Here’s another interesting response to a comment of mine. The author ADMITS Microevolution, but no Macroevolution which is according to him (a fairy tale).
alexandru wrote, in response to Lucifer Ultionis:
“microevoluţia este un fapt dovedit, însă macroevoluţia este o poveste. Dacă scoţi cuvintele “probabil” şi “posibil” dispare şi macroevoluţia. Nu le uneşte rădăcina cuvântului “evoluţie”. Cine presupune că ar reieşi una din alta ,nu înţege pe deplin ce înseamnă microevoluţie.”
Here’s a good response from thunderfood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmUGJ3Jh7fc&feature=PlayList&p=82F655328995A187&index=18
Link to comment: http://www.moldovacrestina.net/predici/participa-la-concursul-persecu%c8%9biile-cre%c8%99tinilor-din-moldova/#comment-16947947
95 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Lucifer Ultionis 
Got a few thoughts for you to consider. In the “theory” of evolution there is great emphasis on natural selection as the way that nature blindly “chooses” the species that prevail and reproduce, leading to the idea of the strongest of the fittest. The weak genes die out and the stronger ones are passed on. Through mutations and chance species evolve into newer and better ones over millions of years. It is an interesting hypothesis yet there is not any evidence of this actually happening, just theory and “faith”. In the “scientific” method one of the key rules is that a hypothesis must be tested in the lab to be proven (no guessing or supposing). Since “scientists” cannot prove that macro evolution is taking place they have to assume a lot of things and just take it by faith. Now experiments have been tried with fruit flies in the lab to prove evolution. The problem is that this is not an example of natural selection. Intelligent design is taking place. Plus the outcome is limited to fruit flies. After several tries and generations of fruit flies the amazing thing is that they are still fruit flies. Mutations in genetics may lead to variation in species but not an entirely new species. Here is where tautology comes into play. Since the “evolutionists” cannot physically prove their arguments they begin to look at nature and assume things. The reason that this species is the way that it is, is because the strongest traits survived, since the strongest traits survive the species is the way that it is (circular reasoning). The basic argument is the organisms that leave the most offspring, leave the most offspring and that is how everything got here. This is not logical and it does not explain anything.
I have nothing against people wanting to learn the “theory” of evolution but having it forced and taught as if it is absolute truth is not right. The “holes” in the theory must also be presented and also the other side of the argument. That is how education is supposed to work. The current system is more like indoctrination or propaganda.
Erik, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
You say: “In the “theory” of evolution there is great emphasis on natural selection as the way that nature blindly “chooses” the species that prevail and reproduce, leading to the idea of the strongest of the fittest.”
So you don’t even want to recognize its status of a theory as I see 😀 … but “the Nature” doesn’t BLINDLY Choose as you say… it’s simply that the MICROEVOLUTIONS that take place in species that are not FIT for survival die out and… that’s IT!.
There nothing about ” the strongest of the fittest” it’s simply FIT or NOT Fit for survival.
“It is an interesting hypothesis yet there is not any evidence of this actually happening, just theory and “faith”.” No Erik, it’s you who have faith that God created everything. The Microevolution is based on FACTS and evidence, and there are also CASES of “speciefication” … when the same species evolved in two directions so far from each other that they were not able to breed anymore.
“Since “scientists” cannot prove that macro evolution is taking place they have to assume a lot of things and just take it by faith.” That is rubbish nonsense.
The Macroevolution is not a faith as you claim it, it’s a well grounded Hypothesis based on facts and other theories accepted within the academic community as THE most probable version of how spieces Evolve. Of course you are free to claim that All the species on earth were made by GOD at one instance of time. But think then that you’d have to explain the COMPLETE lack of evidence of any Cewawas for example in the prehistoric time.
“I have nothing against people wanting to learn the “theory” of evolution but having it forced and taught as if it is absolute truth is not right.” Nobody said it’s the Absolute TRUTH! Nobody claims anything is the absolute truth except for ultra-religious ppl like yourself when it comes down to God’s existence. And there, as a miracle, scientific proof is out of the question. Evolution is a Theory based on logical induction backed by scientific facts observed in laboratories and facts that we KNOW and not Believe! If you think that there are gaps, you’re more then welcome to go within the scientific community and present your hypothesis of God. But it is important that this hypothesis run the scrutiny of the brightest people on earth in that specific field before it is Accepted as a theory and THEN you can introduce it in the school curriculum. The system that you propose and that you incline to (where All abberant hypothesis must be presented no matter what) sounds more of the ” indoctrination or propaganda.” because people tend to believe what plausible is, and not what Reality is most likely to be.
You are partially correct. There is such a thing as macro-evolution which leads to variation within the species. Evolutionists take it one step further saying that these variations will produce new species. That does not happen and there is no proof of it. You just have to “believe” what the evolutionists hypothesize.
I knew that you would go to the “they cannot breed anymore”. In studies the altered generation (not through natural selection but intelligent design) cannot breed with the parent generation and that is considered a new species. That is not true, it is a genetically changed organism but it still remains in the same species. (big dogs and little dogs are still dogs). This “experiment” proves 2 things, there is variation in species and it was not done through natural selection. Let’s take dogs for example. There are dogs that are bred altering there genetics so that they are very different from other dogs, yet they are still dogs. When dogs that are bred in a sophisticated manner are released back to the wild the sophisticated breed dies out and the “genetic” change reverts back. So your Cewawa theory just went bye bye! There were dogs and the Cewawa is a variation of a dog.
I see you started using words like “probable” “accepted” theories. That is what I was waiting for. Here is the “faith” that I was talking about. In order to be an evolutionist there is a great need for “faith” (believing what you think may have happened).
You are proof that evolutionists “believe” that their theory is truth. If someone does not agree with you, you either call them stupid or get defensive. If someone mentions an alternative you start with the name calling and degrading remarks. Why do you get so hostile if you really believe your theory will stand some scrutiny? Also, not “all” scientists believe in macro evolution. It is not even unanimous among the scientific community. There is a minority that their grips on the whole community and they try to ostracize anyone who does not “believe” like them. They boycott any scientist (along with his works) if he does not believe like them. Again, indoctrination instead of healthy debate and reason. You are following the same pattern in the way that you write. You “believe” and are part of the evolutionists’ secularism religion (it is a world view just like Christianity).
I see you have a lot of anger toward God and religious people. I understand but that anger is not going to help you at all. You do not know much about me yet you make all of these accusations of how “stupid” I am and how I am such a “fanatic”. Again you do not know me so why all the hatred. I do not hate evolutionists or Satanists etc. I do hate the lie that is promoted by them because of all the destruction that it causes in the lives of others.
Another splendid comment of our well-educated Christians. (I’ll put a post on this)
Erik… let’s examine what you’re saying…
“I see you started using words like “probable” “accepted” theories. That is what I was waiting for. Here is the “faith” that I was talking about. In order to be an evolutionist there is a great need for “faith” ”
First of all… your accusation of A GREAT NEED FOR FAITH. That is bs. The acceptance or the rejection of a theory is made on Statistical inferences. THE Probability is part of Statistics. IN SCIENCE NOTHING is FOR SURE (unlike in Religion). A very circumspect individual will always say that the probability that when he has 2 apples and adds another 2 apples will result in having 4 apples is very likely to converge to 1 but he cannot say that reality is really so. However, saying that 2+2=4 does not imply that He HAS FAITH that This is so! It is simply A STATEMENT of WHAT HE KNOWS based on the current set of knowledge!
When making an inference about ANYTHING, there are 2 types of errors that you can make. Type A error – rejecting the null hypothesis when the Null hypothesis is correct and Type B error – NOT rejecting the Null hypothesis when the null is False.
Also, there are many methods of obtaining evidence to to support or reject a hypothesis. ONLY one of them is EMpirical Evidence! We have empirical evidence of Microevolution. What we could use is LOGIC and the GIVEN EVIDENCE that microevolution IN order to make Further INFERENCES. Mere Inferences based on LOGIC do NOT require empirical evidence to be true. Logic, just like math is a mature subject, unless you want to Argue that by Assumtption TRUE != True (!= – Does not equal)
Macroevolution is a LOGICAL inference. Just like you use logical inference to deduce out that if you had 1 billion apples and somebody would give you another billion then you would have 2 billion apples.
Now if we let Micro be 2+2, let 1bn +1bn be Macro
What you are saying is SIMPLY: OHHH!!! WE NEVER SAW 1 billion apples at a time! And nobody gave us another billion apples!!!! THEREFORE 1 bn + 1 bn !=2 bn BECAUSE We do NOT have Empirical Evidence! THERE IS A GAP of APPLES therefore it’s NOT TRUE! How do we know it’s TRUE???
Well… you know 1bn +1bn=2bn because this is what LOGICAL inference tells you and you would indeed have to be a complete idiot to spend resources and time to convince ourself that this is indeed so. In probability terms, the Type B error is simply infinitely small.
The example of the dogs that you back up as an ultimate defense against evolution is evidence of noisome logic and a cursory understanding of species adaptation. Putting a Chewawa in the wild and having it perished does not prove that evolution is wrong. It simply says that this type of modification of dog is not fit under the natural conditions you made it subject to. besides there are many examples of natural selection in the wild that under other natural environments they will not survive.
Take the Grizzly bear and put it on the polars and put the white polar bear in India let’s say… see what happens. You can Pray for them to survive, I’m sure it’ll help! 😀 Environment and a whole bunch of other factors (real factors, not imaginary) determines how species evolve and how fit or unfit they are to a specific environment and that does not disproof evolution it actually follows the logical pattern of evolution.
For your last paragraph…
Firstly I am not a satanist as you claim I am. (Sorry no BBQ of atheists for you 🙂 )
Secondly I am not angry at all and where did you get those inferences from? But I also don’t feel the need to be apologetic on someone’s boisterous attitude towards scientific methods when it comes to less revenue to the church.
You say “I do hate the lie that is promoted by them because of all the destruction that it causes in the lives of others.” Aaa,.. yeah! Let me guess.. .you are talking about the Dark ages and all the lies and destructions that it caused to the lives of innocent ppl. BINGO! 🙂
And here’s a related movie to this discussion… Enjoy! 🙂
Just a quick note. I will counter argue the other arguments later. As to the last jab that you threw in and I quote, “Let me guess.. .you are talking about the Dark ages and all the lies and destructions that it caused to the lives of innocent ppl. BINGO!”
Hitler was applying Darwin’s theory and its implication (survival of the fittest) when he wanted to wipe out the Jewish population (along with the blacks, etc.). How many people did he murder or have murdered? Is that the “Dark Age” that you were referring to? Or should we mention the atheists? You know Lenin and Stalin to name a few. Atheists and evolutionists have strikingly similar world views. How many did they murder just in the 20th century?
Erik… now you don’t want me to expect that you really believe what you’re saying.
When somebody THINKS he is better than others, this is NOT evolution. Hitler thought he was better because he though he comes from Aerians… It has nothing to do with evolution! It has more to do with christianity rather than atheism. Why Christianity? because both: Hitler and your God wanted to make a pure rase of ppl, resulting in Hitler killing thousands of innocent Jewish ppl and God drowning the 2 cities because there were many gay ppl living there.
Evolution showed that Hitler was actually on the non-fit side. You are simply not willing to understand the essence of evolution. The fittest does not imply the survival of th physically strongest but rather the species with the qualities necessary to survive in a specific environment: generosity, willingness to cooperate and COGNITIVE abilities play by far a much more important qualities nowadays withing the human beings for survival.
Hitler was applying “the stronger will dominate and wipe out the weaker”. That is right out of Darwin’s theory. Atheists and evolutionists do not like the accusation and they will dance in circles screaming to try and take attention away from the obvious. You are doing it now by trying to spin and shift the focus on something other than the obvious (that is why you brought up God and Christianity) Richard Dawkins (I am sure you are a huge fan of his) did the same thing one tv one night. He was posed the same question about Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin and instead of answering he came back with a question, “Hitler and Stalin had mustaches, so is everyone with a mustache a serial murderer?” Spin, spin, spin (btw, he looked like a fool even though he was very smug in his speech, using many of the tired phrases that you use). Please answer this one and do not jump to the next one to try and keep me on the defensive.
As far as Sodom and Gomorrah, you need to read up on what the Bible says about the homosexuals there (how they acted and what they were doing, how they were influencing society to its detriment)
Evolution argues that the one who produces the most offspring (must have the better traits to be able to reproduce so much) has a better chance of species’ survival. The species that survive are the fittest. At its core it is circular reasoning.
Cred ca din cauza ca Hitler era ateu scria pe insemnele naziste Gott mit uns (Dumnezeu e cu noi). 🙂 Asa-i Brewer? 😉
By the way, you do know that Polar bears and Grizzly bears are still bears, right? Variation in species (micro) yet they are still in the same species. Africans and Europeans are still human even though there is much variation in the species. (just had to point that out)
Erik, just like Chewawa is a species of Dogs (in your example) but does not survive in the wild. I was talking about the SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENT FOR Survival that determines THE Way or the Path for evolution. I did not say that the grizzly and the polar bear are to different species.
You;re encouraged to use your brains before you post something … (just had to point that out too)
more smug comments from you (were you picked on as a child?)
anyway, the environment plays a role in the variation of species but the species is still the same (big dogs and little dogs, etc)
Also, you admitted that you do not have proof of macro evolution and it is deduced (may I add, assumed/implied) yet not provable. Once again we have the “take my word on it or if you like, just believe us. The religion of the secular humanists strikes again!
Here’s proof of evolution of new spieces …
Once again, please do not take down to me as if I am not educated (educated people understand respect). You language is a bit degrading. I do not know if it is because of your pride or the fact that you are not very self-confident (it has to be one or the other). Smug remarks are not necessary.
“Smug remarks are not necessary.” The same can be addressed to your comments as well, dear Erik. 🙂
“Once again, please do not take down to me as if I am not educated” , well.. I am sorry Erik to have hurt your feelings of pride for having 3 educations.
by the way.. what kind of educations do you have?
where did you get your PhD-s from?
It has nothing to do with pride (the fact that I asked you to have some respect, cei 7 de acasa, sper ca-i ai). How have I talked down to you in any way? How have I been smug with you? I have shown nothing but respect event though I disagree with you. There is a saying, “you can disagree without being disagreeable”.
Erik. if due to the environmet one species diversifies in 2 directions then over a couple of some mln of years, due to the chain of microevolutions you will get macroevolution in the sense that they will no longer be able to breed.
look at the last movie i gave you… they show clear evidence.
that is just a hypotheses, there is no actual proof of it. Deductive reasoning is not “hard core” proof, concrete evidence which natural science demands. We are back to the “just believe us” that must be the way it is.
Erik… it’s totally OK to express your outrageousness when somebody asserts that “science is Evil” 🙂 It’s alarming that there are more and more “friends of jesus” saying that!
And in this case, I cannot disagree in a “yes… but u know…” fashion.
I never said science was evil. The religious cult of evolutionists (the secular humanistic worldview, progressiveness, atheism, etc) Please stop trying to spin what I write. Science is neutral but the misinterpretation of scientific evidence by pseudoscientists (evolutionists) is evil because it is more of the promotion of a worldview than the promotion of science. Admit it, you are a “believer” and you will defend your faith with vengeance.
of ocurse you would like to hear that some ppl simply assume there is “macroevolution”. Sorry Erik, this is not the case for 1 year already… the empirical evidence is overwhelming in favor ofmacroevolution even for the ultra skeptics. Besides the species evolve as you would expect them to evolve if evolution is true.
Please look at the movie I put as a reply.
Ateu cu tupeu
stai putin, nu am scris ca Hitler era atu ci am scris ca a aplicat principile lui Darwin “survival of the fittest”.
Apropo, Satan lucreaza cu inselaciune la orice pas si daca te poate convinge ca este de la Dzeu sa te insele sigur ca va folosi metoda aceasta.
You are trying to latch on to what you think that I said and then make your point instead of reading what I actually wrote and counter arguing. That is a evil tactic that people without principles use. Please do not go down that road. I am not saying that you do not have principles but you are using deceptive methods and that is not right.
A, deci Hitler nu era ateist? Ce bine, Brewer. You are making a lot of progress! Any chance he was a christian? 🙂
Cat despre aplicarea principiilor lui Darwin, did he publicly subscribe to these principles? Sau afirmatia ta se bazeaza pe propriile tale observatii, evreul cel mai fittest supravietuieste unui glont in cap. 🙂
PS the last 2 para had absolutely no added value, why don’t you just stop giving us smart comments about our “evil tactics and deceptive methods”, we are all grown ups here.
PSS lucifer, mersi pentru corectarea greselilor ortografice. 🙂
You’re Welcome 😀
Erik… I think we were very clear on the point of “survival of the fittest” in interpreting evolution. You have 2 options: you come up with new ideas to refute my counter-arguments or … or you can throw the bible away and start living without the idea of having 72 virgins after death. 🙂
you totally evaded my argument and did not write anything to refute it. It seems that you can only repeat the same tired stuff over and over again without actually thinking through what I have written. Un papagal poate sa faca la fel prin repetare.
Erik, I can write the same for you: It seems that you can only repeat the same tired stuff over and over again without actually thinking through what I have written. 🙂
Maybe you dare and explain where exactly in the movie you did not agree with?
Should I embed it in the comments again?
If you insist then I will (but it is trying to add a spin on the same old logic) Sa zicem de geaba? Cred ca da! Dar mai tarziu ca acuma plec sa predau Cuvantul lui Dzeu la oameni, sa-i invat a face ucenici prin metoda practica. Pot sa va folosi pe voi ca exemplu? Imi dati multe exemple bune pentru oameni sa creada in Dzeu, mersi!!!
the Bible teaches nothing about 72 virgins after death, you seem to be just as confused about God as you do about science. Since you refuse to bring up the fossil evidence I will do it for you. The fossil records also point to variation in species (micro) but nothing about macro. Living fossils are a prime example of this. They have supposedly had “millions” of years to evolve yet the living organism is not much different than the “million” year old fossil. Please go to the counter argument of “their environment did not challenge them to change” I am waiting for that one.
Erik…I was joking! 🙂 I know the bible doesn’t TEACH you about 72 virgins after you decompose in the earth… it does though for the muslims! You both believe in the same God, don’t you?
But, had it been written in the bible, you would have believe it , wouldn’t you???? 🙂
I think it’s quite unfair that you will not get 72 virgins as your colleagues muslims will 😀 , don’t u think? maybe you rethink of converting to being a muslim… think about it 😀
Wow,
More proof that you are confused about God. The muslims believe in a god (one that they invented). I believe in the One True God who has revealed Himself both in the Bible and in nature (as well as in my changed life, He is very powerful).
I know your next argument but I will wait until you write it first (probably something about Christians making up their own God too, I told you that I have had dealings with many like you).
So according to your opinion, not only I am confused about God, but everyone else as well.
Let me remind you that there are 9900 religions out there in the world according to the Christian Encyclopedia. But of course Erik… it’s YOUR religion that is the Right one 🙂
Erik, when you feel that YOU know what my argument will be then feel free to post it 🙂
Why don’t you try to prove that all those 9899 religions are wrong and only YOUR faith is the right one 🙂
Ateu cu tupeu
I have heard this lame argument before (can you guys come up with anything new?). Hitler may have used some Christian symbols but that does not make him a christian. He also used pagan symbols so which is it, Christian or pagan. Study up before you start trying to deceive others because if you do not then you just end up deceiving yourself.
I am trying to show you how to improve yourself. Working with deception (latching on to words without context and then trying to make your argument is bad logic) If you do not want to improve yourself in life then that is your choice. Do not shoot the messenger because you do not like the message.
BTW, if I call myself a dog and walk on all fours. barking, does that make me a dog? Again, think through your arguments.
This is for you Erik,
Do not even get me started on Dawkins. His agenda is to destroy the Christian faith no matter what the evidence for it is. He has the end already set up and he tries to interpret the data to come to “his” conclusion. If he did not have such an agenda already set against Christianity then we might could talk. Find someone who is less biased, please!!!
Erik, just because you do not liked the argument when you heard it for the for the first time, it doesn’t make it less valid. 🙂 Grow up Erik, we are not competing here for the prize “Mr Original”, we are having an argument.
Come on, everybody knows you 1) don’t want to answer the Q about Hitler subscribing to darwinism and 2) you don’t want to hear the argument about him being a christian. It drives you crazy, admit it.
Open your eyes, Erik, and read what Hitler himself said ontopic:
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people…. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922
And you know that it is not about barking we are talking here, but about killing millions of people. If you wanted to say that killing millions does not yet makes one a christian, well… may be you are the one to think about your arguments? 😉
Apropo, din ce secta faci parte? 🙂
Amazing comment! 🙂
thanks. Asta e pentru distractia noastra. Fanaticul Brewer oricum o sa incerce sa evite intrebarile, si sa aplice metode crestine de intimidare verbala, gen, da-mi ceva mai nou, improve yourself, read the bible si alte cacaturi demagogice de-ale lor.
You are telling me to grow up, wow, since you are the one doing all the name calling and using the first grade tactics of arguing (you remember, latching on to words and then spinning what I actually said or leading into your own argument instead of trying to refute what I actually wrote). If you do not want to “learn” then again, that is your choice.
Again, Hitler said a lot of things that were lies during his reign of terror as he practiced speeding up Darwinism by wiping out the less fit races.
Hitler was the king of propaganda. In fact, he is the one who said that if you tell a lie loud enough and long enough then people will start believing it.
Hitler also spoke out against homosexuality on one side of his mouth yet embraced it with the other side. That is just one example. He had to look like a Christian since he was dealing deception in a Christian nation (any first grader knows that concept).
Sunt crestin nascut din nou (asa cum este scris in Biblia) care traiesc dupa Biblia. Biblia ma numeste ucenic al Domnului Isus, copilul lui Dzeu, sau crestin.
“He had to look like a Christian since he was dealing deception in a Christian nation ”
Deci, el arata ca un crestin cand incita la ura impotriva evreilor. Exceelenta idee, Brewer. Si asta, trebuie sa inteleg, ii facea pe crestinii deceptionati sa se simta bine. 🙂 Cand mai ai idei din astea, nu te rusina sa le aduci la cunostinta publicului.
Cu ideile darviniste ale lui hitler vad ca ne-am lamurit, nu ai nici un argument care sa demonstreze ca anume din dragoste pentru teoria lui Darwin a exterminat Hitler evreii, si nu din cauza ca era un psihopat care citise prea mult biblia.
Exact ca tine, numai ca tu esti un mic ratat cu un blog mort pe care nimeni nu se oboseste macar sa comenteze.
BTW, I would love to see you in your fours, barking. 🙂 That would be quite an entertainment!
And yes, someone who walks like a dog, barks like a dog and calls himself a dog, IS a dog.
I am sure that you would. Barking like a dog and walking like a dog does not make one a dog. People can do it yet strangely they remain people.
Sa spui ca un caine este un caine dupa actiunile lui nu este rau, ci este drept (c) Erik Brewer.
Luci,
I do not have to prove the other religions wrong just the One that is right!!! People who look for false money do not study all the different kinds of false money to be able to spot it. All that they have to do is study the real money so well that they can recognize the false. The same is true with religion, two religions that oppose each other cannot both be right (unless you buy into the lie of relativism). The one that is right cancels out the rest. You can follow one of the other religions but it is useless because being just a little bit wrong is still wrong.
Christianity according to the Bible is the only religion that has proof of God both from the Scriptures and nature. God has revealed Himself in the Scriptures and the way that He has revealed Himself can be seen in nature. No other religion comes anywhere close to even trying to explain the One true God.
Erik Brewer…. didn’t you say that you need to read the whole bible before you are allowed to have an opinion and draw a conclusion?
Well.. did you read all of the “bibles” of the rest of the 9899 religions left to be able to make that claim according to your own standards???
you wrote “idn’t you say that you need to read the whole bible before you are allowed to have an opinion and draw a conclusion”
Sorry but I never said that. You do need to read passages and chapters in their context (both immediate and cultural) and make an interpretation based on logic and principles of interpretation that are applied to any literature in the world. Just taking a passage and trying to make it say what you want it to say does not cut it. I know you guys are comfortable applying that method (you constantly do it with what I write) but it is not correct in any form of literature. Part of my superior studies is in the field of literature so I do know what I am writing about.
Once again you miss the point. I do not have to prove the rest of the religions wrong. All I have to do it prove one of them to be correct and the rest are negated. I know with a post modernist mindset it is hard for you to understand that principle but it has always been valid and will always be valid. Two contradicting things cannot both be correct (simple logic classes teach this).
The claim is not according to my own standards but according to evidence (as a man of science you should love evidence, corCrect?) God says things in His Word and they happen in the natural world. He speaks of people being born again and it actually happens. My life has been totally transformed. The way that I think and act are totally different just like the Bible says. I am a new person. The people who knew me before I became a Christian can testify (most of them are not Christians so there is no bias there). I once was a binge drinker of alcohol, a user of drugs, a slave to pornography, a liar, a cheat, a thief, the list could go on and on. But now I am not like that. All of those things have been put away and I have been transformed. I wanted to stop doing most of those things before I became a Christian but I could not. I tried and tried but I was a slave to them. God set me free from that through faith in Jesus Christ. Now I can and do say no to sin when tempted. I am still tempted by all of the old things that I once did but now I can say NO. That my friend is the essence of Christianity and no other religion can offer anything close to it. The rest of the religions depend on man doing something to please God and trying to stop being a sinner. This is exactly the things that the Bible teach and they happen in the natural world so we have statements and proof of them. My desire is to offer this freedom to anyone who understands it and wants to have it. I do not try to trick or deceive anyone. What you see is what you get. I would hope that you would have interest in studying the Scriptures with me because then you can see for yourself. But that is up to you.
OK Erik… thanks for confessing.
I’m really glad that the god of the bible and your belief in Jesus christ changed yourself.
In my opinion, your belief might be beneficial to you… based on what you have confessed.
However, religion in this case played the role of a psychological treatment, you could have ended up in jail, and then it would have been too late for you to find love in Jesus.
But you know Erik, the treatment that you had through Jesus, might not be beneficial for all humans. Maybe the same effect could have been achieved if you had taken Aripiprazole. Religion like Aripiprazole can have beneficial effects but ONLY to the people that NEED this treatment!
To the people that are good by nature and that achieved that through natural selection, religion can have negative consequences especially if administrated during early ages.
It is very beneficial to me and the same offer is for every single human being. Most psychological treatment does not cure people. That is why they stay in therapy for years and pay lots and lots of money. Why? Because it is man centered “healing” coming from man’s wisdom (which is like an infant compared to a mature adult when you compare man’s wisdom to God’s as revealed in the Bible). God offers total healing every time while psychological treatment may or may not help you (emphasis on the not part).
I have a friend who found the love of Jesus Christ in jail. In fact I have several friends like that. One was a car thief. The other was a drug seller. Another beat a man to death. All of them are new people now that they have come to know Jesus Christ. That is 100% out of 100%. Their “colleagues” in prison do not have anywhere near that success rate even though they went through psychological treatment.
I know for a fact that the change that took place in me because of Christ is offered to everyone. Most will not accept it unfortunately but that is a choice. I have seen hundreds if not thousands of lives transformed (all very different people with very different backgrounds) through the power of God in Jesus Christ.
All other religions, like psychology, offer man centered treatment and it fails (sooner or later) because psychology and false religions come from man’s wisdom which falls well short of God’s wisdom and power.
Not one person is good by nature. If you want proof then answer the following question. Do you have to teach a child to be selfish? What about to steal? What about to lie? What about to be disobedient or disrespectful? We are born with all of those traits. We have to learn to be selfless and not to steal, lie, etc. So is not anyone who is good by nature (as the Bible teaches).
Ateu cu tupeu
ai scris “Fanaticul Brewer”
Dupa ce criteria ma numesti fanatic? Pentru ca nu cred ca tine? Lasa te rog numirile pentru copiii la scoala primara.
Nu, pentru ca chiar esti un fanatic religios. 🙂 Un extremist si un demagog.
Ce dovada ai pentru acuzile tale? Ai doar cuvintele goale ca de obicei. Sunt un om obisnuit. Sunt crestin nascut din nou si aceasta este ceva normal in zilele noastre (sunt multi ca mine). Cred in Dzeu si in Biblia data noua de el (multi altii cred asa). Poate tu esti in minoritatea (sunt sigur ca esti) dar daca te simti mai bine ma numand fanatic (si alte numirele) poftim, asa fac si copiii.
Erik… I think many people think you’re a quasi religious fanatic. This is what we call a very fundamentalist christian who is not Tolerant to other Gods, who thinks only his religion it THE Right one (as you claimed), who thinks that every scientific discoveries that undermine the book of his belief are EVIL, who does not condemn the killings of innocent people ordered by his deity and who calls the plans of gay people Diabolical.
Now you tell me, don’t you subscribe yourself to all the above characteristics?
How can you be “tolerant” to other gods when they are a figment of man’s imagination. The gods of the other religions are so much like man, the way man thinks and acts and justifies his actions. The God of the Bible is so different from man. He sets the standard for man to follow. Again we are back to looking at the evidence and making rational decisions. I am doing that. True science does not undermine the Bible in fact true science proves what the Bible has been saying all along. Gay people’s plans are diabolical. Something that brings death and destruction upon all of society is diabolical. The innocent suffer. It is funny how you want to protect the innocent when it seems (notice the word seems) to contradict God yet when the innocent suffer because of your precious gay lifestyle then the support seems to shift from the innocent. Make up your mind once and for all.
As far as the incident in the Bible goes, once again read the context. The rule of context is that context rules! Memorize that phrase and apply it. The people who were attacked were not innocent. Plus God had given them ample opportunity to repent and turn away from evil which was causing the innocent people to suffer. They did not repent and they shook their fist in the face of God so they paid the price for it. Immoral people do the same thing today and they are paying the price with AIDS and many, many other STD’s. The Bible says that God is not mocked, whatever a man sows so he will also reap. If you sow to the flesh (immorality) then you reap the consequences. I will say it again, study the facts before you make your accusations.
“How can you be “tolerant” to other gods when they are a figment of man’s imagination. ”
😀 😀 😀
Once again you are latching on to part of the argument without considering the entire context. Do you even realize that you do this? I explained “why” very clearly. If English is difficult then I will translate so that you can understand the entire view.
Erik, daca tu crezi ca noi iti citim comentariile facand notite pe margini si incercand sa patrundem in lumea ta… well. 🙂 Te iei prea in serios.
I am looking for people who know how to make a clear point and counter argue. If you are looking for a joke then communicate with someone else.
I point out your fallacies and it upsets you so you try to turn it around against me (that is a classic move when you cannot win an argument using the facts).
Ma bucur ca esti afectat.
Apropo, ai probleme cu notiounile. Astea nu sunt acuze, si respectiv, nu trebuie dovedite. Este o opinie, la care am drept potrivit Constitutiei tarii mele.
Opinia mea este ca tu esti un fanatic religios, un homofob, un demagog si un extremist clasic.
Daca nu-ti place – ai si tu dreptul sa inchizi acest browser.
Ateu cu tupeu
ai scris “Sa spui ca un caine este un caine dupa actiunile lui nu este rau, ci este drept (c) Erik Brewer.”
Mai omule, daca nu vrei sa fii serios inchidem discutia. N-am timp sa pierd batandu-ma in vant.
Un om care are organismul de om dar vrea sa zica ca e un caine din cauza ca se poarta ca un caine nu este un caine. Cred ca esti o leaca mai inteligent, nu-i asa?
In coltul de sus este o cruciulita – feel free to press it. 🙂 Asta daca ai obosit si ai terminat argumentele (de fapt, nici nu ai adus vreo unul, asa ca puteai sa obosesti numai de procesul dactilografieirii)
Pentru clarificare – citatul iti apartine.
Si eu sunt de acord ca cineva care a fost crescut ca un caine, nu poate vorbi ci doar latra, mananca din treuca si umbla in patru labe este om doar sub aspect biologic.
Din punct de vedere social – este caine.
Dar asa cum tu esti puternic in materie de biologie, judecand dupa interpretarea teoriei evolutioniste, cu siguranta vei mai avea ceva de spus. Cred ca este inca o aberatie. 🙂
Nu te rusina, scrie.
We have fun. 🙂
Ateu cu tupeu
Purtea doar nume de crestin dar dupa faptele lui s-purtea ca ateu sau evolutionist. Apropo ce faci cu simbolile pagane care foloseau Hitler. Cum este, el era crestin sau pagan. Nu lua doar partea a argumentului ca iti convine tie doar. Erau 2 parti. Se vede ca lucrea prin inselaciune, odata ca un pagan alta data ca crestin. Argumentul tau din nou n-are rost.
Publicul vede cum tu incerci sa iei ceea ce zic eu si sa o intorci nedrept (it obvious to anyone with a brain). Deci daca vrei sa ramai asa poftim. Iti dau sfat pentru binele tau dar daca vrei sa-l renuti ai posibilitate.
Iarasi cu numirile, cand vei merge spre maturitate? Oameni maturi au lasat copilarie in ura si toate tacticiile ale copilariei. N-ar fi rau sa faci asa si tu!!!
Hitler a folosit metoda de a muri oameni mai slabi (zicea el) si a aplicat teorie lui Darwin in practica. Nu poti accepta realitate daca vrei. Este alegerea ta dar nu fi ca strutul care se baga capul in nisipi cand nu-i place ceea ce vede.
Eu ii consideri crestini pe cei, care zic ca sunt crestini. 93 la suta din populatia noastra zice ca-s crestini, asa da si statistica – 93% crestini. Cum se poarta ei, nu ne priveste. Asta e relatia lor cu popa, cu gizas, cu oricine vrei, si nu-i treaba mea. La fel, nu-i treaba mea ca Hitler a compromis crestinismul, inca odata.
Hitler a spus public ca e crestin. Tu ai zis mai sus ca mesajele lui idespre evrei au fost adresate crestinilor deceptionati, deci, aveau sens pentru ei.
Simbolurile pagane n-au nici o treaba aici. Este doar o modalitate de a ta de a cadea in 4 picioare. Faptele lui nu erau de ateu, nu stiu cum definesti tu faptele de ateu. Nici de evolutionisti, ei nu au sugerat niciodata nimanui sa omoare pe individul cel mai slab, (spre deosebire de VT, care propune omoratul cu pietre ca solutie la tot pasul) teoria evolutionista fiind despre legile naturale, nu cele sociale. Darwin a fost biolog, nu sociolog sau politolog. Darwin vb de supravietuirea SPECIEI biologice, nu despre cea a individului. Darwin spune ca pentru a supravietui aceasta SPECIE se adapteaza. Genele cele mai puternice perpetueaza. Masculii cei mai puternici au mai multe sanse sa transmita genele mai departe.
Numai un personaj tendentios ca tine poate sa amestece biologia cu legile ei si totalitarismul, nascut in mintea bolnava a unui crestin. Esti un ignorant. Asta nu e insulta sau etichetare, ci constatare.
Asta este realitatea. Eu nu am ce sa accept sau sa nu accept, nu ma rog la Darwin si nu dorm cu cartile lui pe noptiera. Cred `ca problema acceptarii anume in cazul tau se pune. Intradevar, ti-ar fi greu sa recunosti ca Hitler s-a inspirat din biblie in atrocitatile lui.
Mi-ai promis deja de vreo trei ori in aceasta pagina, ca daca vreau sa raman asa cum sunt, tu n-o sa ma mai obosesti cu “sfaturi pentru binele meu”. Te-as ruga insistent sa te tii de cuvant.
Hitler nu a compromis crestinismul pentru ca nu era crestin. Hitler a spus multe lucruri in public care nu erau corecte si nu le credea (asa functioneaza propaganda). Daca vrei sa vorbesti de bisericii din Germania de atunci sa stii ca liberalism a fost introdus in bisericii si membrii au inceput sa creada mai mult in liberalism in loc sa creada in Biblia. Moralitatea s-a scazut foarte jos si in bisericii pentru ca oameni nu mai invateau Biblia. Cand Hitler a inceput sa insele pe toata tara, crestini departati de Biblia au inceput sa fie inselati. Studiaza o leaca istoria sa stii cum si de ce lucruri au mers asa cum au mers. Apropo, cand nu esti crestin scofundat in Cuvantul lui Dzeu vei avea ura fata de evrei. De ce? Pentru ca ei sunt dovada vie ca exista Dzeu. Daca nu ar mai exista evrei nu ar mai exista si Dzeu. Dar cu cat timp raman evrei pe pamant Satan si oameni lui (cei ce nu sunt crestini nascuti din nou) vor avea ura fata de ei (evrei). Hitler avea si prin toata istoria omenirii se vede ura fata de evrei.
Deci vrei sa folosesti pe simbolurile crestine impotriva crestinilor dar nu vrei sa folosesti simbolurile pagane impotriva paganilor. Ai o logica complicata. Cred ca este complicata si pentru tine.
Ce fel de valori bune au atei care nu au luat de la Dzeu (valorile bune sunt scrise in Biblia).
De ce se aplica pedeapsa capitala in VT? Oare tu stii? Raul se respandeste daca nu este oprit pe loc si oameni nevinovati vor avea de suferit. Dzeu ia partea nevinovatilor tot timpul.
You are still avoiding the whole “survival of the fittest” thing. Opa, iarasi cu acuzatile “mintea bolnava”. Ai dovada de asta sau din nou cuvintele goale ale tale ca de obicei.
Din nou, am invatat teorie de evolutie la universitate seculara. Stiu ce inseamna si cum merge procesul.
Mie mila de tine pentru ca nu intelegi ce inseamna propaganda. Hitler lucrea bine cu propaganda si oameni ca tine l-au crezut.
Ok, arata la tot lipsa de educatie si ca nu vrei sa te perfectionezi.
1) Hitler s-a declarat crestin. S-a autoidentificat ca crestin. Asta este UN FAPT. Credea el sau nu credea, asta sunt niste presupuneri, care nu pot fi demonstrate.
2) Pe insemnele naziste scria Gott mit uns. Asta este deasemenea UN FAPT. Nu stiu la ce simboluri pagane te referi tu, si ce treaba au paganii cu discutia noastra. Daca vrei sa gasim un pagan care crede in Afrodita, si sa-i spunem ca-i fascist, just let me know. 🙂
3) Teoria evolutiei lui Darvin tine de domeniul biologiei, iar principiul survive the fittest se aplica , in wild. UN FAPT. De unde s-a inspirat Hitler- el zice ca din biblie. And this is again evidence based. Tu zici ca din Darwin. dar asta este o perceptie halucinanta de a ta, pe care iarasi nu o poti demonstra.
In fine: Nu trebuie sa-ti fie mila de mine: ai grija de propriile tale probleme. Si tine-ti promisiunea: nu te obosi sa-mi dai povete. Stii doar ca nu esti o autoritate pentru mine si ca te consider un fanatic religios, un homofob, si un demagog. 🙂
“Hitler a folosit metoda de a muri oameni mai slabi (zicea el) si a aplicat teorie lui Darwin in practica ”
😀
Wow… Applied the Darwinian theory in Practice 🙂 hehehe NICE!
that is right, survival of the fittest, the stronger do what it takes to outlive the weaker (at any cost might I add, like Hitler did)
Conclusion: Hitler lived in the wild. Hitler was a biologic species. The biologic species “Hitler” was fitter then the specie “jews”.
That is Darwinism according to Brewer. 🙂
Ateu cu tupeu
Poti scri ce vrei dar nu inseamna ca este corect. Constitutia nu-ti da dreptate sa acuzi nedrept pe altii (a defaima nu este o dreptate). Drepturile omului termina cand calca pe altii. Mai mergi la scoala din nou ca ai scapat invataturile primare prima data.
Cu numirile faci acuzatii nedrepte chiar daca este opinia ta. Nu am nimic impotriva homosexualilor ca oameni. Nu sunt de accord cu stilul lor de viata pentru ca distruge si viata lor si viata altora. Oameni innocenti au de platit din cauza stilul de viata al homosexualilor si aceasta nu este bine. Am dreptul sa ma protejez si pe mine si pe familia mea si dreptul acesta eu pun in practica.
Fanaticii religiosi fac la fel de mult rau. Si eu vreau sa ma protejez de ei.
Eu nu fac acuzatii, ci judecati de valoare. Ai o mare problema cu notiunile.
Apropo, de numir, cand moldova crestina foloseste notiuni ca imorali sau depravati, nu te deranjeaza? De ce nu te duci sa le spui sa nu eticheteze ca in clasele primare?
You really know how to spin things. Again, you guys are the same. You argue the same way using the same deceptive measures.
Ce fel de valori am eu? Promovez un stil de viata care face binele omului. Cum aceasta este rau. Incerc sa opresc pe cei ce distrug. Cum aceasta este rau?
Imorali sunt imorali. Ei dovedesc aceasta prin actiunele lor. If the name fits then you must wear it. Si asa este scris in Biblia. Dar homofob fanatic nu sunt folosite despre crestini.
Iar fanaticii – fanatici.
Si ei dovedesc asta prin actiunile lor. Tu esti un fanatic, brewer. You must wear this name, it fits you. 🙂
Ateu cu tupeu
Hitler applied the principles if you do not like it too bad.
Ateu cu tupeu
Again, what makes one a fanatic.
Cunosc oameni care sunt si ei in secte, dar nu-i percep ca fanatici. Au avut probleme cu drogurile in trecutr, ca si tine. Dar ei isi cauta de treaba: merg la biserica, nu se apuca sa judece pe homosexuali, sau pe atei, ori sa-i invete cum sa traiasca si in ce sa creada.
Nu simt nicio amenintare sau pericol din partea lor. Ei au viata lor, eu o am pe a mea, si toate bune.
Tu arati ca un fanatic din cauza discursului homofob in spatiul virtual.
Nu sunt sectant ci sunt crestin nascut din nou asa cum este scris in Biblia. Nu prea conteaza cum ma numesti ci conteaza cum ma numeste Dzeu si El ma numeste copilul Lui, ucenic, crestin.
Eu nu judec pe homosexuali ci spun realitate. Dzeu este si Judecatorul lor. Eu doar zic asa cum este ce se intimpla daca traiesti stilul lor de viata. Din nou, nu am ura fata de homosexuali ci am ura fata de stilul lor de viata care distruge viata nevinovatilor.
Vorbesc cu homosexuali reali si vreau sa-i ajut si asa fac eu. Sa lepede de viata distrugatoarea a homosexualitatii. Tu nu ma cunosti si n-ai dreptate sa ma acuzezi asa daca nu ma cunosti. A nu fi de accord cu stilul de viata a homosexualilor nu te face un homofob. Tara libera ne da dreptate sa nu fim de accord cu ceva, nu-i asa? Sau arati lipsa de toleranta?
Ai inceput deja sa te justifici referitor la homofobie? Cine se scuza, se acuza. Ba da, esti un sectant, si un homofob, Brewer. Cum te numeste Dzeu in delirul tau este irelevant si nu te face altceva decat ceea ce esti. Ma rog, ai putea fi schisofrenic, at a second thought.
Referitor la toleranta: fiecare este liber sa creada ce vrea. Tu crezi ce vrei despre homosexuali, eu cred ce vreau despre tine (ca esti fanatic si homofob).
Ateu
Hitler a spus foarte mult dar conteaza stilul lui de viata, actiunile zilnice. El era un ucigas. Un crestin adevarat nu este un ucigas (poate a fost inainte de a deveni crestin dar s-a schibat totul)
Vedem prin actiunile lui ca nu credea. Un om care crede si este crestin adevarat este ascultator de Dzeu. Hitler a lucrat impotiva lui Dzeu. Aceasta este realitate care nu vrei sa o accepti.
Multi oameni rai au chemat pe Dzeu sa justifice actiunile lor rele. Nu inseamna ca ei sunt de la Dzeu sau cred in Dzeu. Fii mai intelept (do we need to return to the dog example again?)
Iti recomed o cartea buna care arata pe Hitler si planurile lui diabolice. “The Pink Swastika” Este scris in limba engleza si tradus in limba rusa.
Se vede ca Hitler a aplicat teorie lui Darwin. El a vrut sa ajute pe natura (to speed up the process). Hitler avea ura fata de evrei si de altii care nu erau ariani si el a vrut sa cauzeze pe ariani sa domineze pe toti. Bineinteles ca credea in survival of the fittest si credea ca arieni erau cei mai buni si daca natura este lasata sa lucreze arieni vor fi the fittest. Nu a vrut sa astepte si a incercat sa fie un ajutor naturiei.
Nici nu vreau sa fiu o autoritate pentru tine. Dzeu este autoritate. Nu sunt fanatic cum crezi/spui tu. Sunt un om obisnuit care cred in Dzeu si traiesc dupa standatele Lui din Biblia. Nu sunt homofob. Nu am ura fata de homosexuali. Am prieteni care sunt fosti homosexuali si unii care chiar la moment homosexuali. Deci argumentul tau nu are rost.
Daca ne luam dupa stilul de viata, nici 1% din cei 93% statistice nu ar putea fi considerati crestini. Daca zicem ca hitler nu a fost crestin, hai atunci sa spunem ca nu sunt crestini nici o buuuna parte din cei 93%. Tu pur si simplu aplici standarde duble, daca iti convine judeci dupa actiuni, daca nu dupa cifre. 🙂 De unde stii ca Hitler nu s-a pocait inainte de a se impusca? Si nu a devenit un bun crestin, exact ca tine, care ai baut, te-ai drogat, etc. ?
Despre Darwin am spus deja, nu ma mai repet.
Si auzi… lasa acest patronising style: fii mai intelept, citeste biblia, etc. 🙂 Devii ridicol. Eu inteleg ca voi nu puteti scapa de pacatul masturbarii pe moldovacrestina (articolul cel mai citit si comentat) dar nici chiar asa. 🙂
ai scris “Daca ne luam dupa stilul de viata, nici 1% din cei 93% statistice nu ar putea fi considerati crestini”
You are now on the path to understanding my friend. Read the following verses and you will see that they Bible has been saying this all along.
Matthew 7:13-21 13 Intraţi pe poarta cea strîmtă. Căci largă este poarta, lată este calea care duce la pierzare, şi mulţi sînt ceice intră pe ea. 14 Dar strîmtă este poarta, îngustă este calea care duce la viaţă, şi puţini sînt ceice o află. 15 Păziţi-vă de prooroci mincinoşi. Ei vin la voi îmbrăcaţi în haine de oi, dar pe dinlăuntru sînt nişte lupi răpitori. 16 ‘i veţi cunoaşte după roadele lor. Culeg oamenii struguri din spini, sau smochine din mărăcini? 17 Tot aşa, orice pom bun face roade bune, dar pomul rău face roade rele. 18 Pomul bun nu poate face roade rele, nici pomul rău nu poate face roade bune. 19 Orice pom, care nu face roade bune, este tăiat şi aruncat în foc. 20 Aşa că după roadele lor îi veţi cunoaşte. 21 Nu orişicine-Mi zice: ,,Doamne, Doamne!“ va intra în ‘mpărăţia cerurilor, ci celce face voia Tatălui Meu care este în ceruri.
There are only 2 paths to choose in this life. When Jesus mentions the broad path He is not speaking to pagans either, we already know that they are on that path. He is speaking to very religious people who say that they love God but their actions prove differently. God is not impressed with our religion. He wants our obedience to Him. That is the difference between religion and a relationship with God. Religion seeks to go through the motions and say the right things at the right time but obedience through lifestyle is not that important. A relationship with God is built upon obedience and love.
“I have a friend who found the love of Jesus Christ in jail. In fact I have several friends like that. One was a car thief. The other was a drug seller. Another beat a man to death. All of them are new people now that they have come to know Jesus Christ. ”
Am scris despre asta pe blogul meu. Am un amic care, ca un adevarat crestin, a plecat de la sotie la alta femeie, cu care avea relatii de vreun an. Se ducea la biserica, se ruga, studia biblia, dupa care se ducea la amanta sa faca sex. 🙂 Foarte crestineste. Vorbea insa exact ca tine, si il iubea pe gizas, si-mi dadea lectii de morala crestina.
De ce sunteti atat de ipocriti? 🙂
And by the way, it does’t stop him from beleiving he is a Christian, he loves Gizas, he goes to church, he prays and so on. He thinks he is moral, and I am not. 🙂
If Hitler is not a Christian for what he did, is this guy a Christian?
The Bible teaches that you will know a tree by its fruits. The fruits of Christianity are clear in the Bible.
Galatians 5:22-23 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control;
Galatians 5:22-23 22 Roada Duhului, dimpotrivă, este: dragostea, bucuria, pacea, îndelunga răbdare, bunătatea, facerea de bine, credincioşia, 23 blîndeţa, înfrînarea poftelor
This is in contrast with the deeds of sin or the flesh as the Bible says
Galatians 5:19-21 19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 19 Şi faptele firii pămînteşti sînt cunoscute, şi sînt acestea: preacurvia, curvia, necurăţia, desfrînarea, 20 închinarea la idoli, vrăjitoria, vrăjbile, certurile, zavistiile, mîniile, neînţelegerile, desbinările, certurile de partide, 21 pizmele, uciderile, beţiile, îmbuibările, şi alte lucruri asemănătoare cu acestea. Vă spun mai dinainte, cum am mai spus, că cei ce fac astfel de lucruri, nu vor moşteni ‘mpărăţia lui Dumnezeu.
Also in the area of divorce God has this to say
Malachi 2:16 “For I hate divorce,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the LORD of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”
Malachi 2:16 ,Căci Eu urăsc despărţirea în căsătorie, -zice Domnul, Dumnezeul lui Israel, -şi pe cel ce îşi acopere haina cu sîlnicie, -zice Domnul oştirilor. -De aceea, luaţi seama în mintea voastră, şi nu fiţi necredincioşi!“
Whom does it seem that this person you mentioned is following? Himself and his desires or the desires of God? Based on the evidence in black and white from the pages of the Bible.
As to being a hypocrite, you do not know me so that is another false accusation on your part. Are there hypocrites in churches? Of course. Is everyone who goes to church a Christian? Of course not. The Bible speaks in great detail to this subject. If you would read/study it then you could learn these things.
Nu te-am intrebat pe tine personal de ce esti ipocrit. Am intrebat la general, de ce sunteti ipocriti. 🙂 Multumesc de a cata sugestie referitor la cititul bibliei, dar nu ma intereseaza. Vezi pagina respectiva pe blogul meu, unde am scris de ce nu ma intereseaza. 🙂
Ateu cu tupeu
Drepturile omului se opresc cand calca pe altii. Calci pe mine cand minti despre mine. N-ai dreptul sa ma defaimezi. Pot sa te dau in judecata pentru aceasta dar sigur nu voi face aceasta, dar este posibilitate.
In opinia mea personala tu esti un fanatic. Tot asa cum in opinia ta personala, homosexualii sunt imorali. Noi privim lucrurile in mod diferit. Daca vrei sa ma dai in judecata – feel free. 🙂 Citeste pentru inceput deciziile CEDO pe cazuri de defaimare si vei intelege ca nu ai nicio sansa.
Na, uite ce scrie wikipedia:
Religious fanaticism can be defined as fanaticism related to a person’s, or a group’s, devotion to a religion. However, Religious Fanaticism is a subjective evaluation defined by the culture context that is performing the evaluation. What constitutes fanaticism in another’s behavior or belief is determined by the core assumptions of the one doing the evaluation. As such, there is currently no constant academic standard for what defines a fanatical religious position.
Asa ca pot sa te consider fanatic cat incape in mine, si tu nu poti sa faci nimic cu asta.
“Religious Fanaticism is a subjective evaluation defined by the culture context that is performing the evaluation.”
I live in a country that is predominantly Christian (about 85% of Americans believe in God). A large number of those 85% are born again Christians just as I am. According to the quote that you brought, I am not a fanatic because fanaticism is determined by the cultural context. Once again you prove my argument to be correct. Keep up the good work.
By MY context Erik. Not yours. 🙂
By the way, are the 85% Christians are visiting their mistresses after praying? Remember, we discussed a lot about who is a christian, and you said that Hitler was not, because he missbehaved, and a lot of those who go to church are not either. 🙂
Ateu cu tupeu
You made a statement that pointed to a question. I answered your question yet you do not want accept it. I observed that you have your mind made up already and any evidence that does not reach your conclusion is dismissed. You just proved that with saying that you are not interested in what the Bible has to say. Thanks for proving my point.
What makes you think that? I accepted your answer. I was always in favor of the solution “imbraca chilotii ori scoate crucea de la gat”.
I did not accept though your advice for me to read the bible, as I am not interested.
Iti spun sincer ca nu o sa-ti placa de mine de loc daca nu te intereseaza Biblia. Pentru mine Biblia imi conduce viata. Traiesc dupa principile ei zilnic. Biblia imi formeaza puntul de vedere al lumii. Nu stiu ce-ti formeaza tie mintea (secular progressivism cred eu).
Erik, there is no way of winning the argument using the facts with a religious fanatic. 🙂 I understood that somewhere at post 35, so, instead of waisting time and energy to convince you, I am having fun.
I am not upset at all, and I am not turning anything aroung against you, to the contrary, I enjoy the conversation more than you can imagine. 🙂
When you find a religious fanatic let me know!!! If you would use facts then you might win an argument.
Maybe you are the one who needs “convincing”.
I enjoy it too because it helps me understand how a person who does not follow Jesus Christ thinks and reasons. I am able to equip my students in dealing with atheists.
Ateu cu tupeu
I am a realist. I know that of the 85% who “say” that they believe in God there are those who are not Christians (whether they go to church or not). That was not the point that I was making. The point is that you were calling me a fanatic and then the evidence or proof that you brought actually contradicted your argument.