Search results

That is not accurate. You said: … which is NOT “asking for evidence”, rather it is a clear rejection of the possibility of both God and evidence of God.

"If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." - Romans 10:9-10 I like that it...

"If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved." - Romans 10:9-10

Really? We found the "cat" (God the Son, Jesus the Christ) and you claim "the room isn't there" (any "god" is unknowable and no more reality than a "winged rabbit" or a "dragon in your garage"). If you were willing to seek the room (a god) then you might find the cat (Jesus the Christ)...

Am I the only one that sees the irony of a man standing in a room full of people that claim to have already found the "black cat" and insisting that HE ALONE is correct that "the room" containing the black cat "isn't there!" so there is no black cat. Perhaps if you were less certain that there...

"I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus...

"God transcends space and time" I agree, however "transcend" means "to be prior to, beyond, and above (the universe or material existence)". That definition precludes material existence acting on or controlling "God" but it does not preclude "God" acting on or controlling material existence...

John 1:1 [MGNT] ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος Genesis 1:1 [LXX] ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν How many First Century, Greek speaking Jews would not be familiar with Genesis 1:1 from the Septuagint?

Does it not concern you that no translator (except the Jehovah's Witnesses) translated it that way. Jerome and the Vulgate even disagrees with your translation. Every other translation acknowledges the point John is making is "logos" = "ho theos" (Word = God) ... equality of the two. Setting...

When you set your enemies on fire (prior to God laying claim to you), one can be reasonable confident that one has advanced pretty far down the "WIDE ROAD" towards destruction ... one might say "sprinted ahead of the crowd". Thoughts of "Thank God I am not a sinner like that tax collector" is...

Like Christ. ;) (If you are really asking "What was Christ like?" then a Christian Forum is a great place to ask that question.) :cool:

So that would be “NO” you cannot prove the existence of DARK MATTER to the criteria that YOU demand for proving GOD. Perhaps your criteria for proof is flawed.

Like winged rabbits?

How large is your sample size?

Just for the record, I get the ads (too much bother to block) and right now I have an add for "Starfire Broken Fire Glass or Starfire Glass Reflective Diamonds" ... I think it is glass beads for inside those gas Eternal Flame fire pits. Nothing sinister.

non sequitur. The question was ... "Why did the SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION begin in Europe (Christian) rather than Asia (non-Christian) when Asia had every Darwinian advantage?" @Wrangler suggested that "Christianity" was the reason. I am still waiting for you to give an alternative reason that...

God is not an object. Even if we redefine the term "object" to include "God" ... Prove DARK MATTER EXISTS ... but you must do so using your criteria for "God": "Evidence that I will accept for DARK MATTER’s existence is obviously the existence of DARK MATTER as any other object." I await...

From the comments to the Article: know Smiths great grand daughter, you must remember the era that this occurred in was a puritan era. in those days when a man called on a woman and took her on a date he was expected to marry her. So what happened is he took a lady to dinner and didn’t marry...

... and this freedom existed nowhere in more populous Asia at this or any earlier time?

You actually ignored his point rather than refuted it. Why DID the Scientific Revolution begin in CHRISTIAN Europe rather than Buddhist or Confucist or Hindu Asia (which had a MUCH larger population and, by Darwinism, a greater opportunity for producing exceptional 'Scientific Thinkers')?