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: 45285
Comments: 75
Poster Comment: 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 59.
#1. To: redleghunter (#0)
Please explain the holiness of the "Holy Bible" or any other "Christian" document. Thank you in advance.
God is HOLY, HOLY, HOLY therefore God's Written Word is HOLY.
Who says "God's Word" is Holy?
You claim some sort of paper authority of and about Jesus Christ. You claim expertise of definitive answers about direct questions. You can not answer my simple question. Why is that?
God said it. He is the best one to know, since He is the center of righteousness and all other attributes of God. How do you know He isn't, or do you believe it?
Please explain how you know that "God said it." Don't you really mean to say, "you believe God said it"; please be precise within your communications skills without offering mere conjecture, speculation and other unsubstantiated ideas.
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.
I will answer this post when you frame it in a manner showing some logic. Try it again.
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!
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.
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:
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.
#61. To: Don (#59)
I assume you mean Genesis 1:1.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: buckeroo (#1)
#3. To: redleghunter (#2)
#27. To: redleghunter (#3)
Who says "God's Word" is Holy?
#29. To: buckeroo (#27)
#30. To: Don (#29)
God said it. He is the best one to know, since He is the center of righteousness and all other attributes of God.
#31. To: buckeroo (#30)
(Edited)
#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.
#38. To: buckeroo (#34)
#43. To: Don (#38)
I will answer this post when you frame it in a manner showing some logic. Try it again.
#51. To: buckeroo (#43)
#52. To: Don (#51)
#54. To: buckeroo (#52)
#55. To: Don (#54)
That doesn't mean Biblical teaching is myth ...
#58. To: buckeroo, pinguinite (#55)
#59. To: A K A Stone (#58)
Replies to Comment # 59. There are a lot of people who would tell you to prove that first verse.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 59.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]