Religion
See other Religion Articles
Title: War Games
Source:
Chick Publications
URL Source: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1090/1090_01.asp
Published: Jan 9, 2014
Author: Jack Chick
Post Date: 2014-01-09 16:31:15 by redleghunter
Keywords: None
Views: 45296
Comments: 75
Poster Comment: 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-30) not displayed.
.
.
.
#31. To: buckeroo (#30)
(Edited)
I know it because I know there is a God who is sovereign over His Universe. Anyone who has a relationship with God knows He exists. A child of Satan cannot believe because Satan has a blindfold over his eyes. I suppose you cannot understand this type of evidence, and I should be patient with you. Not only are you blind to God, but you are condemned and your eyes will be opened when you stand before God at His Judgement Seat. The best that any Christian can do for you is pray for you.
Don - you have used redundancy and restatement as a method to provide support for your argument; if you allow me to parse your statement, I shall explain "why" --- This partial sentence sets the foundation for your approach that you intend to establish --- Sets the framework for supporting data within the context of your earlier foundation; this substructure of the sentence is the declarative or refinement of the conjugative context --- Is a restatement of the earlier foundation by mere substitution of "it" with "there is a God"; this is redundant and nothing more than restatement with substitution. You have ineffectively added to anyone's understanding about supporting mechanisms for your presentation. But you don't stop at your own nonsupportive discussion, you struggle by attempting to clarify your brief definition of "God" --- This is an unfortunate structural attempt at limiting "God" in the context of "His Universe" because your struggle for clarification actually confuses any reader of your post, i.e. infers other universes; furthermore your point infers that your belief of a "Satan" as the master of his or its own Universe may bridge all of humanity with God's eternal war against Satan with humanity caught in the middle of of "good" vs. "evil" battle which is a dualistic principle that I earlier introduced to you. The obvious error with your attempt to explain or clarify God's role about the Universe is that you position God as far from being sovereign of or about humanity or the Universe since there is an interactive characteristic that reflects some sort of meaningful conflict between "His Universe" and some other Universe or even many other Universes; this means the conflict may have infinite relationships; which means God does not possess any more sovereignty about the world around us than anyone else, including yourself. In other words, if such conflict is true, you imply God is limited and therefore God does not possess the power that you profess. I find your first statement to be redundant and revealing of a contradictory nature. For the rest of your post, I shall ignore altogether as you don't have the knowledge that you profess to have; you may believe your knowledge but you can't explain your way out of a wet paper bag to use a borrowed and often overused cliché.
I may well repeat things when you don't seem to be "getting it." To show you again, I do believe that God is the boss in His Universe. " I know it" is a partial statement to you. There is a subject and a verb which makes a complete sentence. If you are referring to "it," there is sufficient information to allow understanding the sentence. What is your educational level? I ask since you want to teach me how to compose a sentence in the English language. I will forego reading or commenting on the rest of your post since your response is devoid of supporting your stand and is merely an attempt to impress me with your level of nonsense.
Donnie, Donnie, Donnie ... I understand your points; my issue is that you confuse your points to me and all the readership. So, lets parse your statement: What happened to the idea or the concept or the belief or the holy focus of an all powerful God being omnipotent and ever present in all things? Why do you limit the power of God by suggesting your above quote? Don't you see you have hampered your own opinion? This is what I question about you and you can not answer my question because you are so involved with using words words by your fellow trusted "Christian" compadres, you can not snap out of the mind meld. Spare the viewing audience your own blastphemy by intentionally limiting the power of God.
You do know the difference between presenting an argument based on objective evidence opposed to stating assertions? If you refuse to examine the Scriptures, then you are not debating said Scriptures but making assertions based on your subjective propaganda.
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct[a] your paths.(Proverbs 3:5-6)
You initiated this thread with some cheap "chick" kartoons. I have asked you questions with some historical tidbits about your frequently overused self-aclaimed degrees in Bible study and all you can say is: Man, you got balls. And this was YOUR thread. You are worthless to a discussion of and about your own presented material.
Where did I claim I had degrees in theology? And I stand by my post. You do not present polemical arguments only assertions.
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct[a] your paths.(Proverbs 3:5-6)
I will answer this post when you frame it in a manner showing some logic. Try it again.
This place has become a ghost town. Has everyone died?
Entirely possible......because the target demographic of this forum is: "Old, angry, white guys, who thrive on hatred and personal attacks, do not admit to wearing adult diapers, and haven't been capable of forming an original thought since those bastard dems brought down Nixon. But I am hopeful that the absence of stone's regulars can be attributed to reduced computer time at the Arkansas nursing homes, and not anyone's actual demise.
What is wrong with white guys. I'm white are you? Just curious. I could care less about Nixon. What is old? You know how many years.
Oh sure, Jesus just loves us like a little huggy bear leaving a Chick Tract as you do, everywhere you go. Sorry pal, you lose the debate and emotional appeal.
Nope. As the thread title was created this is serious debate. And you do not understand that your "faith" about myths is killing any interest from political posters, but ..... I just checked this thread "hit counter" and WOW!
Logic, Bucky. Every thread is serious. You simply have to treat it as such.
No one on this thred has presented more objectivie material than myself. Feel free to ESAD as a result of your personal complaint.
Not a thing! I was simply framing the "tea party" and "conservative" majority demographic as being overwhelmingly old, angry and white. I could care less about Nixon Yeah, me too - But I actually heard this angry old white guy wearing a VFW hat and suspenders loudly bitching about something or other, who finished his rant with "...since those bastard dems brought down Nixon..." LOL What is old? You know how many years. being old has nothing to do with years.....being old has everything to do with narrow-mindedness.....IMHO
Yeah, Stone mentioned this a few months ago. Miss O'l Biff Tannen. Last few weeks of posts from him he was deep in the epistles of Paul.
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct[a] your paths.(Proverbs 3:5-6)
I have to say that was funny. I will note having a mother of nursing home age, with the Boomers heading to managed care facilities the demand for WiFi has increased. It better since the mean age of FR posters is about 65.
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct[a] your paths.(Proverbs 3:5-6)
Well Jesus does love you buckeroo: John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct[a] your paths.(Proverbs 3:5-6)
Thanks! I was going for funny. I usually go for funny, but most just don't get "me"
I understand that the Evolution vs. Creation debate last night drew millions of viewers. Are you sure that people are totally turned off by religion?
No. Most folks are seeking answers beyond myth, is all. They are tired of the rants in established churches of and about any faith. If there is a God, established man made churches of any faith are unnecessary for most. If you note, there is waning personal attendence across the spectrum of religion for most churches.
How do you really know that God inspired or wrote that hog swill you posted?
There is also waning belief in churches and increased weird beliefs in churches as well. That doesn't mean Biblical teaching is myth: It does possibly mean that we are in the last days as given in the Book of Revelation.
The Bible is filled with myths. What you have a problem with is simply explained as that a "myth" diminishes the concept of reality (the truth) but that is not the case. All a "myth" is: is a BIG STORY worth listening to because there are some life experiences from which some essential element can be learned. It is not necessarily substantiated by documented FACT or measurable data or objective proof much less any supporting/substantiated data. Watch this recent, popular video:
What was most instructive about Tuesday night's debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye [watch entire debate here] over the issue of origins was Nye's blanket admission of total, abject ignorance on the most important questions of the evening. Where did the atoms that made up the Big Bang come from? Nye has no idea. Where did man's consciousness come from? Nye has no idea. How can matter produce life? Nye has absolutely no idea. This surely is all one needs to know to recognize the utter bankruptcy of the theory of evolution. http://www.freerepublic.com/%5Ehttp://www.renewamerica.com/columns/fischer/140206
From the same above source Fossils. Realize that the fossil record is the only tangible, physical evidence for the theory of evolution that exists. The fossil record is it. There is absolutely nothing else Darwinians have they can show you. As Yale University's Carl Dunbar says, "Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms." But if Darwin's theory is correct – that increasingly complex life forms developed in tiny little incremental and transitional steps – then the fossil record should be littered with an enormous number of transitional fossils. Darwin himself said, "The number of intermediate and transitional links must have been inconceivably great." But, sadly for Darwinians, after more than 150 years of digging in dirt all around the world, there are still no transitional fossils at all, not one! The most famous paleontologist in the world, Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould, said, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." (Note" "extreme rarity" is Harvard-speak for "nada, zilch, zippo.") Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History agrees with Gould that "there are no transitional fossils," not even a single one "for which one could make a watertight argument." In other words, people who study fossils for a living know there are no transitional forms but they don't want you and me to know it, because it might prompt us to stop imbibing the swill of evolution. Gould developed an absurd theory called "punctuated equilibrium," a theory that evolution happened so fast, in such rapid bursts, that it left no trace in the fossil record. Imagine that: the only evidence he has for his theory is the total absence of any evidence whatsoever! And this guy taught at Harvard! What the fossil record teaches us, in contrast to the theory of evolution, is that increasingly complex life forms appear fully formed in the fossil record, just as if they were put there by a Creator. This is especially true of what is called the "Pre-Cambrian Explosion," the vast, overwhelming, and quite sudden appearance of complex life forms at the dawn of time. Evolutionists are at a total loss to explain the Pre-Cambrian Explosion. The biblical record indicates quite clearly that all things, including increasingly complex life forms, came fully formed from the hand of God. Thus the fossil record is a powerful argument for the existence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer while at the same time being fatal for the theory of evolution. Creation Science and Intelligent Design theory have an explanation for the fossil record; evolution does not.
Then there was this from the same source. Only a FOOL believes evolution is compatible with science or the Bible. Genes. The only mechanism – don't miss this – the only mechanism evolutionists have to explain the development of increasingly complex life forms is genetic mutation. Mutations alter DNA, and these alterations can be passed on to descendants. The problem: naturally occurring genetic mutations are invariably harmful if not fatal to the organism. Rather than improve an organism's capacity to survive, they invariably weaken it. That's why the phrase we most often use to refer to genetic mutations is "birth defects." If scientists are some day able to engineer beneficial genetic mutations in the lab, that will simply prove our point: we told you it takes intelligence and design. Catch these two quotes. First, evolutionary microbiologist James Shapiro of the University of Chicago: "There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular systems, only a variety of wishful speculations." And this from University of Bristol scientist Alan Linton: "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another. None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another." (Note: "none" means "none, nada, zilch, zippo.") And if it's never been observed in the simplest of all organisms, it shouldn't come as a surprise that it's never been observed with more complex forms. Says Linton, "There is no evidence for evolution throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms." (Note: "no evidence" means "no evidence, nada, zilch, zippo.") So honest Darwinians will tell you that evolution – by which we mean the transition of one species into another – has never, not ever, been observed by anyone at any time. In other words, they believe in something that nobody has ever seen. Hmmm... And they accuse us of a blind leap of faith! It turns out that creationists are the ones who believe in science. In fact, it's clear that creationists believe in science and evolutionists do not. If they did, they wouldn't be evolutionists, now, would they? Bottom line: the easiest verse in the Bible to believe is the very first one of all: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
There are a lot of people who would tell you to prove that first verse.
I don't see a video; however, I don't concur with your definition of a myth. Changing the meaning of words is a well-known trick of the left.
I assume you mean Genesis 1:1.
Yes.
Earlier, I was attempting to be brief and succinct. Let me help you out with an authoritative definition ... As with all religious symbolism, there is no attempt to justify mythic narratives or even to render them plausible. Every myth presents itself as an authoritative, factual account, no matter how much the narrated events are at variance with natural law or ordinary experience. By extension from this primary religious meaning, the word myth may also be used more loosely to refer to an ideological belief when that belief is the object of a quasi-religious faith; an example would be the Marxist eschatological myth of the withering away of the state. While the outline of myths from a past period or from a society other than one’s own can usually be seen quite clearly, to recognize the myths that are dominant in one’s own time and society is always difficult. This is hardly surprising, because a myth has its authority not by proving itself but by presenting itself. In this sense the authority of a myth indeed “goes without saying,” and the myth can be outlined in detail only when its authority is no longer unquestioned but has been rejected or overcome in some manner by another, more comprehensive myth. The word myth derives from the Greek mythos, which has a range of meanings from “word,” through “saying” and “story,” to “fiction”; the unquestioned validity of mythos can be contrasted with logos, the word whose validity or truth can be argued and demonstrated. Because myths narrate fantastic events with no attempt at proof, it is sometimes assumed that they are simply stories with no factual basis, and the word has become a synonym for falsehood or, at best, misconception. In the study of religion, however, it is important to distinguish between myths and stories that are merely untrue. The first part of this article discusses the nature, study, functions, cultural impact, and types of myth, taking into account the various approaches to the subject offered by modern branches of knowledge. In the second part, the specialized topic of the role of animals and plants in myth is examined in some detail. The mythologies of specific cultures are covered in the articles Greek religion, Roman religion, and Germanic religion.
Did you originally author that post or plagiarize it from some obscure Sunday school teacher? Your point is ridiculous in any case.
As always, you are in error. You lack critical thinking capabilities and so your pathetic observation serves little discussion. Nye says "it is a mystery." This is the same opinion as mine and many people.
So what have you suggested? All you have performed is some mystical creature called "God" with a "hand" image creating things. How do you know, "God" has a "hand" ... because you heard some Jew chit-chat to you about some sheep herder screwing with sheep a couple of thousand years ago?
The source is listed. Pay attention. Read it.
Also Nye lied about the fossil record being in some neat order.
Has anyone called you an absolute idoti? If not, I shall do so.
You are a dumb fuck. ; just an observation ABOUT your PERSONAL ways and means CALLED COMMENTARY.
Bucky, you have to learn to curb your temper. High blood pressure is a killer if left untreated.
Comments (72 - 75) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#32. To: Don (#31)
I know it because I know there is a God who is sovereign over His Universe.
I know it
because
I know there is a God
who is sovereign over His Universe.
#33. To: buckeroo (#32)
#34. To: Don (#33)
I may well repeat things when you don't seem to be "getting it." To show you again, I do believe that God is the boss in His Universe.
I do believe that God is the boss in His Universe.
#35. To: buckeroo (#28)
#36. To: redleghunter (#35)
You do know the difference between presenting an argument based on objective evidence opposed to stating assertions?
#37. To: buckeroo (#36)
#38. To: buckeroo (#34)
#39. To: All (#38)
#40. To: Don (#39)
Has everyone died?
#41. To: Jameson (#40)
Entirely possible......because the target demographic of this forum is: "Old, angry, white guys, who thrive on hatred and personal attacks, do not admit to wearing adult diapers, and haven't been capable of forming an original thought since those bastard dems brought down Nixon.
#42. To: redleghunter (#37)
You do not present polemical arguments
#43. To: Don (#38)
I will answer this post when you frame it in a manner showing some logic. Try it again.
#44. To: buckeroo (#43)
#45. To: Don (#44)
#46. To: A K A Stone (#41)
What is wrong with white guys.
#47. To: Don (#39)
#48. To: Jameson (#40)
But I am hopeful that the absence of stone's regulars can be attributed to reduced computer time at the Arkansas nursing homes, and not anyone's actual demise.
#49. To: buckeroo (#42)
Oh sure, Jesus just loves us like a little huggy bear
#50. To: redleghunter (#48)
have to say that was funny.
#51. To: buckeroo (#43)
#52. To: Don (#51)
#53. To: redleghunter (#49)
#54. To: buckeroo (#52)
#55. To: Don (#54)
That doesn't mean Biblical teaching is myth ...
#56. To: buckeroo (#55)
#57. To: buckeroo (#55)
#58. To: buckeroo, pinguinite (#55)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)
#60. To: buckeroo (#55)
#61. To: Don (#59)
There are a lot of people who would tell you to prove that first verse.
#62. To: A K A Stone (#61)
#63. To: Don (#60)
(Edited)
I don't concur with your definition of a myth. Changing the meaning of words is a well-known trick of the left.
myth a symbolic narrative, usually of unknown origin and at least partly traditional, that ostensibly relates actual events and that is especially associated with religious belief. It is distinguished from symbolic behaviour (cult, ritual) and symbolic places or objects (temples, icons). Myths are specific accounts of gods or superhuman beings involved in extraordinary events or circumstances in a time that is unspecified but which is understood as existing apart from ordinary human experience. The term mythology denotes both the study of myth and the body of myths belonging to a particular religious tradition.
Myths are largely cultural in origin and may be emulated by conquered societies. As for the myths presented in the Bible, they aren't of Jewish origin; many of the earliest are borrowed from the Babylonians which are known to be of Aryan origin. As you know the Jews were marched off to Babylon about 600 BCE [the exile]. That is just about the precise time of creation of the early Hebrew "Bible" called the Tanakh. After the wretched Jews were permitted to go back to their desert paradise (circa 570 BCE), they continued their practice of myth development. Of course, almost all the brighter Jews (at that time) refused to leave Babylon.
#64. To: A K A Stone (#58)
#65. To: A K A Stone (#56)
Where did the atoms that made up the Big Bang come from? Nye has no idea.
#66. To: A K A Stone (#57)
The biblical record indicates quite clearly that all things, including increasingly complex life forms, came fully formed from the hand of God.
#67. To: buckeroo (#64)
#68. To: buckeroo (#66)
#69. To: A K A Stone (#67)
(Edited)
The source is listed. Pay attention. Read it.
#70. To: A K A Stone (#68)
(Edited)
#71. To: buckeroo (#70)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]