tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5957059637332303500..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Christianity Miserably Fails The Outsider Test!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78762886088768635702007-05-10T13:28:00.000-04:002007-05-10T13:28:00.000-04:00Anonymous...if Christianity is true then it's true...Anonymous...<I>if Christianity is true then it's true regardless of where I was born or what I was taught to believe.</I><BR/><BR/>Sure, truth is the truth no matter what we think. But whether or not we know the truth is the question here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91076785950021427892007-05-10T12:55:00.000-04:002007-05-10T12:55:00.000-04:00If you were born in a differnet place (or time) yo...<I>If you were born in a differnet place (or time) you would be defending different ideas as truth, silly. I have not known one person yet who didn't think he was right when he proclaimed something he thought was true, you included.</I><BR/><BR/>And how does address my question about what bearing geography has on truth? I say again, if Christianity is true then it's true regardless of where I was born or what I was taught to believe. That you apparently disagree with this statement exposes some flaws in your thinking.<BR/><BR/><I>It is not self-defeating to say we should doubt our beliefs.</I><BR/><BR/>So do you doubt your belief that we should doubt our beliefs? I doubt it. ;)<BR/><BR/><I>An overwhelming number of people do not do that. This is why I'm proposing the outsider test in the first place.</I><BR/><BR/>That's all well and good... except for the fact that your hypothetical "outsider" presumes the truth of a contrary position. Not exactly the most unbiased approach one could take, is it?<BR/><BR/><I>Good. How do you do that? I'd like to know.</I><BR/><BR/>By first seeing if my world view is internally consistent and then seeing if it correlates with reality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67593865772253032842007-05-09T15:24:00.000-04:002007-05-09T15:24:00.000-04:00I think any religious organization that promotes t...I think any religious organization that promotes the creation of marginalized community is not from Christ, but an extension of human nature. Christ gathered up people to be set free from the system that rejected and marginalized them. But He also sought out the marginalizers so they wouldn't miss out on meeting the very people they were hating. But it is an invitation and with Christ, people have the choice to self-marginalize.<BR/><BR/>Anon 1035Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60284547157981337812007-05-09T12:27:00.000-04:002007-05-09T12:27:00.000-04:00And now to Living Dust:I will have a much longer r...And now to Living Dust:<BR/>I will have a much longer reply to you later in the day, but right now I just want to -- yet again -- deal with the 'Creationist Fallacy.' <BR/><BR/>"The Universe proclaims the existence of a Creator. Therefore it proves that MY God is true." No.<BR/><BR/>Even if you accept the premise -- which I do not, but that's for another comment -- the conclusion <B>does not</B> follow. There are at least four more steps you have to demonstrate.<BR/><BR/>A: That the Creator is Theistic -- that he chooses to interact with his creation -- rather than Deistic -- that he chooses to start things in motion and watch them play out. (If we are 'made in His Image' this could argue for the Deistic, since how many of us have created a long domino-chain, pushed the first one, and enjoyed the result.)<BR/><BR/>B: That in a Universe of a billion galaxies of a billion stars each, with probably millions of types of sentient beings, that we are the focal point (or even a focal point) of his creation. (Why not argue that the Universe was created not as a 'home for man' but as a home for the inhabitants of Ursa Majores 47-5?)<BR/><BR/>C: That if we ARE the 'reason for Creation' and that the Creator wishes to manifest himself to us and has a message for us, that he has already done so. (Isn't it as logical to assume he would wait until man came up with not just printing, but with the Internet before he delived this message, so it wouldn't be lost, confused, corrupted or miscopied?)<BR/><BR/>D: That if he has already conveyed his message, that he did it through the Testaments, and not the Avesta, the Qur'an, or any other sacred-text or vision accepted by any other Earthly religion.<BR/><BR/>I would be very curious to see your arguments defending any of these positions, but until you make them, your Creationism does <B>NOTHING</B> to buttress your religion.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50173187170365296172007-05-08T16:31:00.000-04:002007-05-08T16:31:00.000-04:00What bearing does geography have on truth? If you ...<I>What bearing does geography have on truth?</I> <BR/><BR/>If you were born in a differnet place (or time) you would be defending different ideas as truth, silly. I have not known one person yet who didn't think he was right when he proclaimed something he thought was true, you included.<BR/><BR/><I>If diversity is a problem then nobody can know anything and you refute your own position.</I><BR/><BR/>My position is not a deductive argument wherby the conclusion follows with certainty from the premises. It's an inductive argument. It strongly suggests we should doubt what we believe. I do. Do you?<BR/><BR/><I>If doubt is the default position then by your test, I should doubt the position of doubt (and we wouldn't want a double standard now, would we?). It's self-defeating.</I><BR/><BR/>This is too easy. It is not self-defeating to say we should doubt our beliefs. It is not self-defeating to say the odds are that we are wrong. After all, we're talking about the odds.<BR/><BR/><I>I think it's better to approach any claim worth investigating with an open mind and to form conclusions only after the evidence has been examined.</I><BR/><BR/>An overwhelming number of people do not do that. This is why I'm proposing the outsider test in the first place. We adopt a belief system before we've fully investigated it. Answer me this, at what point can one say he has fully investigated the claims of Christianity in comparison to the claims of other religions? Does one need a Ph.D. in several religions? Many Ph.D.'s reject religion after fully examining thier faith, you know.<BR/><BR/><I>I'm not afraid to critically analyze my own world view.</I><BR/><BR/>Good. How do you do that? I'd like to know. Surely the way you write here is that you know what you believe and that's that. Is that how one truly invesigates anything else? Surely a more scientific approach is to look even-handedly at all arguments and give them equal weight (for the most part). Do you do this? Of course you can claim that you do all day long. But I have every reason to doubt such a claim given the way you write here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53890310623354401712007-05-08T16:15:00.000-04:002007-05-08T16:15:00.000-04:00Anonymous, is what you believe true? How do you kn...<I>Anonymous, is what you believe true? How do you know, when religious proliferation is separated geographically around the world based on when and where a person was born, all having defenders who claim theirs is correct?</I><BR/><BR/>What bearing does geography have on truth? If Christianity is true then it's true regardless of where I was born or what I was taught to believe.<BR/><BR/>I also note you're desperately reaching for an appeal to diversity. If diversity is a problem then nobody can know anything and you refute your own position. <BR/><BR/><I>I'm saying that how one approaches any religious faith, including one's own, should be subject to the same exact standards of doubt--no double standards.</I><BR/><BR/>I reject doubt as the default position simply because it's an illogical place to start. If doubt is the default position then by your test, I should doubt the position of doubt (and we wouldn't want a double standard now, would we?). It's self-defeating.<BR/><BR/>I think it's better to approach any claim worth investigating with an open mind and to form conclusions only after the evidence has been examined.<BR/><BR/><I>Why are you afraid of this? If what you believe is true, there shouldn't be a problem.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not afraid to critically analyze my own world view. I simply question whether there's any point in trying to frame one's investigation from the perspective of an "outsider" (by which you really mean "one who has already made up his mind to reject the claim in question before even looking at the evidence").Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81361512422373271462007-05-08T14:46:00.000-04:002007-05-08T14:46:00.000-04:00"The outsider test fails the test of the Word of G..."The outsider test fails the test of the Word of God and therefore is debunked."<BR/><BR/>Begging the question...elwedriddschehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618405641828051472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-39130968288687640322007-05-08T14:45:00.000-04:002007-05-08T14:45:00.000-04:00The fool has said in his heart there is no God.Lof...The fool has said in his heart there is no God.<BR/><BR/>Loftus has faled the testAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21282932828156210772007-05-08T13:58:00.000-04:002007-05-08T13:58:00.000-04:00anonymous, what exactly are you proposing here?......anonymous, what exactly are you proposing here?...That we should believe that which is foolish? Surely not! <BR/><BR/>Think instead about this: For the outsider test to fail the test of the Bible you must first establish the trustworthiness of the Bible to tell us the truth. I'm proposing a test to see if the Bible should be trusted in the first place. How do YOU propose we test it? Could you please explain to me why you might use double-standards when testing it against other religious books?<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, let's pick the most foolish belief system we can find, and live it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66721441025209373932007-05-08T13:51:00.000-04:002007-05-08T13:51:00.000-04:00The message of the cross is foolishness to outside...The message of the cross is foolishness to outsiders but to us insiders it is the power of God.<BR/><BR/>The outsider test fails the test of the Word of God and therefore is debunked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76267030770774556792007-05-08T13:23:00.000-04:002007-05-08T13:23:00.000-04:00Anonymous, is what you believe true? How do you kn...Anonymous, is what you believe true? How do you know, when religious proliferation is separated geographically around the world based on when and where a person was born, all having defenders who claim theirs is correct? Any number of them could have written what you just did!<BR/><BR/>I'm saying that how one approaches any religious faith, including one's own, should be subject to the same exact standards of doubt--no double standards.<BR/><BR/>Why are you afraid of this? If what you believe is true, there shouldn't be a problem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54971650933449682832007-05-08T13:16:00.000-04:002007-05-08T13:16:00.000-04:00Looks like "Doubting" John Loftus is promoting his...Looks like "Doubting" John Loftus is promoting his discredited "outsider test" again. You see, he's asking the wrong question. We shouldn't ask, "Why do I believe what I believe?" or "What would an 'outsider' think of my beliefs?" but "Is what I believe true?" <BR/><BR/>More simply, John's "outsider test" is useless when it comes to answering the truly important questions about our own world view.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79458176970660499112007-05-08T12:03:00.000-04:002007-05-08T12:03:00.000-04:00Anyone who might be curious to know what John is r...Anyone who might be curious to know what John is replying to with this post (...it doesn't look like a reply? Well, John calls it that anyway...), can check in <A HREF="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/05/john-loftus-is-not-socratic-cole-slaw.html#comments" REL="nofollow">here.</A> There are links to previous portions of this discussion there, too, including on John's DB site.<BR/><BR/>JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82396526777435558412007-05-07T20:46:00.000-04:002007-05-07T20:46:00.000-04:00Jay: If you read my introduction, you will see th...Jay: If you read my introduction, you will see that I, at least, had no 'bad experiences with religion.' I simply thought about it and realized that God cannot and does not exist. I have no problem with religion, in fact it seems only sensible that if the God of the Bible DID exist, he would not just throw ideas out to be picked up willy-nilly, but that he would create some sort of organization to protect his word.<BR/><BR/>The trouble is that Christianity has no relationship to what Jesus actually taught, since he was a believing Jew all his life, somewhat radical but never outside the mainstream of the Judaism of his time. as well as being a 'failed eschatological prophet' who really believed that he was in the 'end times.' (As seen in Jewish eyes, not through the eyes of the misreadings and misunderstandings of Daniel and the Revelation of John and other Apocalyptic literature, which were not 'prophecies' but commentary on the events of the then-current day political situation.)<BR/><BR/>You totally misunderstand us if you think we are anticlerical, anti-religious or 'unchurched' Christians, or consider us as some form of crypto-Christians who 'really' have Christ in our hearts but are unwilling to admit it.<BR/><BR/>Misunderstand us, and I for one consider such a view as condescending and unwittingly insulting -- precisely as I consider the view of a Muslim who asserts we are all 'born Muslim' and who talks of people 'reverting' to Islam rather than 'converting.'<BR/><BR/>'Our experience' for the most part is that we are ex-ministers -- I am an exception -- who studied Christianity in order to better do our jobs of preaching its truth, and instead became convinced of its falsity.<BR/><BR/>As for debunking Christ, since 'Christ' is, for the most part a construct of Paul -- who never met Jesus and after his experience on the road to Damascus, still proudly avoided those who had actually known him (see Galatians 1-2 when he states how little he had to do with the 'Church in Jerusalem') that is easy.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-24003381951607753342007-05-07T17:01:00.000-04:002007-05-07T17:01:00.000-04:00LivingDust,"Hate to disappoint you but NOBODY will...LivingDust,<BR/><BR/>"Hate to disappoint you but NOBODY will ever have "scientific evidence" regarding the origins of the universe."<BR/><BR/>Your use of <I>"scientific evidence"</I> as opposed to <I>scientific evidence</I> doesn't endear you to me and neither does the phrase <I>hate to disappoint you</I>. It comes across as transparently insincere.<BR/><BR/>I'm not bothered by the expectation that a number of interesting question aren't likely to be answered during my lifetime, if ever.<BR/><BR/>I note that you've repeatedly eschewed a substantive answer to some simple objections to your claims. So be it.elwedriddschehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618405641828051472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17696479168064363762007-05-07T16:53:00.000-04:002007-05-07T16:53:00.000-04:00elwedriddscheHate to disappoint you but NOBODY wil...elwedriddsche<BR/><BR/>Hate to disappoint you but NOBODY will ever have "scientific evidence" regarding the origins of the universe.LivingDusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08720875895794590283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20813245800425109632007-05-07T16:41:00.000-04:002007-05-07T16:41:00.000-04:00LivingDust,"you didn't offer a conclusion, just so...LivingDust,<BR/><BR/>"you didn't offer a conclusion, just some opinions and questions."<BR/><BR/>I did offer a conclusion -- namely, that I don't see a rational basis to jump to the same conclusions you have and that I'm agnostic about the universe's origin (if any) until the scientific evidence is in.<BR/><BR/>You have a made a number of bold claims and the burden of proof rests on you. I have pointed out a few blindingly obvious problems with your claims, which you have not answered.<BR/><BR/>"btw, a "naturalistic process" must have a first cause"<BR/><BR/>Why? And what caused your creator?elwedriddschehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618405641828051472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50060386306098896252007-05-07T16:26:00.000-04:002007-05-07T16:26:00.000-04:00Your friend Bart made a good point about the discr...Your friend Bart made a good point about the discrepancy between Mark 2:26 and I Sam 22:20, so here's a quote from Insight on the Scriptures, Volume I, published by Jehovah's Witnesses.<BR/>"...most translations have Jesus saying that David went into the house of God and ate the showbread 'when Abiathar was high priest.'...., such translation would result in a historical error. It is noteworthy that a number of early manuscripts omit the above phrase, and it is not found in the corresponding passages at Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4. However a similar Greek structure occurs at Mark 12:26 and Luke 20:37, and here many translations use the phrase 'in the passage about.' (RS;AT;JB) So, it appears that Mark 2:26 properly allows for the translation given in the New World Translation, which reads: 'How he entered into the house of God in the account about Abiathar the chief priest.' Since the account of the first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of David's entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since Abiathar did later become Israel's high priest in David's reign, this translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-77619991142697093822007-05-07T16:21:00.000-04:002007-05-07T16:21:00.000-04:00elwedriddscheyou didn't offer a conclusion, just s...elwedriddsche<BR/><BR/>you didn't offer a conclusion, just some opinions and questions.<BR/><BR/>btw, a "naturalistic process" must have a first cause and facts are not dependent on "scientific evidence".LivingDusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08720875895794590283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41521548356912977242007-05-07T14:35:00.000-04:002007-05-07T14:35:00.000-04:00Regarding the "outsider test", as a former outside...Regarding the "outsider test", as a former outsider, I can tell you there is only one question: "Is God?"<BR/><BR/>And the answer to all the rest is "If God is, then all else is possible".<BR/><BR/>Obviously there's more to it than that, but all questions afterward revolve around the nature and will of God, not His existence. Once the possibility of God is confirmed, "God can't do that" should no longer qualify as a definitive answer in debunking any claims about Him.<BR/><BR/>I was an agnostic from childhood through most of college. My family culture was anti-church, suspicious of organized religion, and totally blindly trusting of modern science (I'm still a big science fan, but now assume a more healthy skepticism to everything I hear) Yet when He made Himself known there was no denying it, and my attempts to rationalize Him back out of my life were futile and rediculous. However He didn't make himself known until I emotionally dropped the cynicism and pride that clouded my judgement.<BR/><BR/>Approaching Christ as an agnostic is not the same as approaching it with an open mind. Agnosticism pre-assumes you cannot know God. An open mind leaves that question up to Him if He is around to answer it.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes I think trying to approach the subject with the baggage of past religious experience and theology can be more difficult than approaching with a fresh pair of eyes as was my experience.<BR/><BR/>Having never grown up with the kind of simple childhood faith and cultural religion that so often gets rocked in one's early 20s, 30s, etc, I can't imagine what it must be like to "drop out from the pressure of evidence" so-to-speak, but from what I've seen in my 8 years as a christian, it seems a productive, and almost necessary step to go through a period of serious doubt before you can really own your faith in maturity. Many christians go their entire lives without ever really maturing beyond the pat answers that you rightfully loathe.<BR/><BR/>I will assume that, given you've devoted so much time and a blog to the subject, and the fact that you seem very sincere and honest in your writing, that your heart has not become hardened to God, only to the excessive dogma and religious posturing that seems to sit between Him and "outsiders" (to borrow your term). In that we both agree, as did Christ. <BR/><BR/>Also, in regard to the suggestion that because most come to Christ through relational means that somehow negates His power to effect change troubles me. Clearly the movement of Jesus was intended from its inception to be a relational movement. Jesus chose disciples to disciple others and spread the word by individual hands. I have never heard anyone use the Great Commission as proof that God is inadequate to do the work Himself. I don't see how that makes any sense. There are enough cases of people coming to Christ in absence of a christian community to show that God is not limited by relational methods, but chooses them whenever possible. The Chinese church full of examples of modern miracles and people coming to faith in isolation (ensured by threat of imprisonment).<BR/><BR/>I am sorry for your experience (whatever it may have been) with 'the church'. Just as the church has reformed several times throughout history to correct wrong paths, I believe it is in the midst of a modern reformation to correct certain inadequacies in the way we as a culture "do church". You will be seeing a major sea change (hopefully within your lifetime) from an evangelical church focused on growing the church, meddling in politics, and keeping its members happy, to a church focused on being "doers of the word". Many of your criticisms seem to be more about christian culture than Christ. I believe you will be pleasantly surprised as many of those criticisms will be put to rest as the "institution" that has trapped so many in a culture of christian consumerism devoid of actual life change begins to more reflect the person of Christ - through useful and meaninful positive action.<BR/><BR/>But I would hope nobody would ever let Christians get in the way of Christ. A great book on that subject, from the perspective of an "insider" pastor, is "The Jesus Of Suburbia" by Mike Erre.<BR/><BR/>As far as "Debunking Christianity" is concerned, be my guest, the religion that christianity has become could probably use a little reality check. However I don't think you'll have as much success if you try to debunk Christ.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08082102359033658897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18618116855671436122007-05-07T14:15:00.000-04:002007-05-07T14:15:00.000-04:00"and your conclusion to what you observe with your..."and your conclusion to what you observe with your five senses is what?"<BR/><BR/>Insufficient grounds to postulate "an all-knowing, powerful, creative, single being (that) masterminded the complex universal environment inwhich I find myself".<BR/><BR/>Even if the universe was created, it does not follow that this creation is due to anything but a yet unknown naturalistic process. Even if the universe was deliberately created, it does not follow that such a creator is still extant or that such a creator has the slightest interest in humankind. For all you know, we're some minor contamination of a petri dish.<BR/><BR/>Until all the scientific evidence is in, why would I abandon the only intellectually honest position of being agnostic about the universe's origin (if is has one)?elwedriddschehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618405641828051472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-45872723284600891512007-05-07T13:03:00.000-04:002007-05-07T13:03:00.000-04:00elwedriddsche and your conclusion to what you obse...elwedriddsche <BR/><BR/>and your conclusion to what you observe with your five senses is what?LivingDusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08720875895794590283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-32867941346159378762007-05-07T10:57:00.000-04:002007-05-07T10:57:00.000-04:00live-n-grace: "(you) would rather go and depend on...live-n-grace: "(you) would rather go and depend on yourself, and your own knowledge."<BR/><BR/>You make it sound like that's a bad thing. I much prefer to depend on myself, my own knowledge, and my own life experience than on the grandiose promises of a man-made religion.<BR/><BR/>LivingDust: "As a human being I use all five senses and quickly determine that an all-knowing, powerful, creative, single being must have masterminded the complex universal environment inwhich I find myself."<BR/><BR/>"Scepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon or to the first comer ..."<BR/><BR/>--George Santayanaelwedriddschehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04618405641828051472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27712165428944715662007-05-07T00:35:00.000-04:002007-05-07T00:35:00.000-04:00As a human being I use all five senses and quickly...As a human being I use all five senses and quickly determine that an all-knowing, powerful, creative, single being must have masterminded the complex universal environment inwhich I find myself. Observing that powerful forces govern my enviroment, I know that this single being must be powerful beyond my imagination, wild, dangerous, yet determining and ditating order and adherence to laws, some of which I can grasp and explain by my careful observations. The natural order of the environment is obvious for all to see. The single being, and I say single, because there is no division in the order that I observe. It is repeatable, ongoing, predictable and unpredictable, yet still falling within the sure confines of the laws that govern my environment. When I study my environment and consider its complexity, diversity and order I know deep in my innermost being that all of this is no accident, no mere occurence, no random act. To think othewise would pure folly, a denial of the obvious, a rejection of evidence and misuse of the intelligence given me by the single being, the Creator of all that I observe. Only a fool would deny the testimony of his spirit and reject the Creator. I FEAR this mighty, powerful and dangerous Creator. I desire peace with the single being, because obviously to face him as an advesary would be certain destruction.LivingDusthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08720875895794590283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-44232540140620207722007-05-06T23:06:00.000-04:002007-05-06T23:06:00.000-04:00Yes Prup, Paul got what he knew from the SPIRIT, a...Yes Prup, Paul got what he knew from the SPIRIT, and not directly from Jesus. That is how we become believers and have faith in Jesus is not by the bible but by the spirit. The law is written on our hearts.<BR/><BR/>What Paul wrote is really how I feel, and since it is from God, I can learn from it. If you are too ignorant to read it than that is fine, because it will only hurt you.<BR/><BR/>The bible doesn't convict you of sin, but rather shows you the light, and the gospel, and the way to being saved.<BR/><BR/>First I see NO contradiction in the bible. Jesus didn't believe the world was going to end in his lifetime, for only the father knows.<BR/><BR/>Passages that accept slavery? Please show where it says: take a man, work him till he's almost dead, and feed him almost nothing. There is none. Slavery was a cultural thing, would you rather have had them kill captured enemies? <BR/><BR/>In some ways this blog has helped me. It has strengthened my faith, but it has also caused me some trouble, knowing that people actually believe what you believe. That no matter what I write or show you are stuck in your ways.<BR/><BR/>And now: my own little poem:<BR/><BR/>I am a man of faith,<BR/>A man who believes in what he can’t see.<BR/>I am like a tree planted by streams of water,<BR/>My leaves never wither and I produce fruit in all seasons.<BR/>I take the path of life, though it is narrow,<BR/>Not the path of destruction though it is wide.<BR/>I live a life of purpose, <BR/>Every breath is a gift, everyday is a joy,<BR/>Love is my best revenge.<BR/>My life is set on The Rock, firm and strong<BR/>Not on the sand, weak and shallow.<BR/>I am in the world, but not of the world,<BR/>This is not my home.<BR/>I am a free man, my chains have been broken,<BR/>From sin I am set free.<BR/>Through all this it is not I who am strong,<BR/>It is not in myself that I found salvation.<BR/>It is not in any deed of my doing<BR/>Or good life I’ve lived. <BR/>No, it is by His grace that I am saved.<BR/>For it is no longer I who live<BR/>But Jesus Christ in me!<BR/><BR/>Sometimes I get SOOO frustrated becuase love and truth is right in front of you, Jesus is knocking on your heart. But you deny it, and would rather go and depend on yourself, and your own knowledge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com