|
Post by rational on May 9, 2016 19:18:28 GMT -5
You definitely did not build your house on the Rock of Peter. But with all of the touted organizational excellence the Episcopal church is losing members at an alarming rate. Children's baptisms are down by almost 5% and adult baptisms are down by 4%. The loss of members between 2013 and 2014 was twice the 27,000 loss between 2012 and 2013. The average Sunday attendance in South Carolina is down over 75%. They have had to close over 65 parishes and spent millions on internal lawsuits over property ownership. It seems like the organizational excellence is not all it takes to keep a church going. The organization of a church means nothing if the members are voting with their feet and walking out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 19:33:03 GMT -5
You definitely did not build your house on the Rock of Peter. But with all of the touted organizational excellence the Episcopal church is losing members at an alarming rate. Children's baptisms are down by almost 5% and adult baptisms are down by 4%. The loss of members between 2013 and 2014 was twice the 27,000 loss between 2012 and 2013. The average Sunday attendance in South Carolina is down over 75%. They have had to close over 65 parishes and spent millions on internal lawsuits over property ownership. It seems like the organizational excellence is not all it takes to keep a church going. The organization of a church means nothing if the members are voting with their feet and walking out. It never fails to have Irrational come in and throw a red herring into the mix. Do you have a dartboard with logical fallacies on it that you choose at random to use, or were you born this way? Episcopal Church has lost members since it's height in the 1960s. A lot of that has been to fundamentalist churches unfortunately. However, your statements are red herrings since a good org structure doesn't guarantees good business, but rather it guarantees against risk.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 9, 2016 20:30:25 GMT -5
But with all of the touted organizational excellence the Episcopal church is losing members at an alarming rate. Children's baptisms are down by almost 5% and adult baptisms are down by 4%. The loss of members between 2013 and 2014 was twice the 27,000 loss between 2012 and 2013. The average Sunday attendance in South Carolina is down over 75%. They have had to close over 65 parishes and spent millions on internal lawsuits over property ownership. It seems like the organizational excellence is not all it takes to keep a church going. The organization of a church means nothing if the members are voting with their feet and walking out. It never fails to have Irrational come in and throw a red herring into the mix. Do you have a dartboard with logical fallacies on it that you choose at random to use, or were you born this way? Episcopal Church has lost members since it's height in the 1960s. A lot of that has been to fundamentalist churches unfortunately. However, your statements are red herrings since a good org structure doesn't guarantees good business, but rather it guarantees against risk. You have gone on and on saying what an excellent organization your church has and that the issues you see with the 2x2s are the result of their poor organization. You are correct in stating that a good organization does not always result in good business. By the same token a good organization can't really guarantee anything about a group. And a poor organization does not guarantee either. Looks like it did not mitigate the risk of members walking out the door or parishes suing for control of church property. What risks were mitigated? You can call it a red herring - I call it additional data that points out that there is little data to support the claims you make about the organization structure of groups and the influence that structure can have on the operation of the group.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 20:57:05 GMT -5
It never fails to have Irrational come in and throw a red herring into the mix. Do you have a dartboard with logical fallacies on it that you choose at random to use, or were you born this way? Episcopal Church has lost members since it's height in the 1960s. A lot of that has been to fundamentalist churches unfortunately. However, your statements are red herrings since a good org structure doesn't guarantees good business, but rather it guarantees against risk. You have gone on and on saying what an excellent organization your church has and that the issues you see with the 2x2s are the result of their poor organization. You are correct in stating that a good organization does not always result in good business. By the same token a good organization can't really guarantee anything about a group. And a poor organization does not guarantee either. Looks like it did not mitigate the risk of members walking out the door or parishes suing for control of church property. What risks were mitigated? You can call it a red herring - I call it additional data that points out that there is little data to support the claims you make about the organization structure of groups and the influence that structure can have on the operation of the group. I see you did some googling about Trinity Wall Street. What you read is how things are handled in a decent org structure. Notice that there was a disagreement about such and such, it was made public (in the papers no less), and it went to a vote by the elected representatives to settle the issue. That's a great example of the process working well. What's your point? I thought you were smarter than this. A good org structure mitigates against unnecessary risk - things such as claiming your church is the only one with apostolic succession when in fact there are mountains of easily available evidence that your church started by a madman in 1897. In other words, it mitigates against 'Don't do stupid S * * T ", as Obama says.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 9, 2016 21:27:22 GMT -5
I see you did some googling about Trinity Wall Street. What you read is how things are handled in a decent org structure. Notice that there was a disagreement about such and such, it was made public (in the papers no less), and it went to a vote by the elected representatives to settle the issue. That's a great example of the process working well. What's your point? I thought you were smarter than this. You spin a good yarn. If you think members suing members and half of the leadership board walking out is an example of an organization working well I am losing faith in your ivy league education. You seem to be mixing beliefs with organization. The Mormon church has a pretty sound organization yet they believe Smith got his message by looking at a rock at the bottom of his hat.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2016 21:38:28 GMT -5
I see you did some googling about Trinity Wall Street. What you read is how things are handled in a decent org structure. Notice that there was a disagreement about such and such, it was made public (in the papers no less), and it went to a vote by the elected representatives to settle the issue. That's a great example of the process working well. What's your point? I thought you were smarter than this. You spin a good yarn. If you think members suing members and half of the leadership board walking out is an example of an organization working well I am losing faith in your ivy league education. You seem to be mixing beliefs with organization. The Mormon church has a pretty sound organization yet they believe Smith got his message by looking at a rock at the bottom of his hat. Lies. No surprise.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 9, 2016 21:51:30 GMT -5
So you say but you never back up your claims with facts. But it has now become your expected behavior.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on May 10, 2016 8:43:50 GMT -5
Interesting to read here after being away for a while. This catches me a little late responding to the Original Post. It’s ironic that my wife was just mentioning that her mother was telling her about some “couples” in their area that had “lost out” because of some stuff they were reading on the internet about the “Truth”. Different people respond differently when learning about our history. I have said it before, but since it’s the topic, I’ll say it again. I embrace our history. I make no excuse for the deception that there is an unbroken succession of our fellowship that leads all the way back to the shores of Galilee……other than the fact that……the ones that told us this, were told this themselves, and 100 percent believed it. Probably still do today. So when they told us this, they were not intentionally lying to us. How did this deception start? Here’s how I believe it started: William Irvine preaching fire and brimstone, about the one true way/fellowship (that he started), and everyone else going to Hell. We are still exclusive to this day (well most are still). So then…..what happened to the very first Workers of our Fellowship? John Long is ex-communicated. Cooney is put out. William Irvine thinking he's one of the Prophets we read about in Revelations, goes off the deep end and leaves. So the ones left are all products, or should I say "successors" of these three founders. So what to do but not talk about the first three. Keep it silent. Of course the void (silence) gets filled with something. That something is the vague story we were all told. Again, I don’t believe it was a blatant lie by anyone. Thanks to John Long’s Journal, Cherie (TTT), and some others, we now know pretty accurately what our history is. Some still chose to believe fantasies such as the William Irvine sister story that has no facts behind it. But of course, the ones telling this rendition also believes there are underground tunnels below the earth in which Aliens live, and believe in some character named Commander Thor that resides amongst us today, along with other far fetched fantasies. I noticed Wally believes this rendition that is told. I wonder if he also believes the alien, and Commander Thor stuff as well. Anyway, like I said, I embrace the history of our fellowship. What is left after learning the truth about the Truth will be something very solid. Your foundation will be the true Rock. The actual Truth (Christ), and you’ll simply have sweet fellowship with people whom many love Christ as you do. The internet has been good for our fellowship. It forces us to go back to the true foundation. The true rock. The actual Way, Truth, and Life (Christ). There is no need for a human succession of a certain fellowship if our Rock is Christ. Of course, after knowing our true history, you may become non-exclusive as I did. Then being non-exclusive, and knowing the real truth, sometimes can be very frustrating when hearing preaching and testimonies that still preach exclusiveness, and the Shores of Galilee history. I deal with it mainly by knowing that we fellowship with really good, God loving, honest people who are trying to do what they feel is right for the most part. We are all imperfect. Our fellowship has wolves among sheep like the bible tells us we would. Like we just heard at convention "non of us can EVER affect the Kingdom". We may affect our "fellowship", but we cannot EVER affect "The Kingdom". Hopefully you younger generation will just embrace our history and stay in our fellowship. Again, what will be left is something much more solid, and founded on THE true rock. Thanks JD just tagging entropy . In case he's given up reading this thread.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 16:25:50 GMT -5
We had an exchange on this thread recently about the historical versus mythical nature of the Bible. For me the historical accuracy of the Bible isn't important. But that also means that using the Bible as a 100% accurate historical document as a basis for making decisions is not something I do. I use the Bible for spiritual enlightenment - to understand how I can become closer to God. I do not use the Bible as proof that for example that since Noah got drunk that it's ok to get drunk. I hope you get my drift about this. This confusion about the historical aspect of the Bible is where many people get confused. The Bible is not the only document we have from 2000 years ago. We have many many documents from every much older than that, documents which are much more 'factual' about things. For example, the story of Jonah is not a historical story - it is an allegorical story, something told to get the point across that when God tells you to do something, you can't escape doing it. It's really important for folks to understand this difference between historical and allegorical. The confusion between the two is what causes people to become Fundamentalist Christians - they take the Bible literally, they think the Bible is a historical document, that the world was created 8000 years ago, etc. It's very important to actually read history and compare it with the Bible. It will give you a much deeper meaning to the things in the Bible - you will be able to understand them for why they were written. This all might sound strange to you. But that is because 2x2ism is a Fundamentalist group. 2x2s take the Bible literally. That is not something that Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other mainline Protestants do. It's a very big difference. That is also why I recommended that you read some theology books so that you could understand what the deeper meanings are about certain things in the Bible. The theology books will help you to see what the Bible authors meant. You're not the first person to read the Bible, so don't you think it would be helpful to hear what other people who've studied it have to say about it? I know that I like to keep an open mind to those sorts of things - how else I am supposed to learn. How else can someone call themselves an independent thinker if they aren't willing to consider learning what others have to say? Here is an excellent book to get started with www.amazon.com/Introducing-Christian-Arthur-Michael-Ramsey/dp/0334006937
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 16:36:55 GMT -5
We had an exchange on this thread recently about the historical versus mythical nature of the Bible. For me the historical accuracy of the Bible isn't important. But that also means that using the Bible as a 100% accurate historical document as a basis for making decisions is not something I do. I use the Bible for spiritual enlightenment - to understand how I can become closer to God. I do not use the Bible as proof that for example that since Noah got drunk that it's ok to get drunk. I hope you get my drift about this. This confusion about the historical aspect of the Bible is where many people get confused. The Bible is not the only document we have from 2000 years ago. We have many many documents from every much older than that, documents which are much more 'factual' about things. For example, the story of Jonah is not a historical story - it is an allegorical story, something told to get the point across that when God tells you to do something, you can't escape doing it. It's really important for folks to understand this difference between historical and allegorical. The confusion between the two is what causes people to become Fundamentalist Christians - they take the Bible literally, they think the Bible is a historical document, that the world was created 8000 years ago, etc. It's very important to actually read history and compare it with the Bible. It will give you a much deeper meaning to the things in the Bible - you will be able to understand them for why they were written. This all might sound strange to you. But that is because 2x2ism is a Fundamentalist group. 2x2s take the Bible literally. That is not something that Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and other mainline Protestants do. It's a very big difference. That is also why I recommended that you read some theology books so that you could understand what the deeper meanings are about certain things in the Bible. The theology books will help you to see what the Bible authors meant. You're not the first person to read the Bible, so don't you think it would be helpful to hear what other people who've studied it have to say about it? I know that I like to keep an open mind to those sorts of things - how else I am supposed to learn. How else can someone call themselves an independent thinker if they aren't willing to consider learning what others have to say? Here is an excellent book to get started with www.amazon.com/Introducing-Christian-Arthur-Michael-Ramsey/dp/0334006937while there may be no proof that Jonah was swallowed by the fish neither is there proof that he wasn't. your basing your arguments on the opinions of men(theologians) who were not even there at the time...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 17:08:37 GMT -5
while there may be no proof that Jonah was swallowed by the fish neither is there proof that he wasn't. your basing your arguments on the opinions of men(theologians) who were not even there at the time... Fallacy jackpot!!! Do you know what fallacy you just committed? Amazing. Just to put this another way, there are Egyptian documents telling the story of Set killing and dismemberment of Osiris in which Isis reconstitutes the body of Osiris and thereby brings Osiris back to life. Did you get that? A body was dead, it was cut up into pieces. Later someone else puts the body back together, and life is restored to the body. You were not there at the time. I was not there are the time. Do you say that it is just as possible that this did happen as it is possible that it didn't happen? I say that we have extremely high probability that this did not happen. Why? because it does not obey the laws of nature. Now how about that fish. Has anyone in the modern era been swallowed by a fish? Yes. Did they live? No. What's the problem with being swallowed by a fish? No oxygen to breath and many acids in the digestive system. What's the possibility of this happening to Jonah? Zero. What has a higher probability? That the story is just allegorical.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 17:37:27 GMT -5
while there may be no proof that Jonah was swallowed by the fish neither is there proof that he wasn't. your basing your arguments on the opinions of men(theologians) who were not even there at the time... Fallacy jackpot!!! Do you know what fallacy you just committed? Amazing. Just to put this another way, there are Egyptian documents telling the story of Set killing and dismemberment of Osiris in which Isis reconstitutes the body of Osiris and thereby brings Osiris back to life. Did you get that? A body was dead, it was cut up into pieces. Later someone else puts the body back together, and life is restored to the body. You were not there at the time. I was not there are the time. Do you say that it is just as possible that this did happen as it is possible that it didn't happen? I say that we have extremely high probability that this did not happen. Why? because it does not obey the laws of nature. Now how about that fish. Has anyone in the modern era been swallowed by a fish? Yes. Did they live? No. What's the problem with being swallowed by a fish? No oxygen to breath and many acids in the digestive system. What's the possibility of this happening to Jonah? Zero. What has a higher probability? That the story is just allegorical. you can't be much of a believer in God if you think he is limited to the laws of nature. you can't be much of a believer in Jesus death, resurrection and ascension to heaven either they all defy the "laws of nature"...
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 14, 2016 18:45:16 GMT -5
while there may be no proof that Jonah was swallowed by the fish neither is there proof that he wasn't. your basing your arguments on the opinions of men(theologians) who were not even there at the time... Fallacy jackpot!!! Do you know what fallacy you just committed? Amazing. Just to put this another way, there are Egyptian documents telling the story of Set killing and dismemberment of Osiris in which Isis reconstitutes the body of Osiris and thereby brings Osiris back to life. Did you get that? A body was dead, it was cut up into pieces. Later someone else puts the body back together, and life is restored to the body. You were not there at the time. I was not there are the time. Do you say that it is just as possible that this did happen as it is possible that it didn't happen? I say that we have extremely high probability that this did not happen. Why? because it does not obey the laws of nature. Now how about that fish. Has anyone in the modern era been swallowed by a fish? Yes. Did they live? No. What's the problem with being swallowed by a fish? No oxygen to breath and many acids in the digestive system. What's the possibility of this happening to Jonah? Zero. What has a higher probability? That the story is just allegorical. You've just committed the fallacy of assuming that the creator of the laws of nature is bound by the laws of nature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2016 18:48:52 GMT -5
Fallacy jackpot!!! Do you know what fallacy you just committed? Amazing. Just to put this another way, there are Egyptian documents telling the story of Set killing and dismemberment of Osiris in which Isis reconstitutes the body of Osiris and thereby brings Osiris back to life. Did you get that? A body was dead, it was cut up into pieces. Later someone else puts the body back together, and life is restored to the body. You were not there at the time. I was not there are the time. Do you say that it is just as possible that this did happen as it is possible that it didn't happen? I say that we have extremely high probability that this did not happen. Why? because it does not obey the laws of nature. Now how about that fish. Has anyone in the modern era been swallowed by a fish? Yes. Did they live? No. What's the problem with being swallowed by a fish? No oxygen to breath and many acids in the digestive system. What's the possibility of this happening to Jonah? Zero. What has a higher probability? That the story is just allegorical. You've just committed the fallacy of assuming that the creator of the laws of nature is bound by the laws of nature. You've just committed the fallacy of believing everything that is written in a book is true.
|
|
|
Post by calleduntoliberty on May 14, 2016 20:04:16 GMT -5
You've just committed the fallacy of believing everything that is written in a book is true. No, in fact I haven't.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 17, 2016 12:46:41 GMT -5
It never fails to have Irrational come in and throw a red herring into the mix. Do you have a dartboard with logical fallacies on it that you choose at random to use, or were you born this way? Episcopal Church has lost members since it's height in the 1960s. A lot of that has been to fundamentalist churches unfortunately. However, your statements are red herrings since a good org structure doesn't guarantees good business, but rather it guarantees against risk. You have gone on and on saying what an excellent organization your church has and that the issues you see with the 2x2s are the result of their poor organization. You are correct in stating that a good organization does not always result in good business. By the same token a good organization can't really guarantee anything about a group. And a poor organization does not guarantee either. Looks like it did not mitigate the risk of members walking out the door or parishes suing for control of church property. What risks were mitigated? You can call it a red herring - I call it additional data that points out that there is little data to support the claims you make about the organization structure of groups and the influence that structure can have on the operation of the group. Speaking of Trinity Wall Street, I'm here right now, enjoying the music of a string quartet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2016 16:04:04 GMT -5
You have gone on and on saying what an excellent organization your church has and that the issues you see with the 2x2s are the result of their poor organization. You are correct in stating that a good organization does not always result in good business. By the same token a good organization can't really guarantee anything about a group. And a poor organization does not guarantee either. Looks like it did not mitigate the risk of members walking out the door or parishes suing for control of church property. What risks were mitigated? You can call it a red herring - I call it additional data that points out that there is little data to support the claims you make about the organization structure of groups and the influence that structure can have on the operation of the group. Speaking of Trinity Wall Street, I'm here right now, enjoying the music of a string quartet. They have a fantastic music program. The Bach at 1 is such a treat. Glad you are enjoying it. You work nearby, so you can go every Wed for Bach at 1. It's a unique parish - basically a real estate company masquerading as a church. So nice to see that some of the money is spent on promoting the great culture of Western Civilization. I'll look for you next time i am there.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on May 17, 2016 16:23:23 GMT -5
Speaking of Trinity Wall Street, I'm here right now, enjoying the music of a string quartet. They have a fantastic music program. The Bach at 1 is such a treat. Glad you are enjoying it. You work nearby, so you can go every Wed for Bach at 1. It's a unique parish - basically a real estate company masquerading as a church. So nice to see that some of the money is spent on promoting the great culture of Western Civilization. I'll look for you next time i am there. I'll be the guy with the bun.
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 17, 2016 16:26:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on May 17, 2016 18:49:01 GMT -5
During the brief sojourn in the whale's belly, Bartley's skin, where it was exposed to the action of the gastric juices, underwent a striking change. I will let you investigate the size of a whale's esophagus.
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 17, 2016 18:51:32 GMT -5
This story is NOT written by amateur comedy writing... Could a man swallowed by a Whale? The answer is Yes."A SAILOR James Bartley SWALLOWED BY A WHALE," in 1891The whaling ship Star of the East, was in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands, searching for whales, which were very scarce. One morning the lookout sighted a whale about three miles away on the starboard quarter. Two boats were manned. In a short time one of the boats was near enough to enable the harpooner to send a spear into the whale, which proved to be an exceedingly large one. With the shaft in his side, the animal sounded and then sped away, dragging the boat after him with terrible speed. He swam straight away about five miles, when he turned and came back almost directly towards the spot where he had been harpooned. The second boat waited for him, and when but a short distance from it he rose to the surface. As soon as his back showed above the surface of the water the harpooner in the second boat drove another spear into him. The pain apparently crazed the whale, for it threshed about fearfully, and it was feared that the boats would be swamped and the crews drowned. Finally the whale swam away, dragging the two boats after him. He went about three miles and sounded or sank, and his whereabouts could not be exactly told. The lines attached to the harpooners were slack, and the harpooners began slowly to draw them in and coil them in the tubes. As soon as they were tauten, the whale arose to the surface and beat about with its tail in the maddest fashion. The boats attempted to get beyond the reach of the animal, which was apparently in its death agonies, and one of them succeeded, but the other was less fortunate. The whale struck it with his nose and upset it. The men were thrown into the water, and before the crew of the other boat could pick them up one man drowned and James Bartley had disappeared. When the whale became quiet from exhaustion the waters were searched for Bartley, but [he] could not be found; and under the impression that he had been struck by the whale's tail and sunk to the bottom, the survivors rowed back to the ship. The whale was dead, and in a few hours the great body was lying by the ship's side, and the men ere busy with axes and spades cutting through the flesh to secure the fat. They worked all day and part of the night. They resumed operations the next forenoon, and were soon down to the stomach, which was to be hoisted to the deck. The workmen were startled while laboring to clear it and to fasten the chain about it to discover something doubled up in it that gave spasmodic signs of life. The vast pouch was hoisted to the deck and cut open, and inside was found the missing sailor, doubled up and unconscious. He was laid out on the deck and treated to a bath of sea-water, which soon revived him, but his mind was not clear, and he was placed in the captain's quarters, where he remained to [sic] weeks a raving lunatic. He was carefully treated by the captain and officers of the ship, and he finally began to get possession of his senses. At the end of the third week he had finally recovered from the shock, and resumed his duties. At this point the account shifts from what might have been related by any member of the crew to what could only be told by Bartley himself. What follows is a gruesome description of what Bartley felt, heard, and thought as he slid down into the whale's stomach, where he discovered that he could still breath, but where he was overcome by the intense heat and the dread of his horrible, inevitable death. During the brief sojourn in the whale's belly, Bartley's skin, where it was exposed to the action of the gastric juices, underwent a striking change. His face and hands were bleached to a deadly whiteness, and the skin was wrinkled giving the man the appearance of having been parboiled. Bartley affirms that he would probably have lived inside his house of flesh until he starved, for he lost his senses through fright and not from lack of air. He says that he remembers the sensation of being lifted into the air by the nose of the whale and of dropping into the water. Then there was a frightful rushing sound, which he believed to be the beating of the water by the whale's tail, then he was encompassed by a fearful darkness, and he felt himself slipping along a smooth passage of some sort that seemed to move and carry him forward. This sensation lasted but an instant, then he felt that he had more room. He felt about him, and his hands came in contact with a yielding slimy substance that seemed to shrink from his touch. It finally dawned upon him that he had been swallowed by a whale, and he was overcome by horror at the situation. He could breath, but the heat was terrible. It was not of a scorching, stifling nature, but it seemed to draw out his vitality. He became very weak, and grew sick at the stomach. He knew that there was no hope of escape from his strange prison. Death stared him in the face, and he tried to look at it bravely but the awful quiet, the fearful darkness, the horrible knowledge of his environments, and the terrible heat finally overcame him, and he must have fainted, for the next he remembered was being in the captain's cabin. www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1991/PSCF12-91Davis.html Nathan, did you read all of that article? If you had you would have realized it was proven to be a hoax.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 17, 2016 23:54:51 GMT -5
Nathan, did you read all of that article? If you had you would have realized it was proven to be a hoax. Yes, I read it. Do you believe the story of Jonah, who swallowed in the Big fish's belly for 3 days and nights... prepared and sent by God a hoax?
Why, would Jesus used Jonah's hoax story in comparing his 3 days and 3 nights in the grave and his resurrection from the dead? Don't you think Jesus/God would have known Jonah swallowed by the big fish's belly was a hoax himself? Jesus was God/the Son, don't you think he should have known Jonah's fish story was a HOAX or NOT? If it was a HOAX, he wouldn't have used Jonah story to compare as the Truth to his own death and resurrection after 3 days and nights in the grave.
No, it wasn't hoax by god, and since there isn't an god it is merely a story because people love to tell stories. That one is kinda like many a fishermen's story, -you know "It was this big.>----------------------------------------------< that fish that got away!"
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 18, 2016 3:07:17 GMT -5
No, it wasn't hoax by god, and since there isn't an god it is merely a story because people love to tell stories. That one is kinda like many a fishermen's story, -you know "It was this big.>----------------------------------------------< that fish that got away!" dmg... You're entitled to believe as an atheist... and I believe my Living God exists, and you don't. We are like Oil and water the two shall NOT mix on this earth or throughout eternity. Just like the story of the rich man and Lazarus. The gulf is fixed between us for eternity if you continue believing the way you do.
Jesus said in Luke 16:26-31 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’
~~ ALL of the atheists will end up like the rich man eventually... looking afar off from the depth of despair/hell into heaven wish they were in paradise with the poor man and Abraham. Asking God to sent someone to help their love ones NOT to come where they're in a place of torment for eternity. As long there is life, there's hope for those who want to change their minds and hearts, like the thief on the Cross.
" ALL of the atheists will end up like the rich man eventually... looking afar off from the depth of despair/hell into heaven wish they were in paradise with the poor man and Abraham. Asking God to sent someone to help their love ones NOT to come where they're in a place of torment for eternity. As long there is life, there's hope for those who want to change their minds and hearts, like the thief on the Cross." nathan, you know this for a fact, how ?
|
|
|
Post by curlywurlysammagee on May 18, 2016 13:53:21 GMT -5
Nathan, did you read all of that article? If you had you would have realized it was proven to be a hoax. Yes, I read it. Do you believe the story of Jonah, who swallowed in the Big fish's belly for 3 days and nights... prepared and sent by God a hoax?
Why, would Jesus used Jonah's hoax story in comparing his 3 days and 3 nights in the grave and his resurrection from the dead? Don't you think Jesus/God would have known Jonah swallowed by the big fish's belly was a hoax himself? Jesus was God/the Son, don't you think he should have known Jonah's fish story was a HOAX or NOT? If it was a HOAX, he wouldn't have used Jonah story to compare as the Truth to his own death and resurrection after 3 days and nights in the grave.
Read it again then. It clearly comes to the conclusion that the story is a fabrication. Do not confuse the story of Jonah with the one spoken about in the article.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 18, 2016 22:32:05 GMT -5
" ALL of the atheists will end up like the rich man eventually... looking afar off from the depth of despair/hell into heaven wish they were in paradise with the poor man and Abraham. Asking God to sent someone to help their love ones NOT to come where they're in a place of torment for eternity. As long there is life, there's hope for those who want to change their minds and hearts, like the thief on the Cross." nathan, you know this for a fact, how ? Jesus and God said so in John 3:16-21 ALL atheists, unbelievers, etc..
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
God said in Rev 21:7-8 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and ladymongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
nathan,you must be reading a different bible, I wasn't aware the word atheists was in the bible ! Also all you have said proves what ? I asked do you personally know this as a fact ? Has God told you this ? Of course not, all you have to back up your statement is what you read in a book written by men !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2016 22:48:01 GMT -5
Jesus and God said so in John 3:16-21 ALL atheists, unbelievers, etc..
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
God said in Rev 21:7-8 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and ladymongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
nathan ,you must be reading a different bible, I wasn't aware the word atheists was in the bible ! Also all you have said proves what ? I asked do you personally know this as a fact ? Has God told you this ? Of course not, all you have to back up your statement is what you read in a book written by men ! I believe that "unbelieving" could cover an atheist...and yes an "unbeliever" could believe in other gods...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on May 18, 2016 22:48:28 GMT -5
Jesus and God said so in John 3:16-21 ALL atheists, unbelievers, etc..
nathan ,you must be reading a different bible, I wasn't aware the word atheists was in the bible ! Also all you have said proves what ? I asked do you personally know this as a fact ? Has God told you this ? Of course not, all you have to back up your statement is what you read in a book written by men ! The word atheists isn't in the bible. "The term "atheism" originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshiped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope.
The first individuals to identify themselves using the word "atheist" lived in the 18th century during the Age of Enlightenment."
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on May 19, 2016 0:53:32 GMT -5
nathan, wow that a big statement to make " Myself and others have been called and chosen by God in this generation to record and write what we have seen and experienced." Considering you have no way of backing it up !
|
|