Religion Debates and Discussions

The first part of your comment made 0 sense.

Studying prophecy is actively researching: studying historical events in light of the scriptures. Now there are many prophecies concerning Jesus and Israel, so I'd suggest you start there. You could use Google, but I'm not really a fan of all the Bible-agnostic websites out there.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/fulfilled_prophecy.htm

This is a good website, but it only discusses the prophecies concerning Jesus. It has verses where something is prophecied and verses where something is fulfilled. Now it's your job to research when the books of the prophecy and the fulfillment were written, so you know the time span between them (no, the Bible is not one book written by sheep farmers).

It means that the Bible is accurate when it comes to humanity: pride, love of sin and always coming with predictable arguments.

Yes, the Bible is scientifically accurate. For example, it says the earth is round in Isaiah 40:22 KJV. Written way before the world figured it out.

- Evolution is not scientifically observable. Macro evolution is assumed by evidence for micro evolution which are mere variations in species.
- God is not limited to the capabilities of men.
- Noah's ark didn't have all the species of the world.
- Yea, before the flood men weren't as corrupted as after. Also, the atmosphere was different: air contained 50% more oxygen (Time Magazine November 9, 1987, p. 82, bubbles of air in Amber have an oxygen content that is 50% higher than the present atmospheric air.); humans were also different: they were stronger and had bigger brains (those supposed ''missing links'' that atheists remodel as apemen)
- If God can create humans out of dust, why couldn't he raise them from the dead?
- I tend to agree with that, because right now I'm convinced that the King James Bible teaches the gap theory (millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2).
- Yea, but it was for just 3 days. Whales surface from the sea to breath air, so that explains how he got air. God prepared the whale, so I'm sure it worked, lol.
- All the variations within humanity came from the Tower of Babel events.

 

Good. So you understand that.

Every sin you commit is on purpose. All sin is the same when it comes to salvation (James 2:10 KJV). Read 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 KJV, a man who fornicated with his father's wive and didn't turn from it. Yet Paul called the man saved. He says in verse 11 that christians should break fellowship with BRETHREN that live in sin. Christians that sin could suffer chastisement and a loss of rewards (1 Corinthians 3:10-17 KJV). Sinning less/stopping sin or anything like that in order to know you're saved is worksalvation, because it would make your ability to stay away from sin the object of your faith.

Good, Agreed. I also want to add on that that those who deny eternal security are not saved, because in some way they think their salvation depends upon them rather than on Christ.

This is nonsense, because things that are different are not the same. Watch those videos I gave you on how modern versions attack the doctrine of salvation and Jesus' deity. Now it's true that you can lead someone to salvation with a version other than the KJV IF it has it right in the quoted verses, but I'm convinced that when one of those christians get exposed to the Bible version issue, that they will place their faith in the KJV is God's pure, preserved word. I don't buy the ''saved people can hate the KJV'' crap (John 8:47 KJV).

Catholics do worship Mary and pray to her and saints: ''hail Mary full of grace''. The very same catholics you're defending here deny eternal security and believe you have to get water baptised to be saved.

 

I don't know what was hard to understand about the first part. All I'm saying is that choice of denomination is clearly subjective, because so many people choose differently and still think they're right.

Also, the fact that the Bible is accurate when it comes to humanity means jack sht. It doesn't mean it's right, it doesn't mean anything. Lots of books have given us insight into humanity, but they aren't worshipped.

It says the world is circular. Flat-earthers also believe the world is a circle. This is not proof of anything. If it used the word "spherical" then that would give me pause for thought.

- OMFG. I have no idea how many times I've made this fking point. Firstly, we DO have scientific obersvatons of evolution. Bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant, butterflies changing colour due to pollution, etc. Secondly, MACRO AND MICRO EVOLUTION ARE. THE. SAME. FKING. THING. FK. ME.

- No, but he is bound by the laws of physics. That's why they're called laws. If you don't believe in the laws of physics, I don't know what the fk is wrong with you.

- " You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures"...

- I couldn't find that specific Time Magazine page so I'll just take your word for it. But do you have ANY evidence that there were smarter humans than those that currently exist? Also, evidence of "atheists remodeling fossils as apemen"? What the fk? Are you a freaking conspiracy theorist? Did atheists kill JFK and Lincoln too, you fking imbecile?

- Well, you're just using one impossible thing as proof for another, so...

- Wait but the Bible says 7 days or something, right? So the Bible was wrong?

- Huh. I guess it IS impossible for Christians to debate without using "what about God tho" logic. If "God can do it because he's God" is your only answer, you need to take a good long hard look at the mirror.

- OK, two things here. One, my understanding is that Babel is responsible for different languages. How does that translate into different races? And secondly, do you know how genetic variation works? Adam and Eve would've had a kid and then there would've had to have been a whole bunch of incest going on that would've probably rendered humans extinct. You cannot biologically start a species from two organisms; Adam's grand kids would probably end up with downs syndrome. Please, pick up a goddamn biology textbook.

 

>when you actually kind of agree with gehenna on something

woah this feels weird

 

bump

 

probably one of the more stupid questions I've seen in my life. Most of human history is younger than 50,000 years ago. Anything older than that either needs to come with a date or can only be left up to theory and educated guesses

 

Those people can choose their traditions all their want, but if it doesn't line up with the scriptures it's simply not Biblical.

I told you that is one of the reasons why I believe it to be right

More wishful thinking. ''Circle'' is archaic for orb.

- Yet that bacteria is still a bacteria and yet that butterfly is still a butterfly. Macro evolution has never been observed.

- He isn't bound by the laws of the universe because he created them.

- Two of every sort of land animals, bugs and fowl. There were no aquatic species on the arc because there was plenty of water outside. Also, there were just two dogs. Not two of the many dog species we have today.

- Most of the time atheists even bring that up. I'm talking about those missing links that the evolutionists remodel as apes. Those humans were physically stronger and had bigger brains.

- God's existance is enough to explain all the miracles.

- No, the Bible says that God remodeled the earth in 7 days. This is known as the gap theory.

- Due the tower of Babel events, the groups of humans became so isolated that they only married their own and thus adopted different cultures. As for the skin colour, this is basically micro evolution. People living near the equator would adopt a more darker skin colour for protection against the sun. Keep in mind that humanity wasn't as corrupted thousands of years ago. Incest became forbidden after the law of Moses

 

If circle is archaic for orb, I'll need a citation on that please.

- Define macro-evolution for me please. I think a total colour change and becoming resistant to antibiotics are fairly big evolutionary changes. Also, can you tell me the difference between macro-evolution and micro-evolution? Your answer should be: there isn't one.

- Oh, so you don't believe in the laws of physics. Nice. And no, that's not a straw man. If you think there's an exception to a law of nature then it's no longer a law.

- Yes, and that's literally fking millions of species. Impossible to have fit on the ark.

- So you've made some claims here about atheists remodeling evidence and there being earlier more superior humans. CITATION PLEASE.

- I don't accept "because God" as an argument. Anyone can make that argument about anything. It's pointless.

- Remodeled? What? It says he created the earth...

- Ah, so you admit evolution can happen. It's true, that is why we have different skin colours. Now you just need to understand that there is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MICRO AND MACRO EVOLUTION IN TERMS OF HOW THEY WORK. IT'S SO FKING SIMPLE. And lastly, you haven't really addressed my point about genetic variation. Adam and Eve's kids would've had to commit incest and that would lead to massive genetic problems. I advise you google Charles II of Spain for what happens when inbreeding happens to that degree. He was sterile, phyiscally and mentally disabled, and disfigured. He could barely chew and his tongue was so large he could barely talk. His family's inbreeding led to a serious of rare disorders involving things like hormone deficiency. And Adam and Eve's descendants would be MORE inbred than Charles II...

 

Well then, you have no business to judge people their salvation based upon their sins. We are to judge people their salvation upon their beliefs: that's how we know how atheists are lost. It's no different for ''christians''. Not believing the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) by faith alone = lost.

Here is a link with an overview of words being removed in the NASB: https://www.scionofzion.com/nasvx.htm (now I don't agree with the soterology of the website; I just quoted it for an overview). Now the NASB doesn't take verses out completely, but it does add some doubt-casting footnotes that say: ''early manuscripts don't contain this verse''. Stop with the mental gymnastics, please. The verse says that WHOSOEVER is angry with his brother is in sin. That is a clear doctrinal error from the NASB. Psalm 78:36 NASB also says that God can be deceived. The NASB or any modern version are not the word of God, because of their doctrinal errors. Knowing you have a perfect Bible is of vital importance, because it's the source of a christian's faith (Romans 10:17 KJV). We are to live by EVERY word of God (Matthew 4:4 KJV), so then we need every word of God (ironically that phrase is also removed in modern versions)

You actually never answered my question: do you believe that the NASB is the 100% flawless word of God?

First of all, your dad is not the word of God. Second of all, they are lying to you. Catholics do worship Mary, heck they even call her a co-redeemer. Catholics certainly don't believe in salvation by faith alone. They believe you have to keep confessing your sins to a priest and die in a state of grace in order to go to heaven. That is blatant worksalvation. They don't believe faith alone in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV for the payment of sins, salvation from hell and eternal life saves.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/circle #2

- Macro evolution: one species bringing forth another species: a cat producing a dog.

- Yes it is, because I do believe in the laws of physics. Just in this universe. God is not bound by those laws since he is God, lol.

- Read again what I wrote.

- Seriously? This is wellknown. Most of the time atheists quote that evidence in favour of evolution. Do you just want to argue?

- Sure, then don't accept that argument. An omnipotent God that created this universe surely is able to provide miracles, lol.

- Yea, in Genesis 1:1 KJV. From verse 2 and on he is remodeling it.

- Again, read again what I wrote. Humans were different before the flood: way healthier. Genetics weren't as corrupted by sin back then. And sure, I'll accept macro evolution if you can give me solid proof of one species bringing forth another species (i.e a dog that brings forth a cat).

Remember I said that I believe the Bible because it hits the nail on the head when it comes to humanity..?

 

Nice, you actually used a citation. I did a bit of research though and it would appear that it's a case of a difficult translation from Hebrew:

"It is important at least to consider and try to understand what the Bible says on the level of language and meaning before one jumps to taking single words out of a context to make an apologetic case for a notion or a doctrine. Simply working from a favorite translation that uses certain English words to which we then apply meaning in relation to our modern perspectives, knowledge, and world-view (how we understand the physical world to work) is not good enough. We must try to hear the Biblical text against the background, the literary, cultural and historical milieus, from which it was written.

The Hebrew word that is used in Isaiah 44:22 (חוּג, chug) does not at all imply a spherical earth. The root word only occurs in the Hebrew Bible once as a verb (Job 26:10). In nominal forms, the same root occurs four times, three as the noun חוּג (chug; Job 22:14, Prov 8:27, Isa 40:22), and once as the noun מְחוּגׇה(mechugah; Isa 44:13). This term refers to a "circle instrument," a device used to make a circle, what we call a compass."

http://www.crivoice.org/circle.html

And that's from a Christian-biased website.

- OK firstly I hope you're joking or using a poor example with "cat producing a dog" because that's kind of a poor representation of how evolution works. And secondly, do you know why certain similar animals are different species? The idea of a "species" was thought up by humans, and the arbitrary dividing line is animals that cannot have grandchildren together. For example, horses and donkeys can have kids but not grandkids because mules are sterile, so they are different species. Therefore, the idea of a "species" is just a random arbitrary line that we humans draw to differentiate between animals. And you're telling me that nature obeys this arbitrary line? Animals can mutate and evolve within their own species but as soon as they're about to change species, they suddenly stop and go back? What the balls? And lastly, you need to understand that micro-evolution is just the steps that create macro-evolution. 1000 small changes create a big one. Splitting evolution into micro and macro would work just as well as splitting gravity into micro and macro. We can easily observe micro-gravity (dropping an apple) and we understand perfectly how both forms of gravity work, but it's like you're telling me that macro-gravity doesn't exist, in spite of all the other evidence for it. To use another analogy, you're telling me that walking 1 step and walking 10 steps are completely different things and someone who can walk 1 step can by no means walk 10 steps, which is ridiculous in this context. Capiche?

- No, you don't. You don't understand the laws of physics either lol. Let me explain: you cannot BREAK a law of physics. If you could, it wouldn't be a law. You're telling me that the laws of physics only apply to some things so in that case they're more like "guidelines of physics". If you want to be a wackjob who doesn't believe in the laws of physics then sure go ahead, but don't try and hide it. You can't semi-believe in laws of physics, like they only apply in certain situations. That's the difference between theories and laws. Scientific theories, like evolution, are true for all intents and purposes but are not ABSOLUTE truths, you cannot say 100% that they are certain. With the laws of physics, there is no uncertainty.

- I read what you wrote and I also read the Bible passage. It says "two of all living creatures". That's millions of species. Impossible.

- Which part is well known? Prehistoric humans with bigger brains or atheists "remodeling evidence"? Either way it isn't well known to me, and I'd like a citation otherwise I consider it BS.

- OK, I won't. And I hope you know, that it's completely fking retarded. I could create a new religion based on a flying teapot that can do anything and you cannot disprove it because I can just say "oh well the flying teapot did it". You see how fking stupid that is? Anyone can make any being up that they claim is omnipotent and no one can prove them wrong.

- Yes, and it says he did the creation in 7 days. Which is false.

- "Humans were way healthier before the flood". Citation please. The fossil record shows macro-evolution, we can see how different species changed into each other over millions of years. That's pretty irrefutable. Also, micro-evolution is proof of macro-evolution because macro-evolution is literally made of micro-evolution so there's that, too. Also the fact that you've used the dog turning into a cat example again makes me think it's not just a mistake and you actually think that's how evolution works? Just for clarity, could you tell me how you think evolution works?

 

Haha, you don't even speak Hebrew! Ask that ''christian-biased'' website of yours which manuscripts they believe to be the complete, infallible word of God. Anyone with atleast a little understanding of archaic languages knows that circle means orb.

- So you don't have evidence for macro evolution. You just assume by faith that with enough micro evolution, a species becomes a different species.

- God made those laws and thus isn't bound by them.

- I doubt you read it.

- You consider everything that isn't in line with your convictions BS anyway. No matter the evidence presented, lol.

- Sure, but do you have an infallible scriptual account to support your teapot god?

- Pfff... I could've known that explainin non-salvific doctrine to an unbeliever would be a waste of time.

- Ofcourse a cat giving birth to a dog is meant mockingly. I don't believe in macro evolution, because those millions of years between one species and another is simply assumed.

You're a good example of what the Bible calls ''a wayside'': whenever the word of God is sown, the birds (wishful thoughts) come to take it away.

 

Look I really didn't want to get involved in this thread again but I will briefly try and correct your serious misconceptions. No, no, no we have never and will never worship Mary. We simply believe that we owe her respect for saying "Yes" to God when put in a difficult position. And no, we don't believe in faith alone as that is not enough for salvation. "What shall it profit if a man if he has faith, but has not works? Shall faith be able to save him? . . . You believe that there is one God. You do well. But the devils also believe and tremble. But will you know, vain man, that faith without works is dead. . . . By works a man is justified and not by faith only. Even as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (Jas. 2:14, 19, 20, 26) Catholics believe that works are not enough to save ourselves, but it shows a commitment to God that words alone could never accomplish.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many of you will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name cast out demons, and in your name perform many miracles? "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.'"

I would also like to point out that the only time the words "Faith Alone" were used by James when he condemned them.

 

I don't care how you want to name it, but praying to Mary and saints is worshipping them. Not even talking about the consistent violation of the 2nd commandment from the catholics.

I haven't met one catholic that doesn't run to James 2 to ''prove'' worksalvation. Faith without works is dead indeed, but the question is: before who? God?

1 Samuel 16:7King James Version (KJV)
7 But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lordlooketh on the heart.

God doesn't need works to see their faith. James says in verse 18 ''I will shew THEE (not God) my faith by my works'', so faith without works is dead before men! Men cannot look upon the hearts. Later on Abraham is mentioned: him offering Isaac. That event happened in Genesis 22:8-10 KJV. But we can read that Abraham was already saved by faith alone in Genesis 15:6 KJV. This is what Paul is talking about in Romans 4:3-5 KJV.

The people in Matthew 7:21-23 KJV aren't saved, because they are worksalvationists! Notice in verse 22 that they are mentioning their WORKS (we're not saved by works - Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV, Romans 4:5 KJV, Romans 11:6 KJV). In verse 23 you read that Jesus NEVER knew them (he didn't ''once knew them''; he doesn't have alzheimer like worksalvationists would argue). Verse 21 shows that they aren't saved, because they FAILED to do the WILL of the Father which is found in John 6:39-40 KJV:

John 6:39-40King James Version (KJV)
39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Verse 39 teaching once saved always saved and verse 40 teaching immediate eternal life by faith alone.

The Bible is clear that faith and works don't mix:

Romans 11:6King James Version (KJV)
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

If you don't trust in how Jesus, God in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16 KJV) died for your sins, was buried and rose again the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV) ALONE for the payment of sins, salvation from hell and eternal life then you will end up in hell.

 

The problem with this rebuttal is that it really doesn't prove the No true Scotsman fallacy as unusable. The fallacy is defined by Wikipedia like this:
"No true Scotsman is a kind of informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect auniversal generalization from counterexamples by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample. Rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group)."
Saying you're an atheist who believes in God is like saying you're a Christian who doesn't believe in God. By definition, both of these exclude you from a group. I could call myself a Scotsman, but I wouldn't be no matter how hard I tried to be, because I was form in the U.S. to two people who were also born in the U.S, each to two more people born in the U.S. I can't say I'm a Scotsman because, literally, I'm not. Similarly, an atheist who believes in God cannot call themselves an atheist because, by definition, they are not.
Your point also isn't even what the fallacy refers to. The fallacy is about avoiding criticism by saying the criticized person or persons aren't a part of a group they really are. Like how if someone said that an atheist who is friends with Christians isn't a true atheist (which would be a dumb thing to say). The person, if they don't believe in God, is an atheist, whether the person likes it or not.

As an unrelated question:
if the wording of the Bible is so important, why is it even acceptable to read a Bible written in English? No perfect translation from the original Hebrew can exist, and so is any English translation a corruption of God's word?

In all fairness, this isn't really true. A globe Earth is an objective fact, but not everyone believes in it. Objective fact requires acceptance of the fact and exposure to and understanding of the facts.

 

That is impossible to read in the dark format

Pls check your white privilege.

 

I had to change to font color because actually copying it from Wikipedia included all the blue colored text, which was really distracting and hard to look at.

 

Look like I said, I am not here to debate you but to clarify what Catholics believe. It's funny how you think you can claim to know what we believe and why we believe it without investigating it whatsoever. And if you have to interpret James in such a faulty manner then I would suggest reevaluating how you read the bible, because all it seems like is you twisting the words to suit your own needs. That's called heresy.

Also I would like to mention: "Just because you read a book does not make you the author of that book." I think this is an important distinction to make.

 

Replies like this is why I like atheists more than the average "christian". I can totally sympathize with Bawws, Globalistcuck and that reptile guy for disliking christianity by reading replies like this.

I just gave you a proper exegesis of James 2 KJV where I compared scripture with scripture like the Bible tells us to, but here you are ignoring all the scriptures I posted and accusing me of heresy. Listen buddy, none of your traditions are found in the scriptures. In fact, you catholics don't even believe in a perfect Bible. Just like the average Bible-agnostic, catholics will point to the ''oldest and best'' (read: corrupt) manuscripts.

The thing about deceived heretics is that you always have to explain them what they believe. Repent and place your faith in Jesus alone for eternal life or you'll end up in Matthew 7:21-23 KJV.