Every single claim of yours has been debunked. See Post # 74. As I've told you more than once, repeating the same thing gets you nowhere. In fact, expecting a different result is a sign of insanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
Every single claim of yours has been debunked. See Post # 74. As I've told you more than once, repeating the same thing gets you nowhere. In fact, expecting a different result is a sign of insanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Nah.
1. You are, for whatever reason, afraid to address specific texts (unarguable).
You have not responded to either the Matthew text or the 2 Peter text. Unarguable.
2. You claim you can understand the message of the Bible without referring to the Bible.
You claimed the message of the Bible was a "preferential option for the poor." Your quote is, "the clear meaning of the Bible is a 'preferential option for the poor' as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it," yet you provided no scriptural support at all, instead trying to use the laughable assertion that the entire Bible supported your idea, a proposition that would get you laughed out of many sixth grade classrooms. It is on the absurd level of an attorney saying, "Why your Honor, the entire body of federal law supports my argument." So once again, it is unarguable.
(Might add that the Catholic church has NOT said a "preferential option for the poor" is the primary message of the Bible, so once again you have misapplied a quote.)
3. You claim to have some special knowledge of what Paul would have said about taxes and welfare.
Here is your quote. "Paul would be happy to do exactly that." Again, it is unarguable
As I have said, I will not accept your strange views simply on the basis of your say so.
As to post 74, this assertion is flatly untrue. "That should be obvious even to you. What you are trying to say is that I don't throw out verse after verse like Bible Bingo the way you do. I prefer to discuss the passages in context and for their various meanings. You don't like when I or others do that." You discuss a passage in context? Really? To discuss a passage in context, you would first have to quote the passage. You tried that with the three passages you quoted earlier. They did not at all support your idea, and you did not use them or discuss them in context.
See above post #81. You are doing it again. Read what I said about repeating and expecting a different result.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Everything you have repeated here is not true. It has been thoroughly debunked, yet you post the whole thing again. Your basic problem is that you do not believe what I say. As I have said REPEATEDLY that is fine with me. Calling it fear or lies is simply your way to deny what has been said without engaging in discussion - other than throwing out verse after verse to speak for you. Yet you deny me the same privilege. You will not read my links or internet references. This goes way back, but it's always the same with you. You criticize others with the same methodology - refusing to read links, demanding they put long complex answers to fit into the space here for a post. You're not fooling anyone.
Here is a great example of your thought process: When I say Paul accepted government (Paul's words) and he accepted helping the poor (Jesus' words), you charge me with claiming "special knowledge" of Paul. Complete nonsense.
Example #2: You claim I said the Catholic Church declared their "primary mission" to be a "preferential option for the poor". I never said that was their "primary mission", yet you claim I did! More nonsense.
Your posts are filled with inaccuracies (using a nice word), changing words around to give your desired spin (not only me, others also), and repitition ad infinitum (already noted here).
We've all taken the measure of you here, and know you have a deceitful nature. That's not an insult, just the truth. A person who uses the Bible as a weapon to intimidate others with the fear of eternal punishment in hell is simply not to be trusted.
You are exactly right, and I would encourage you to do likewise with me. That is why I ask of you, or of anyone for that matter, supporting material.Quote:
Your basic problem is that you do not believe what I say.
Nope. It was your statement, as I clearly posted above, that, "Paul would be happy to do exactly that," which illustrated your idea that you knew, not what Paul said, but what he WOULD HAVE said. Even at that, our discussion is not about supporting government. It never has been. The discussion has been about what that government should be doing.Quote:
Here is a great example of your thought process: When I say Paul accepted government (Paul's words) and he accepted helping the poor (Jesus' words), you charge me with claiming "special knowledge" of Paul. Complete nonsense.
I did not say you claimed it was their primary message. I pointed out that you used their quote as support for your assertion that the primary message of the Bible was "a preferential option for the poor." I posted your quote.Quote:
Example #2: You claim I said the Catholic Church declared their "primary mission" to be a "preferential option for the poor". I never said that was their "primary mission", yet you claim I did! More nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Semantics. It's always semantics with you - never actual content.
I'm considering posting a summary of your message/posts so everybody here can see what kind of a person you are. I'm busy at the moment, so don't lose any sleep over it.
Semantics has nothing to do with it. Supporting your claims is the idea.
Content? Here's your content a second time.
Nope. It was your statement, as I clearly posted above, that, "Paul would be happy to do exactly that," which illustrated your idea that you knew, not what Paul said, but what he WOULD HAVE said. Even at that, our discussion is not about supporting government. It never has been. The discussion has been about what that government should be doing.
I did not say you claimed it was their primary message. I pointed out that you used their quote as support for your assertion that the primary message of the Bible was "a preferential option for the poor." I posted your quote.
You mean like you did with Aquinas, or with your most recent post of the Catholic quote? Remember that one? "...the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." Except, of course, that they did no such thing in relation to, "the clear meaning of the Bible," so I trust you will pardon me if I'm skeptical.Quote:
I'm considering posting a summary of your message/posts
at last the nub of the problemQuote:
I trust you will pardon me if I'm skeptical.
Come on, you're obsessing. I stand by the fact that Paul would have supported helping the poor - via government or not. I never said he made a statement in those exact words.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Anyone who has ever read Paul's writings would not find it an impossible thought. If you believe otherwise, fine. Prove that he never believed it. Yeah, yeah, I know - can't prove a negative. More for you to digest.
Yes, you did. Go back and look. As is your wont, you took my ACCURATE claim of the position of the Catholic Church which uses those exact words of a preferential option for the poor - you took it out of context. The context was the poor - not the overall mission of the Catholic Church. Yet you persisted in calling it the "primary mission of the Catholic Church".Quote:
I did not say you claimed it was their primary message. I pointed out that you used their quote as support for your assertion that the primary message of the Bible was "a preferential option for the poor."
CONTEXT CONTEXT CONTEXT. Not the first time you have been warned about context.
Whether Aquinas or the Catholic Church, you manage to get it so wrong so often, that it truly becomes a waste of time replying to you. I understand you thrive on getting replies like any troll, but this is really getting ridiculous.Quote:
You mean like you did with Aquinas, or with your most recent post of the Catholic quote? Remember that one? "...the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." Except, of course, that they did no such thing in relation to, "the clear meaning of the Bible," so I trust you will pardon me if I'm skeptical.
The best reply to you is simply showing your actual words so all can see how you misconstrue and misquote what was written.
You claimed, and still do claim, to know what Paul would have said about government welfare programs. Saying that Paul said we should obey the gov is useless since no one has questioned that.Quote:
Come on, you're obsessing. I stand by the fact that Paul would have supported helping the poor - via government or not. I never said he made a statement in those exact words.
The context was the meaning of the Bible. You misapplied that quote and made it appear that the Catholic church agreed with your view of the primary message of the Bible. Your statement was, "In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor, the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." You tried to be deceptive and got caught. Get over it.Quote:
Yes, you did. Go back and look. As is your wont, you took my ACCURATE claim of the position of the Catholic Church which uses those exact words of a preferential option for the poor - you took it out of context. The context was the poor - not the overall mission of the Catholic Church. Yet you persisted in calling it the "primary mission of the Catholic Church".
In both cases you tried to be deceptive and got caught, and it's made you angry. End of story.Quote:
Whether Aquinas or the Catholic Church, you manage to get it so wrong so often, that it truly becomes a waste of time replying to you. I understand you thrive on getting replies like any troll, but this is really getting ridiculous.
Well, if you want to try that, then go ahead. So far your only attempt has been to suggest that I, "persisted in calling it (a preferential option for the poor) the 'primary mission of the Catholic Church.'" That's, to put it charitably, mistaken. I never suggested that, so your first attempt failed miserably. But if I did suggest it, I'm sure you'll post the quote. I won't hold my breath.Quote:
The best reply to you is simply showing your actual words so all can see how you misconstrue and misquote what was written.
I agree with that. I'm perfectly happy to just stand on what has already been said and let the few readers left here decide for themselves.Quote:
but this is really getting ridiculous.
I never claimed to KNOW what Paul said. How could I possibly know that? I wasn't there. Again, my view of Paul was derived from his writings. Why you cannot understand that is totally beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
IN-RELATION-T0-THE-ISSUE-OF-THE-POOR! Holy Cow - how many times does it have to be said????????Quote:
The context was the meaning of the Bible.
Only you EVER mentioned the "primary mission" of the Bible. How many times do you have to be called out on this before you finally stop your misquoting?Quote:
You misapplied that quote and made it appear that the Catholic church agreed with your view of the primary message of the Bible.
Thank you for my exact words. Read my lips (better, your own quoted words above) - "In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor...". Do you get it now - finally?Quote:
Your statement was, "In relation to your oft-presented position re taxation and the poor, the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it."
The funny thing is - I don't think you actually try to be deceptive - it just comes naturally to you. There's no other explanation for your absolutely false reading of what I said re Paul and the Church.Quote:
You tried to be deceptive and got caught. Get over it.
I get frustrated, not angry. What frustrates me is having to go back again and again to try to get you to understand the plain meaning of words. Talk about a fool's errand! I can understand your initial misunderstanding, but the same thing over and over and over.... It's truly mind-boggling.Quote:
In both cases you tried to be deceptive and got caught, and it's made you angry. End of story.
Good grief. You have it backwards (surprise, surprise) - Let me try once more - I did NOT suggest you called it a primary mission of the Catholic Church. I wrote that you said I said that. Dear God, this is getting impossible. Why can't this guy understand his native language?Quote:
your only attempt has been to suggest that I, "persisted in calling it (a preferential option for the poor) the 'primary mission of the Catholic Church.'" That's, to put it charitably, mistaken.
No one said you did. Read above. I'm now suspecting this is a troll strategy - a strawman argument. Anything to keep it going.Quote:
I never suggested that,
What I wrote has been posted by YOU. It's in this very post. Please, READ IT!Quote:
I'm sure you'll post the quote.
Your quote. "the clear meaning of the Bible is a "preferential option for the poor" as the Catholic Church has so aptly phrased it." The conversation was always about the primary meaning of the Bible. Not sure what significant difference there is between "primary mission" and "primary meaning". At any rate, it certainly seemed that you misused a quote to make it appear the Catholic Church agreed with your conclusion, but since you now are at least seeming to say that the quote you alluded to did not actually support your conclusion, then I'm glad we have cleared that up.Quote:
Only you EVER mentioned the "primary mission" of the Bible. How many times do you have to be called out on this before you finally stop your misquoting?
Again, your very clear quote. "Yet you persisted in calling it the "primary mission of the Catholic Church". But if you are now admitting that I never suggested that, then that's fine with me. I'm glad it's been cleared up. If you can show a quote where I suggested you were claiming that to be true, then we can clear that up as well.Quote:
Good grief. You have it backwards (surprise, surprise) - Let me try once more - I did NOT suggest you called it a primary mission of the Catholic Church. I wrote that you said I said that.
" But if I did suggest it, I'm sure you'll post the quote. I won't hold my breath." Still waiting and not holding my breath.
I'd suggest you take a deep breath and calm down a little.
Dear God! You omitted the key phrase - "in relation to your oft-repeated position re taxation and the poor". That's the whole point of this ridiculous exchange. You cannot or will not see it.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
As for the rest, it is simply more of the same. You want me to reply so you can continue your feeding frenzy.
Didn't take a deep breath and calm down did you? At any rate, it was about your view of the primary message of the Bible. Very simple.Quote:
Dear God! You omitted the key phrase - "in relation to your oft-repeated position re taxation and the poor". That's the whole point of this ridiculous exchange. You cannot or will not see it.
No one has asked you to reply. Strictly up to you. I actually much prefer that you don't since we are completely unable to arrive at any agreement.Quote:
As for the rest, it is simply more of the same. You want me to reply so you can continue your feeding frenzy.
So simple, you can't recognize your own words.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You'd die without my replies. You need replies - your lifeblood.Quote:
No one has asked you to reply. Strictly up to you.
If you'll remember, you blocked me for several months. I lived right on, very happy. It's actually a relief to be spared talking with someone so obstinately wrong and unwilling to admit to it. If you really feel I "need" your replies, then stop supplying them and let's see what happens.Quote:
You'd die without my replies.
I still have you on "ignore". Nothing has changed. It's just that I watch your posts on occasion. Time to put you back in your cage.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You confuse being wrong with disagreement. It's a common trait of yours.Quote:
It's a relief to be spared talking with someone so obstinately wrong
Shall we begin with Jesus condemning unbelievers to hell for eternal punishment? I didn't think so. Or how about Jesus the same as the OT God who destroys entire tribes and even all mankind in a flood? That's how you started here.
What kind of a sociopath keeps a private torture chamber for its mistakes? That is your God. Welcome to the world of white evangelicals.
You believe in those things. I don't.
People like you would die on the vine without replies. Trolls tend to leave when ignored by others. I cannot cause others here to ignore you, even tho I'm not surprised when some do.Quote:
If you really feel I "need" your replies, then stop supplying them and let's see what happens.
You must watch my posts a dozen times a day considering how many replies you make. Jump off the train anytime you want.Quote:
I still have you on "ignore". Nothing has changed. It's just that I watch your posts on occasion. Time to put you back in your cage.
As to your other suggested topics, I'll be glad to discuss them anytime you want, even the plainly racist one that you love so much.
.Replying is your choice as is ignoring. Stop whining about it when you choose not to.Quote:
People like you would die on the vine without replies. Trolls tend to leave when ignored by others. I cannot cause others here to ignore you, even tho I'm not surprised when some do
No, more confusion on your part. Several replies by me are part of a SINGLE topic within a thread. One subject and its tangents. Go back and look so you don't make the same mistake twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I am rarely on your train. I will continue to keep you honest when you are at your most egregious.Quote:
Jump off the train anytime you want.
No problem. They should be discussed on the Religion board or the Christianity board.Quote:
As to your other suggested topics, I'll be glad to discuss them anytime you want,
I have no idea what you're talking about.Quote:
even the plainly racist one that you love so much.
I ask you both to consider this from James 4
Quote:
What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don’t they come from your desires that battle within you? You desire but do not have, so you kill. You covet but you cannot get what you want, so you quarrel and fight.
Nah. For me it's more of a proposition that speaking the truth is important.
I'll use a classic Bible quote "what is truth"
If you can't answer that, then you're in trouble. I say that tongue in cheek since I believe you know the answer, Clete.
Another classic Bible quote is John 17:17.
Whatever you believe it to be whether true or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
not so Tal
Of course it's so Clete or why would humans be fighting over the political correctness of one God?
Sorry, the two go hand in hand.Quote:
go back to your Bible class and leave the quotes there, that way we can move from a religious discussion to a political one
The State has to be subordinate to the individual. Your job as an individual is to embody the Social structure, but also to serve as it's eyes and its mouth.
Seems as if Politics wants a divorce? It is currently moving in that direction.
It is no longer "don't talk politics or religion"...but rather; "Don't talk religion".
That is certainly a valid observation. One might ask where we get our political ethics from if not from religion.Quote:
Seems as if Politics wants a divorce? It is currently moving in that direction.
It is no longer "don't talk politics or religion"...but rather; "Don't talk religion".
to say there is one God is not a matter of political correctness Tal, it is a matter of truth. There is no evidence to the contraryQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
What is the evidence FOR one God?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
(Saying there is no evidence to the contrary - that there is not one God - brings up that pesky proving a negative again. But don't go off on a tanget with that. Just deal with the first question - thank you).
I don't see evidence for more than oneQuote:
Originally Posted by Athos
There is certainly evidence for the one and only
get down off that high horse before you fall down
You were asked what is your evidence? Your answer is "There is certainly evidence...."Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Here's you chance to state the evidence.
Ok Athos, it is all set down in my book, Revival ~ a different perspective. Here's the short version, in 1978 I saw the face of the Lord in the face of another man, since that time I have had many experiences that confirm the existence of God
Good for you, but that's not evidence. Experience that can be checked and verified is evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
DNA is great scientific evidence for the existence of God.
C. S. Lewis said, “I believe in Christianity in the same way that I believe in the rising of the sun, not simply because I can see it, but because by it I can see everything else properly.”
@Athos, What do you hope to gain? The knowledge of the existence of GOD???
Look at the attitude of the first fellow on the Cross (the two men that were crucified with Christ), was essentially akin to many people’s response today: “If you get me out of my dilemma, I’ll believe in you. If you get me off this cross, I’ll become your follower. I have a problem, I have a dilemma, I have a felt need. Deal with my felt need, and I will follow you. Save yourself and save us.” That’s pretty routine. That’s normal. “What’s God ever done for me? He does something for me, I’ll do something for him. Why should I believe in him?
You most likely won't be getting any sign from God. Might try to step out in faith before demanding Evidence.
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is God's power to us who are being saved.
It does sound so foolish doesn't it...I know, I know, lets make God into a fetus and we will Crucify him,,,that's Got to be totally believable.
I'm saying that the Bible is totally unbelievable and sounds so foolish, you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried!
Carry on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Apparently, you have failed to read the original post by paraclete - #109. He brought up the question of evidence of God. I responded to it.
However, you rushed in and wrote several paragraphs not one of which provided any legitimate reply to the question being discussed. You certainly have enthusiasm but it goes nowhere when you fail to address the topic at hand.
It's also not helpful when you suggest I should "step out in faith before demanding Evidence". Are you always so quick to criticize? Then there is what appears to be your contradictory first paragraph - offering DNA as evidence (your statement by itself is not evidence) followed by CS Lewis offering the non-evidence of a metaphor.
The rest of your post is not relevant to the discussion of evidence so I will not discuss it further.
I encourage you to read these posts more carefully.
Carry on.
Evidence for God.
1. A universe which came into existence suddenly with no known natural cause.
2. Closely related, the fact that anything at all exists.
3. An instinctive moral code which exists in the mind of man.
4. The astonishingly intricate fine tuning of the universe for both existence and life. (This one by itself is compelling.)
5. The raising of Jesus from the dead.
6. The second law of thermodynamics.
7. The astonishingly intricate nature of even the smallest living organisms. (There are no "simple" life forms.)
8. Related to #4, the very fine tuning of the earth to allow the existence of life.
Dr. Robert Jastrow. “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
For someone who thrives on accusing others not knowing what evidence means, your post is remarkable for its glaring LACK of evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
None of your reasons are even remotely evidence. Numbers 1,2,4,7, and 8 are essentially the same, variously expressed.
More specifically:
The origin of the universe has long been known as resulting from the Big Bang.Quote:
1. A universe which came into existence suddenly with no known natural cause.
Not even close to evidence.Quote:
2. Closely related, the fact that anything at all exists.
Besides being untrue (morality is learned), an opinion is not evidence.Quote:
3. An instinctive moral code which exists in the mind of man.
Astonishingly non-evidential. Not a bit compelling for evidence.Quote:
4. The astonishingly intricate fine tuning of the universe for both existence and life. (This one by itself is compelling.)
Oh, please. Faith is the literal opposite of evidence.Quote:
5. The raising of Jesus from the dead.
So the universe is slowing down (entropy). Kindly explain how this is evidence for God. I'm listening.Quote:
6. The second law of thermodynamics.
Evidence? I don't think so. You make these non-sequiturs and call them evidence.Quote:
7. The astonishingly intricate nature of even the smallest living organisms. (There are no "simple" life forms.)
See #4. and #1, 2, and 7.Quote:
8. Related to #4, the very fine tuning of the earth to allow the existence of life.
Not only is none of this evidence, Dr. Jastrow is wrong and exhibits an odd lack of knowledge for a scientist in his own field. See what I bolded. If ever an oxymoron - spiritual forces described as a scientifically proven fact - this takes the cake.Quote:
Dr. Robert Jastrow. “Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. . . . That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.”
By the way, his first line is correct and is the opposite of your #1. Which is correct?
Completely absurd commentQuote:
Numbers 1,2,4,7, and 8 are essentially the same
For which there is no known natural cause. Absolutely, positively none.Quote:
The origin of the universe has long been known as resulting from the Big Bang.
Which is exactly the point. It is taught virtually everywhere with remarkable consistency. It clearly indicates a moral code imprinted on the heart and mind of man.Quote:
3. An instinctive moral code which exists in the mind of man.
Besides being untrue (morality is learned), an opinion is not evidence.
That's because you don't know the data. The force of gravity, for instance, is incredibly finely tuned to an astonishing level.Quote:
4. The astonishingly intricate fine tuning of the universe for both existence and life. (This one by itself is compelling.) Astonishingly non-evidential. Not a bit compelling for evidence.
The evidence for the resurrection is amazingly substantial.
Quote:
6. The second law of thermodynamics.
It means the universe had a start, which is to say a cause. As I said earlier, there is no known natural cause. BTW, to say the universe is "slowing down" is not accurate. The rate of expansion for the universe is actually believed to be increasing, not decreasing.Quote:
So the universe is slowing down (entropy). Kindly explain how this is evidence for God. I'm listening.
Quote:
7. The astonishingly intricate nature of even the smallest living organisms. (There are no "simple" life forms.)
Once again, your lack of knowledge displays itself. No one familiar with the complexity of even the most "simple" living organism would make such an absurd comment.Quote:
Evidence? I don't think so. You make these non-sequiturs and call them evidence.
Your comment about Dr. Jastrow, "exhibits an odd lack of knowledge for a scientist in his own field," is so funny that it's hard to describe it. He had a doctorate in theoretical physics from Columbia, established the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received the NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and was the director of the Mt. Wilson Observatory. So for you to question his knowledge is the absolute height of arrogance. I suppose you would say you stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night???
"(5) Cosmological constant(which controls the expansion speed of the universe) refers to the balance of the attractive force of gravity with a hypothesized repulsive force of space observable only at very large size scales. It must be very close to zero, that is, these two forces must be nearly perfectly balanced. To get the right balance, the cosmological constant must be fine-tuned to something like 1 part in 10120. If it were just slightly more positive, the universe would fly apart; slightly negative, and the universe would collapse.As with the cosmological constant, the ratios of the other constants must be fine-tuned relative to each other. Since the logically-possible range of strengths of some forces is potentially infinite, to get a handle on the precision of fine-tuning, theorists often think in terms of the range of force strengths, with gravity the weakest, and the strong nuclear force the strongest. The strong nuclear force is 1040 times stronger than gravity, that is, ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times the strength of gravity. Think of that range as represented by a ruler stretching across the entire observable universe, about 15 billion light years. If we increased the strength of gravity by just 1 part in 1034 of the range of force strengths (the equivalent of moving less than one inch on the universe-long ruler), the universe couldn’t have life sustaining planets."
https://www.discovery.org/a/fine-tuning-parameters/
https://www.everystudent.com/wires/is-god-real.htmlQuote:
DNA is great scientific evidence for the existence of God.
https://notashamedofthegospel.com/ap...hat%20DNA%20is.
This will change nothing. If God himself was to present you with all the evidence in the world (already in Effect) you still could not accept him....same as if God was to reveal himself to you...you will not accept it, you can not accept it. The evidence you seek is the new Creation that comes with being Born again. Die to self and believe in the living Word. It is the word of GOD that brought all things into being.
Why so much emphasis on the Word?
When people talk, they lay lines on each other, do a lot of role playing, sidestep, shilly-shally and engage in all manner of vagueness and innuendo. We do this and expect others to do it, yet at the same time we profess to long for the plain truth, for people to say what they mean, simple as that. Such hypocrisy is a human universal.
Matthew 12:37 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned."
Get into the Word of GOD and believe, speak, live...Speak the living word and bring the living God within yourself.
People went around healing others just by speaking the word of God, they didn't believe, or know the name, they simply spoke...Power in the word.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:37 AM. |