@cbr125rcanada In spite of the blatant prejudice, I'm glad you've made this statement. Please, allow me to correct your errors in understanding... Firstly, you are labouring under the prejudice that every church of Christ is an absolute cookie-cutout of every other. Unlike denominations, COC's can agree to disagree, as long as our foundations are scriptural. In fact, the independent churches of Christ are known for the saying, "Christians only, but not the only Christians".
@cbr125rcanada Obviously, there are some unscriptural groups out there, like the WBC; but, unlike some who think they have everything figured out, and go around making ignorant and judgmental statements, we don't believe we have the "only truth", or that ours is the only scriptural organization. Secondly, whether we believe we're the only ones going to heaven, or that murderers and rapists will be joining us, the point is that we care enough to share our beliefs. I'd ask why you don't seem to.
@cbr125rcanada Thirdly, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that the Bible is erroneous. I defy you to prove a Biblical error. The problem is, the WBC show that they only believe certain parts of the Bible are inerrant; namely, the ones they contort into a hatred of homosexual people. I assure you, I have found no such hatred of people, themselves. Fourthly, I can show you evidence that the US was founded as a "Christian" nation; whereas you can't defy that evidence, try as you might.
@cbr125rcanada Not at all. I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You're asking me to prove that every alternative is wrong, while you don't want to take the same challenge. Error is not the absence of anything; it's the presence of something. You can't prove your assertion, so you're dancing around the issue. Provide evidence contradictory to the Bible's claims. It should be easy, right? If your position is superior to our denial thereof, you should have plenty of evidence... even suggestive.
@cbr125rcanada How about the presence of granite, at the same time as Polonium; which only remains radioactive for three days? How about the debris on the moon's surface, indicating 6,000 years of existence? What about the theory of relativity, and the big bang theory, working together? How about the evidence noted by Dr. Robert Jastrow, who said that the earth began in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation?
Prove that the world evolved over 5 billion years.
@cbr125rcanada Ah, yes: an ad-ridiculum. Much like if I were to say that the theory of evolution can be summed up by the statement that everything came from nothing, and magically transmutated infinity-jillion years ago; and techniques of chronological measurement that measure living creatures at millions of years of age, are often millions of years in error - always excessive of conservative measurements, - and rely on circular reasoning prove it... yeah, I see why you're ducking out.
@cbr125rcanada I also like how you previously tried to claim that you couldn't be expected to prove the presence of a Biblical error; and then asked me to prove that the earth wasn't created in 5 billion years! The law of noncontradiction says this is impossible...
@cbr125rcanada Interesting... I like Lee Strobel's book, "The Case For a Creator". Here's a summary of your above quote:
"Scientists believe something, and I want to believe it, too. As evidence, they point to guesswork and Barnum statements. Many others rejected popular opinion, when presented with the same evidence, because it just wasn't as conclusive. As evidence, they point to every failure of evolutionary theory since Darwin's first publication on the subject... and that's a long list."
@cbr125rcanada You seem to miss the main point, here; as any naysayer does. The Bible is not about hatred; it's about love... and certainly not the kind of "love" to which the WBC ascribes. I can understand that groups like these have prejudiced you against all Christians and Christian churches, but you have to look beyond prejudice to understand the truth. The WBC promotes violence against homosexual people, as part of a personal agenda. We promote love and wisdom. Why are you so against that?
@cbr125rcanada I'm surprised that you're opposing opposition to the WBC. The difference is, some "sects" can back up the accusation, while others can't. I'm sure there are some who would eventually try to claim such things about my beliefs, though they can't back it up. If you want independent validation of the Bible, I'd suggest "The Case For a Creator", and "The Case For Christ", both by Lee Strobel. I'd also suggest the book, "Shocked By the Bible", by Joe Kovacs. Next...
@cbr125rcanada Quite the contrary. WBC believes in five-point Calvinism, while the COC has no theological beliefs per se'. WBC bases their existence on anti-homosexual theology, while the COC bases their existence on the entire Bible itself... there are certainly far more topics in the Bible than homosexuality alone. The WBC practically condones violence against homosexuals for their sin, while the COC is all about love and concern for sinners, because we are all sinners.
@cbr125rcanada The WBC believes people are born sinners, while the COC can show - from the Bible, - that sin is a choice, not hereditary. The WBC believes in the power of words alone, while the COC believes in the importance of the intent, even beyond words.
"Where do you get this stuff?" I get it from your very own posts. You ask me to prove the absence of error, and I'm asking you to prove the presence of error. If any assertion is made, it must be supported; not the denial thereof.
@cbr125rcanada You can't disprove a negative, either. If there is no proof, and only disproof, then you can say goodbye to science! It's more accurate to say that there's no absolute proof; only suggestive evidence. I suggest you take a philosophy course, sometime. It's funny that you're telling me to read up on logic, when I'm currently taking a course on the subject... a course in which I currently have an "A".
@cbr125rcanada By your statement, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Benny Hinn, and Kenneth Copeland are all as scriptural as any other preacher out there. I sincerely hope you don't believe that; otherwise, your ignorance about the Bible is blatantly showing.
Comment removed
cbr125rcanada 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada In spite of the blatant prejudice, I'm glad you've made this statement. Please, allow me to correct your errors in understanding... Firstly, you are labouring under the prejudice that every church of Christ is an absolute cookie-cutout of every other. Unlike denominations, COC's can agree to disagree, as long as our foundations are scriptural. In fact, the independent churches of Christ are known for the saying, "Christians only, but not the only Christians".
dameon692002 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada Obviously, there are some unscriptural groups out there, like the WBC; but, unlike some who think they have everything figured out, and go around making ignorant and judgmental statements, we don't believe we have the "only truth", or that ours is the only scriptural organization. Secondly, whether we believe we're the only ones going to heaven, or that murderers and rapists will be joining us, the point is that we care enough to share our beliefs. I'd ask why you don't seem to.
dameon692002 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada Thirdly, you seem to be labouring under the delusion that the Bible is erroneous. I defy you to prove a Biblical error. The problem is, the WBC show that they only believe certain parts of the Bible are inerrant; namely, the ones they contort into a hatred of homosexual people. I assure you, I have found no such hatred of people, themselves. Fourthly, I can show you evidence that the US was founded as a "Christian" nation; whereas you can't defy that evidence, try as you might.
dameon692002 1 year ago
Comment removed
cbr125rcanada 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada Not at all. I'm not asking you to prove a negative. You're asking me to prove that every alternative is wrong, while you don't want to take the same challenge. Error is not the absence of anything; it's the presence of something. You can't prove your assertion, so you're dancing around the issue. Provide evidence contradictory to the Bible's claims. It should be easy, right? If your position is superior to our denial thereof, you should have plenty of evidence... even suggestive.
dameon692002 1 year ago
Comment removed
cbr125rcanada 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada How about the presence of granite, at the same time as Polonium; which only remains radioactive for three days? How about the debris on the moon's surface, indicating 6,000 years of existence? What about the theory of relativity, and the big bang theory, working together? How about the evidence noted by Dr. Robert Jastrow, who said that the earth began in a blinding event that defies scientific explanation?
Prove that the world evolved over 5 billion years.
dameon692002 1 year ago
Comment removed
cbr125rcanada 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada Ah, yes: an ad-ridiculum. Much like if I were to say that the theory of evolution can be summed up by the statement that everything came from nothing, and magically transmutated infinity-jillion years ago; and techniques of chronological measurement that measure living creatures at millions of years of age, are often millions of years in error - always excessive of conservative measurements, - and rely on circular reasoning prove it... yeah, I see why you're ducking out.
dameon692002 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada I also like how you previously tried to claim that you couldn't be expected to prove the presence of a Biblical error; and then asked me to prove that the earth wasn't created in 5 billion years! The law of noncontradiction says this is impossible...
dameon692002 1 year ago
Comment removed
cbr125rcanada 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada Interesting... I like Lee Strobel's book, "The Case For a Creator". Here's a summary of your above quote:
"Scientists believe something, and I want to believe it, too. As evidence, they point to guesswork and Barnum statements. Many others rejected popular opinion, when presented with the same evidence, because it just wasn't as conclusive. As evidence, they point to every failure of evolutionary theory since Darwin's first publication on the subject... and that's a long list."
dameon692002 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada You seem to miss the main point, here; as any naysayer does. The Bible is not about hatred; it's about love... and certainly not the kind of "love" to which the WBC ascribes. I can understand that groups like these have prejudiced you against all Christians and Christian churches, but you have to look beyond prejudice to understand the truth. The WBC promotes violence against homosexual people, as part of a personal agenda. We promote love and wisdom. Why are you so against that?
dameon692002 1 year ago
Comment removed
cbr125rcanada 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada I'm surprised that you're opposing opposition to the WBC. The difference is, some "sects" can back up the accusation, while others can't. I'm sure there are some who would eventually try to claim such things about my beliefs, though they can't back it up. If you want independent validation of the Bible, I'd suggest "The Case For a Creator", and "The Case For Christ", both by Lee Strobel. I'd also suggest the book, "Shocked By the Bible", by Joe Kovacs. Next...
dameon692002 1 year ago
Comment removed
cbr125rcanada 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada Quite the contrary. WBC believes in five-point Calvinism, while the COC has no theological beliefs per se'. WBC bases their existence on anti-homosexual theology, while the COC bases their existence on the entire Bible itself... there are certainly far more topics in the Bible than homosexuality alone. The WBC practically condones violence against homosexuals for their sin, while the COC is all about love and concern for sinners, because we are all sinners.
dameon692002 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada The WBC believes people are born sinners, while the COC can show - from the Bible, - that sin is a choice, not hereditary. The WBC believes in the power of words alone, while the COC believes in the importance of the intent, even beyond words.
"Where do you get this stuff?" I get it from your very own posts. You ask me to prove the absence of error, and I'm asking you to prove the presence of error. If any assertion is made, it must be supported; not the denial thereof.
dameon692002 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada You can't disprove a negative, either. If there is no proof, and only disproof, then you can say goodbye to science! It's more accurate to say that there's no absolute proof; only suggestive evidence. I suggest you take a philosophy course, sometime. It's funny that you're telling me to read up on logic, when I'm currently taking a course on the subject... a course in which I currently have an "A".
dameon692002 1 year ago
@cbr125rcanada By your statement, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Benny Hinn, and Kenneth Copeland are all as scriptural as any other preacher out there. I sincerely hope you don't believe that; otherwise, your ignorance about the Bible is blatantly showing.
dameon692002 1 year ago