessary means not necessary lah! Again a good exegete would know that the time from Abraham to Jesus spans about 2000 years and this is not disputed at all. Problem is when compromisers (like you) believe in evolution and must deny the plain truth that the Bible teaches about a literal Adam who was created and a literal Eve who was fashioned from his rib, all on a single day.
-
Originally posted by Aneslayer:
Yes many do... I'm bothered by how fallacious they preach. I'm bothered by how stupidly people believe them. I'm bothered that I can't help but respond when I see such...
And when you do respond at all I see the very same things you accused others of. Not only do you deny the veracity of Scripture you endorse the irrational, and stupidly believe that God used evolution to create the universe, oblivious to the fact the evolution is a theory thought up to deny the need for God, even His very existence. You would see God's handwork in an undirected, random, naturalistic process that began in a big bang which after billions of years evolved and somehow we came to be? Such is completely anti-thetical to the plain teaching of Scripture yet you would heartily embraced it. -
Originally posted by alize:
Many christians seem very selective about which old testament things to apply.
The issue is not about being selective, but what is the BASIS of selection. To blindly think that ALL commands in the OT must be applied today is silly, if not dangerous. Good exegesis must come before proper application. -
giving 10%
WHO to?