The facts remain pork is forbidden because its unclean according to the bible. See Lev. 11:7

Former Pope worships statue of Mary, He says, ""Membership in the Militia means complete dedication to the Kingdom of God and to the salvation of souls through Mary Immaculate." - Pope John Paul II



Members worship statue of Mary,

[img]http://reformationnation.files./2007/12/mary-worship.jpg[/img]


Notice carefully the Illuminati pyramid in gold.






The Word of God condemns bowing to all idols and images! "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, " (Exodus 20:4,5).

[img]http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Russian_Orthodox/mary_worship-demonic.jpg
[/img]

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." - Isaiah 42:8

Where are the Catholic apologetics?

@ ToneyB

Very Very WRONG. The book of daniel was written long after the events it "predicted" happened, its very easy to make a prediction after an event had already happened Grin(dating and content). There are a lot of historical errors in the book of daniel and so many of its "predictions" never saw the light of the day. You can read about the Historical inaccuracy of the book of daniel and also The Failure of Daniel's Prophecies . So there is nothing amazing in the book of daniel which like most of all the other books in the bible were written long after most of the events they narrated(Gospels,Pentatuech,Book of Prophecies and on and on). By the way If we are to believe in the bible because it made some correct "prophecies" then what about the so many other wrong prophecies or non prophecies it made?

Your simplicity never fails to amuse me! Every honest historian knows that Babylon conquered the kingdom of Judah in the 6th century BC. The subjects of such captivity including Daniel lived under captivity for 70 years before being released by the king of Persia, Artaxerxes 3, after Persia conquered Babylon in BC 539. Persia ruled from BC 539 - BC 331 when Alexander the Great conquered Persia. Rome then conquered Greece in BC 331 and ruled the world up to AD 476. So where does that leave room for the prophecy to have been written? What would be the central motif for any set of people, including the Hebrew people, to benefit from documenting dis-ingenuous historical information? As a matter of fact when were such mischievous documentations to have taken place, and how could such an attempt be made without intelligent people not becoming privy to such deception? bear in mind that the prophecy included 4 kingdoms that were to have ruled in succession beginning with Babylon. For your arguments to hold true such a documentation would have to have been skillfully crafted by some genius of sorts, and would have to have occurred some time after Rome fell as a kingdom, which took place in AD 476. Are you able to verify when such so-called deceptive documents were first put forward, and by whom?

Because the bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully answers all the questions eh?

I simply suggested that the bible didn't have to be a biology book for us to know that, but it paraphrased it well enough.

I too can say that, so difference does it make? The bible has it's own account of how it said the universe was "wonderfully and powerfully" made and I don't see you referring to it to show me that how we were "wonderfully and fearfully made" when talking about how your god created the universe. Are the creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2 missing in your bible?

As usual you're confused. I wasn't describing how wonderfully and fearfully the universe was made, but rather how the bible described the human body. If you're going to quote me at least do it intelligently.

Sure it is crap

What a confession! Need I hear more?

I will agree with you, but so also are the creation accounts in your bible. The universe and the world in which we live in did not come about according to that creation account.

Seeing that you confessed that the TOE is crap, then tell us how did the universe come about?

How did you know that it was your god that did it? because some men that said that the sun moved from place to place wrote about it? or some anceint men that said that by peeling sticks in front of mating goats the goats will produce strriped offsprings? So your god did it because you read the words of ancient men who saw the refraction of light on water droplets in the atmosphere and decided to tag it as convenant between them and their god. If we were left with the bible alone would you have every known about anything call the DNA? The bible said God did so did the koran and all other religious text and I said its up to you to prove that they are wrong.

Let me repeat stick to the discussion at hand. Your constant repetition is boring.

No body knows for now, The level of knowledge we have acquired in the last 100 years is greater than the one we have acquired in the last 1000 years put together, we dont know for now by we now have an avalanche of knowledge and lets wait and see what happens in the next 500 years. And as for your question I will say that Allah did it, its up to you to prove me wrong.

So if according to you men don't know where the atoms came from, and how bio-molecules happened to have been intricately put together, then what the hell do we mortals know. And even if you don't believe in God then hasn't it occurred to you to at least not rule out the remotest possibility that some higher power than ourselves could have been responsible for life? Why not seek to explore the unknown? Why not take it from a different angle?

OK, then lets talk about how the bible layed out its account of creation and see if it comes close to the reality that we see around. You guys don't like talking about the creation accounts in the book of genesis you only like to talk about how god holds everythin in his hands.

So where is your question?

Neither has the bible provided ANY explanation too. God created the heaven and the earth is no explanation, its just an assertion.

And a good place at which to begin is the bible. If you spend the time in searching its pages you will see the truth. Ancient men didn't have the scientific knowledge we have today about atoms, etc. They simply wrote what God revealed to them. As time progressed and men became more mindful of the environment and how nature worked, and as knowledge increased, the bible was better understood. There are a lot of things that were said in the bible that makes one wonders about it. How did ancient men know that the earth was round long before science discovered it? The bible speaks of large creatures with rib cages looking like iron and with tremendous sizes, long before scientists discovered fossils of dinosaurs.

NO, they wrote what the god whom they speak for and who "inspired" them to write about him and how he created the universe told them to say. He told them to say that the sun moves from place to place. Its funny when you guys push away scientific and factual errors in the bible by saying that it is the fault of the authors not the fault of the god who "inspired" them to write the factually inaccurate stuffs. Was it not the god they were talking about that told them to write that the rainbow is a covenant between him and them? Who told the writers of genesis to write the 6 day creation account in genesis? Who told them to write than the sun moves from place to place?

That is simple to explain. You simply don't understand inspiration. Don't confuse it with dictation. Besides, there are implications in the process of inspiration that you have no clues about. I'd have to give you a bible study on such.

They attributed blindness, seizures, crippling, leprosy and so many other diseases to their god as the cause or evil spirits its all over the bible.

You cannot blame the bible for that. Its just telling us what the people believed. The bible holds nothing back. It tells us where men fail and where men succeed, even as it addresses the chosen people of God. Besides, some of those diseases were indeed caused by evil spirits. Today it is a fact that certain illnesses are caused by demonic attacks and molestations. Some directly and some indirectly. Of course you are not involved with Christianity to know the dark forces we are up against, and as such you're not qualified to comment. The moment you confess Christ as Lord of your life you will see what we are talking about. That is why we know in whom we believe.

I don't have to major in life sciences to know that I have never seen any of you defending the creation accounts in genesis. I want you that has studied life sciences to start right away and provided scientific evidence for the creation accounts.

We don't need to. The evidences are already there, but of course we do not expect blind people to see them.

I think I will agree with you on this, but the "god did it" hypothesis has no explanation for anything. Its just an assertion.

And it is a positive assertion at that,

@ ToneyB

How has you general statement prove anything? Moslems look at the design and all they see is the beautiful handiwork of Allah. Ancient greeks looked at the design and all they saw was Zeus and his perfect craftsmanship.

However the difference lies in God's words. In life there is the genuine and the counterfeit. The end results determine the strength of inspiration. God's words have proven itself prophetically, and otherwise. One of the very kingdoms of which you speak, that is Greece, was predicted to come after Media-Persia by Daniel the prophet. In fact the prophet went on to predict the division of Greece into four divisions to be headed by his four generals after his death. Amazing isn't it?

How did you get to know that there are trillions of cells that make up the human body? Did you read about it in the book of proverbs or in the book of Luke?

Of course not for the bible never had to be a biology book to have said, "we are wonderfully and fearfully made", among the other things that the bible said about the body. That sums up the entirety of biochemistry.

The bible states how the god it talks about created the world and that description does not fit with the universe in which we live in unless if the bible is talking about another universe.

And every fool knows that the theory of evolution is the biggest crap ever written. The bible didn't have to go into details about creation to confirm that it took a Designer to have made a design as perfect a universe as we have it. Now you tell me. How could such a perfect design emerge out of the big bang? What kind of order are you expecting from an explosion. How convenient! No probable chance theory can account for such a design as the one we now confront. Its mathematically improbable.

How did we get to know about DNA, its functions and what it contains? we surely did not read about it in the book of genesis did we?

What we are arguing is not whether or not the bible speaks specifically about the science of DNA, or protein, but the illogical and nonsensical arguments presented by those who advocate the theory of evolution. For example abiogenesis is what was taught for years as to how life spontaneously generated itself. There can be no life without life first existing in order to continue life. That is what God did from the very beginning. God made mature creatures with the capability to procreate in order that the species could continue. The TOE says life first began with a cell, yet is not able to consistently project the central dogma of biology, which says that for a cell to make protein is must have DNA material. Yet they first said that protein had to have been the first component of the cell.

My question to you is this. Who put the bio-molecules together that were used to make either DNA, or Protein? Where did the atoms come from to have assembled the bio-molecules? To continuously argue the chance theory is gross dishonesty on the part of those who advocate the TOE. There is no way natural forces could have by chance over a period of time put bio-molecules together in such a fashion with such precision and accuracy. That is like saying a hurricane passed through a junk yard and out came a brand new Boeing 747,

I believe that if you read the koran or other religious text you will see where their own deities talk about how they hold everything humans see in the world together and keep them in oder. But how does that explain anything. The god of the gaps or the god did it hypothesis has never answered any thing. Ancient Jews saw the refraction of water droplets in the atmosphere( rain bow) and since they couldn't explain it they decided to say that it is a covenant between them and their god.

Well, that is your problem not mine. I am only concerned about what the bible says.

So because everything works in our cell in a intricate manner then the god of the bible most have put it there?

The TOE hasn't done a proper explanation, so who else could have made our bodies with such intricacy? The simple answer is, if there is a master design, then there is a Master Designer. That is as inescapable as night follows day. Name any watch or motor vehicle that never had a designer? Even the astronauts proclaimed that God made the heavens and earth when they saw outer space.

Allah in the koran and other deities also said that they are the ones that created all the cells to function in the very complex way we see them. Go ahead and prove them wrong.

Wrong purpose! Stick to the discussion.

It is always easy to say that Allah or Jehovah did it, isn't it? Everything is amazing 1000 years ago the ancient Jews all thought that the sun moves from place to place didn't they, they even wrote it in your bible,

They wrote what they experienced, or were able to explain. To them it appeared that way. God is patient isn't He?

the saw the lightening in the sky and all attributed it to their god's wrath because they had no knowlege of what causes it. The blamed disease on evil spirits because they never knew what bacterias and viruses were.

How can you say otherwise when you weren't there. You cannot disprove what they attributed to disease and sickness.

Evolutionist have done much more to defend their postulations than any of you "god did it trumpeters" have ever done to defend your own postulations, the god of the gaps hypothesis has never done and real explanation.

Evolutionists have done noting of the sort, and deep down you know it, but you're afraid to deny it. But what strikes me most about people like you is that you never even majored in advanced life sciences, yet you all have the biggest defense speeches. All you guys do is ferret internet info and make it your arguments. You aught to think independently.

I will repeat once more. To believe the TOE requires more faith that what God expects of Christians. Grin

@ Krayola

That's a "straw-man" argument. I made no such claim. U're refuting something I neither said nor implied. I simply pointed out the FACT that the video was made by a religious group.

So why did you have to say it was done by religious people? So I repeat the question in a different way. Does being religious affects a person's ability to use science to defend creationism? Isaac Newton, and others who worshiped God were scientists, weren't they?

But since you bring it up, it would have to be accepted by a larger science community, and tested rigorously for credibility . Anyone that watches that video objectively, and with the necessary background knowledge should know that it is full of baseless claims.

But you're not qualified or ever will be to put the facts as well as Dr. Ventry did. In fact contrary to what you seem to be saying, is that none of the advocates of evolution has ever been able to refute his argument about the polonium halos. They have tried to use scientific terms to try and confuse people, but in truth and in fact have not been able to produce a solid argument against such arguments. Find them for me if you can, 

Like I said even with all this testing science can still be wrong,  but it has a more honest and transparent process  than  the bible which was exclusively in the hands of the church before print was invented. (let us not forget that we all know that in this period the church was the most powerful and most corrupt institution on the earth,  things that make you go hhhmmmn? )

Do not confuse the Catholic church with Christianity. Christianity is a set of teachings that came from Christ, and which was continued by His apostles. The RCC made every attempt to obscure and suppress knowledge. 

First of all you need to accept that your "creator" is an assumption and not a verifiable fact. You are not willing to do that.  scientists are, about their assumptions.

People of faith have a history of experiences that can be counted as evidence. Moses witnessed a shaking mountain when he received the 10 commandments. Peter, James, and John witnessed the glorification of Jesus on the mount, and later wrote about it. And there are more, lifestyle health principles that the bible has written within that are sound scientific principles. 

I'm no science expert, and I don't throw phantom answers at things I cannot honestly explain. But from the little I have read we are held by gravity which keeps us at relatively same distance from others in our gravitational pull. The expansion you talk about takes place on a much larger scale.

There can be no inter galaxy expansion, and hence there can be no larger scale expansion either. The bible says God has called the constellations by name.

Quote from: Bobbyaf on May 26, 2009, 03:49 AM
I am yet to see an explosion that brings out order, or design. Wasn't the big bang some sort of explosion that supposedly began the universe? How boring!  Grin

I am yet to find any credibility in the claim that an invisible man in the skies ignores millions of starving children and answers  prayers for better paying jobs. Especially when they are offered on special service days/nights, usually as many times a week as possible and of course with collection baskets filled with money. chi-ching $$$$

Well, I don't blame you for not understanding spiritual matters, hence such responses. Don't blame God for sin's effects on humanity. We made a choice to sin and hence we must live with its consequences.

Genius he was, I wont deny that,  they killed millions across continents in the name of their God, and robbed indigenous people of their resources. They got away with it too, and somehow convinced you that they are on your side. If that isn't genius i don't know what is. Alleluia!!

Now you're changing the subject matter. Wasn't I refuting how your Roman put the bible together? Now you're adding more to his accomplishments. 

Appropriating pagan places of worship and calling them churches, while adopting their pagan holy days and giving them names like christmas, and Easter, that was also genius, i'll admit

The sacred writings came long before there was ever a Roman kingdom. Jesus and His disciples, some of whom later became apostles taught from the ancient scriptures. Other epistles were later added by some of those apostles. If you were an ardent student of history you'd have recalled that the Caesars had nothing to do with the Jews and their religion, except for Constantine in the 4th century who through political strategy bridged Christianity to paganistic principles in an attempt to unite Rome. As a result the counterfeit church which was headed by the Bishops in succession, saught political power while posing as a church.


Quote from: Bobbyaf on May 26, 2009, 03:49 AM
How do you explain that the bible pronounced the earth was round long before any scientists came to that knowledge? How do you explain that modern archeology confirmed that the biblical figures that were once thought to be fictitious were indeed real personages that existed. Even their language and culture were found in unearthed tablets. Where did this Roman acquire such knowledge might I ask? I could go on,

I won't debunk these claims just yet,  please quote the bible on these, so that i can do a more complete job. I don't want to have to do it twice. thanks  Smiley

No problem. Below you will find a few verses,

A. "He . . . hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7. This scientific fact is from Job, the Bible's oldest book.
B. "He . . . sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22. The Bible said the earth is round centuries before man found out.
C. "To make the weight for the winds." Job 28:25. Long before scientists knew, God said air has weight.
D. "By Him [Jesus] all things consist." Colossians 1:17. The word "consist" here literally means "hold together" or "cohere." Many Bible translations put it "hold together." This is the answer to the nuclear physicists' worrisome question about the atom. The real mystery of the atom does not involve its benumbing mega-power, but rather, Why doesn't the atom fly apart? Scientific knowledge says it should, but it doesn't. Some scientists are wondering what puzzling power, completely unknown to them, is holding it together. The Bible says that mysterious power is the Creator, God Himself.

In the name of civility and mutual respect, I haven't said what i really think about that video.  Smiley

I suggest you watch the video again please.


We have such a sincere thirst for the divine in Nigeria that it breaks my heart to see how people's desire for meaning is used to enslave their minds and hold them hostage by so called "Men of God" and their medieval theology

@ Krayola

I've seen that video before. Its a bunch of guys throwing a lot of big words around and nothing they say is scientifically accurate. It was made by a religious group. You can hear the bias in the cadence of the commentators right from the first set of statements they utter.

So being religious doesn't allow one to be scientifically qualified and competent to produce evidence for creation?

They actually had the audacity to claim that ALL of mainstream science ignored the "solid" evidence, and instead went with an UNTESTED assumption about space-time expansion. They then eloquently proceed to quote the bible's "obvious" reference to what the "correct" explanation is.

Which is true by virtue of their own confession of not accommodating that the universe has a central point. Now you tell me who is hiding something from the students? If anything there are being audacious before the Creator. Now since you're some bright alleck tell the fora why the galaxies are not expanding. Tell us why our galaxy isn't expanding? The only time the universe expands is when the Creator makes it expands, and in this case our galaxy was the last addition to what was already there before. In their attempt to explain the doppler effect they came up with an expanding set of galaxies which doesn't make sense.

Science searches for answers, they don't claim to have them all. And when they make assumptions, they recognize them as such.

I quite agree with you but this time they have made so much of a blunder that their pride will not allow them to confess their folly. I am yet to see an explosion that brings out order, or design. Wasn't the big bang some sort of explosion that supposedly began the universe? How boring!

Religion claims to have all the answers. ALL. People quote a book that was compiled 2000 years ago by a non-Christian Roman emperor and his "holy council" as the authority on everything.

I wish you'd stop making yourself sound so silly. That Roman must have been a genius. How do you explain that the bible pronounced the earth was round long before any scientists came to that knowledge? How do you explain that modern archeology confirmed that the biblical figures that were once thought to be fictitious were indeed real personages that existed. Even their language and culture were found in unearthed tablets. Where did this Roman acquire such knowledge might I ask? I could go on,

You are free to believe whatever you want. But just because we disagree with you does not mean we do not believe in "God". We just refuse to narrow "God" down to a book of questionable origin that has emerged from a questionable institution.

Take another honest look at the videos again and see if you will come up with the same conclusions. Probably your first view was blurred by your obvious bias.

@ Huxley

It is not as long as you were told. In other words you have no proof as to how long it takes diamond and petroleum to be manufactured naturally. Scientists who have a bias for evolution will tell you this, but in reality it doesn't take a lot of time for diamonds to be manufactured naturally, or for petroleum to be manufactured as well.

Look at this video for about an hour and you will see that there are a lot of things that we were told that took millions of years, when in truth and in fact took far less of a time.

http://www.halos.com/videos/0004-TheYoungAgeoftheEarthEnglish-214k.htm

There is no case for intelligent design. NONE. While it is true that evolution can not be 100% proven, there is at least tonnes of evidence supporting it, thus making it the more credible option. All we keep getting is these abstract arguments. If what we really seek is truth we have to be honest with ourselves.

If 1000 people have chronic malaria, 500 go to a doctor, another 500 go to a pastor, which group will have more survivors? By how much more?

When your doctor takes your money he sells you a service. When your pastor does he robs you.

If that isn't vague what is? What evidence are you talking about? Carbon dating?  You can't be serious! There is far more evidence for design by a master Designer than you're prepared or able to accept.

Take a look at this 1 hour video and if you have an open mind, and a desire for truth, you will find it.

http://www.halos.com/videos/center-of-the-universe-320x240-273k.htm

@ Huxley

You are on the right track on both counts, but you have been rather superficial. Why don't you research the formation of petroleum and artificial diamond a bit more. Look into how long it takes to form these substances naturally and put some quantitative estimates of the time.

I am not convinced with their version of time needed for petroleum and diamond to be made naturally anyway. Besides, I have already read various versions of the account coming from the evolutionists. I have my own ideas that I have come to accept that I got from a video I watched some time ago.

It was made by Dr. Robert Ventry and it makes for a good view.

@ Huxley

Hello, I have got some questions for you. Here we go;

1) Do you drive a petroleum-based car? Where do you think petroleum comes from and how long does it take to form?

Petroleum from what I know is a mixture of hydrocarbons that is sourced from both plants and animals that once existed some time before.

2) Have you heard of artificial diamond? How is it possible to create diamond in the lab and what does one need to know in order to do this?

From what I recall all it takes is high pressure and high temperature, but apart from that I am not too sure about the exact details.

Anyway what are you getting at?

@ Tudor

What is really baffling is when one thinks of animals that have gone extinct like the dinosaurs,dodo,mammoths and co.science has shown they went extinct several millions of years ago.but looking at the bibles genology,the creation of the earth wouldn't be more than 8,000 years ago.we all know thats not true,so why the cover up by bible apologists?

Christians don't really deny the existence of large animals at all ever having existed. The confusion rests with the time we say they existed, and what destroyed them versus what the advocates of evolution hold.

Noah's flood happened to have destroyed them since it covered the earth. No life form survived except those that entered the huge ship that Noah built. There is ample evidence to explain the universal flood. Just look at the fossil formations and you will notice that the larger animals were found at the top including the bones of dinosaurs. These large beasts were able to climb up to the highest points in order to escape the flood, while the smaller animals perished.

Some scientists jump to the conclusion that a gigantic meteor or meteors struck the earth, creating a global firestorm which destroyed the dinosaurs etc and formed the K-T Boundary layer. How boring! So it roasted the dinos, but left the elephants and rhinos? I thought scientists were supposed to be smart. As the Bible says so eloquently, ‘Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.’ (Romans 1:22) Other scientists say that a giant meteor hit and did not cause a firestorm, but caused a gigantic tidal wave, possibly 1000 feet high.

Ever heard about the K-T boundary? Its a layer of sediment all over the earth. All the fossils of dinosaurs and other extinct creatures happened to have been found below the sediment layer, and never above. How come? MOre and more scientists are becoming convinced that the Bible is as accurate as it comes.

Remember what Jesus said about those who failed to believe on Him? He said that the rocks would cry out if they failed to be a witness, and indeed they are doing just that. The evidence from the rocks are plainly pointing to the accuracy of God's word without a doubt.

Let me put to you another case. Scientists argue that the foundation rocks took millions if not billions of years to have cooled and solidified. Yet deep in thse rocks can be found microspheres called Polonium halos, produced by the radioactive decay of primordial polonium, which is known to have a fleeting half life of a little over 3 minutes.

The fact that these halos are found in the foundation rocks of the earth means one thing. They had to have been made instantaneously to prevent the halos from evaporating. If in deed it took the rocks a very long time to solidify, then logically there could have been no trace of such halos in the rocks in the first place, correct?

Lets create an analogy. Let us say we place alka-seltzer in water, what would you expect? An effervescence correct? To trap those bubbles one would have to suddenly freeze the water, correct? The same principle would apply to an instantaneous solidification of the rocks that would have trapped the radioactive halos from escaping.

QED.

@ ToneyB

Evolutionist at least are providing evidence for their theory. where are the evidence for creationism? Grin Grin. I have noticed that no body wants to provide any evidence or try to defend creationism. all the arguments are against evolution with NO evidence or scientific backing for creationism. very funny people. Grin Grin

We do not need to prove creation. Just take a look at the design and you will see the Designer. Every design must of necessity have a designer. The trillions of cells that make up your body are all designed, and to argue that over time these cells developed their various parts and bio-molecules is ridiculous.

For example did the so-called primitive cell start out with DNA, or protein, or both? How did that design come about anyway? How did molecules get their design? Why don't atoms slit apart? The bible says "by whom all things consist" speaking of Jesus' power to hold the universe together after having created it. There is so much power in the atom, that has been tapped by man to create atomic and H-bombs. Have you ever stopped to think what is holding all this power in the atoms?

I did  courses called biochemistry, molecular biology, and trust me, everything in our cells work the exact same way, give and take those cases to cater for mutation.  When for example you look at how motor proteins literally pull vesicles along a tube-like structure in a cell it is just amazing.

The theory of evolution advocates that life came by chance. All these balanced life forces simply just gradually put themselves in place.

To believe that requires more faith that what God expects of Christians.

@ ToneyB

He is yet to prove that John the disciple of Jesus wrote the gospel of John. That it not even possible considering the Fact that the book of John was written 60-65 years after the supposed death of Jesus. Paul's writing and letters were written about 30 years before the gospel of John was written and the gospel of John was written purely based on Paul's theology and teachings by an unknown writer.

But how do you know for certain that what you have read about John not being the author of a book after his name isn't really the same author? What is more important to you ToneyB, to prove that these so-called writers aren't the original writers, or to prove the truth that God's word is indeed a history book with real people that existed among real nations that history and archeology has confirmed including up to the time when Rome held sway, and who had no apparent reasons to make up stuff just for the sake of doing it?

On what basis are you asserting this? How credible is your source anyway, if ever there is a credible source for all of this?

You see I am looking for a central motif for your reasoning. Let us say for argument sake that it cannot be truly ascertained as to who the real authors were, what impact would that have on the efficacy of what God is saying to us as humans through the bible?

You see that is the bottom line. Its either there is a God as the bible has described, or there is not. Its either there was a man who did in fact walk the earth called Jesus, or Yeshua, or whatever His name might have been, or not. Where do you stand on this?

Do you personally believe that God exists, and if you do what are you doing about it?

Why is it that forum topics are never usually discussed with any semblance of respect or tolerance? There is hardly a forum that I go to where people show tolerance and respect for each other.

Look how far we have gone from the topic. Come on good people why must we get so harsh to one another? This is an important topic and I believe it deserves more than this.

I don't mind jabs from time to time, but please lets keep it civilized!

@ ToneyB

I think you're holding on to straws. The bible is not one of those books that one can merely read on the surface and expect to understand, and worse yet, pretend to understand. Some of the issues you have raised have to do with the acts of God that are a mystery to those of you who have resisted listening to His voice.

God has ultimate control of the affairs of men. You may not always understand why He does what He does because you have not been taught the rudiments of systematic theology. You're just one lone shooter who believes he is qualified to join the army. You're like a man playing back-yard cricket who gets good at it and feels he deserves to play on the professional cricket team.

Like I said marriage is a divine institution, and its wrong for the RCC to change what God instituted. Now it is backfiring. The apostle Paul said its better to marry than to burn. He also said that if one can afford to stay single for the gospel sake then do so, but that is the exception rather than the rule.

If you were to do a survey my guess is that most priests would desire marriage. It could very well be a secret passion among them, but because the RCC is so powerful they are afraid to even mention it.

@ chukwudi44

CULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY OUR LORD JESUS ASKED PETER IN JOHN 21" TO FEED MY LAMBS " AND "TEND MY SHEEP"

Was it Peter alone that fed the lambs? Was he the only apostle with responsibility to tend the flock? By the way who chaired the Jerusalem council? Wasn't it James, and not Peter?

ALSO EXPLAIN WHY PETER WAS NAMED FIRST BY ALL THE GOSPEL WRITERS INCLUDING MATHEW AND JOHN.
WHY WAS HE THE CHIEF SPOKESMAN OF THE APOSTLES AT THE ELECTION OF MATHIAS, ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST ,AND JUDGE IN THE CASE OF ANANIAS AND SAPHIRA.

Because that is the typical Peter. He is always volunteering.

Why did God shut him up on the mount of transfiguration?

My question is this. How can we tell if the name, or names we now know of were given for the purpose of calling the Creator, or identifying the Creator.

Isn't the very word Yahweh a man-made word? How can I be sure if what we stress now as God's name was really what some say it is?

Is there access to the original autographs? Were any adjustments made to the name, or names of God? 

Just curious.

I am sure I saw a passage of scripture that shows where the Creator said that He honours His word above His name(s). lets see:

“, for thou hast MAGNIFIED THY WORD ABOVE ALL THY NAME” (Psalm 138:2).

Notice it says "all thy name"

Am I safe in saying that its possible that the Creator has several names?

Am I safe in saying that a Christian might be careful about the name, yet not careful in the word? Will the Creator hold a person sinful if he or she doesn't call Yahweh, or Yeshua?

ROLLING ON THE FLOOR LAUGHING HYSTERICALLY, AND HERE ALL THIS WHILE I THOUGHT YOU KNEW WHAT INDULGENCES WERE. THIS IDIOT THINKS INDULGENCES ARE WHAT PEOPLE PAY TO GET THEIR RELATIVES FREED FROM PURGATORY.

Once again you're in plain denial. Let me refresh your selective memory a bit. Pope Leo X accepted monies from the people under false pretense. Martin Luther protested against Pope Leo X , being niggardly, because of his cunningly devised plans to find ways to collect money. And this he achieved via the following cunning plan. He would publish absolution-of-sins documents (indulgencies) on which he would write that he has power to forgive sins for both the living and the deceased and even to those in purgatory. He pretended that the money collected thus would be used to help the armies fighting in the east. Via these indulgencies, Leo informed the people that whoever would give the expenses of a whole year for one soldier, would have absolution for all sins he/she would commit within a time period of five years; those that would give more money than this would have a bigger right in order to sin for more years!!!

Can you imagine the audacity of the pope? Telling people that they are free to sin as long as they pay in advance a certain amount in monies. The more the merrier,

TAAAAA IDIOT YOU HAVE PROVEN YOU KNOW NOTHING, GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD QUICK QUICK. GO AND FIND A NEW STRATEGY, THIS ONE JUST EXPOSED YOU FOR AN IGNORANT BUFOON.

Obviously your selective memory forces you to be not only ignorant of your own church teachings, but to be disrespectful and rude on top of it. Christians don't insult others when they disagree with each other. We discuss issues rather than people.

I AM NOT ONE WHO IS QUICK TO CURSE, BUT YOU DERSERVE THIS ONE BECAUSE YOU JUST SHOT YOURSELF IN THE FOOT AND NOW I KNOW NEVER TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY!!!! AT ALLL

This is what is called cheap psychology.

TAAAA SO YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT INDULGENCES ARE. YOU THINK IT'S A PAYMENT. AT LEAST GO AND FIND OUT WHAT AN INDULGENCE IS BIKO NU, U ARE A DISGRACE TO ALL ANTI-CATHOLICS. AT LEAST THEY GET THEIR POINTS STRAIGHT.

So I guess Pope Leo X, and those priests in the 16th century didn't collect monies from the people under false pretense, huh? There can be no time lapse between what the RC church taught in the past when it was convenient for them to do so based on the gross ignorance under which it held the people, and now. The RCC is a very cunning organization. It knows it cannot deceive so easily people who are educated about its past.

The obvious point I made was that the RC church based on its evil practices then cannot be compared to Christ's true and spotless church in which there is no guile and hatred for people who disagree with its teachings.

CHAI CHINEKE SEE DISGRACE NA.

DAVIDY, COME AND TEACH YOUR BROTHER HOW TO PROPERLY HATE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HE DOESN'T KNOW HOW.

HA!!!! NNA YOU ARE DISMISSED!!!

YOU HEAR ME DISMISSED!!!!

GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD JO!!!!!

Really!

If the life and example of Peter was anything to go by, then his denial of Jesus Christ at a time that he Peter was needed is proof that Peter could not have been that rock. The denial came after Peter made the confession that Jesus is the Son of the living God. It was the very same Peter that Jesus rebuked as Satan. No where in scripture does it say that Peter is the rock. That is a Catholic statement which has no authority over scripture.

Peter could not have been the rock and made such a blunder in short order. A rock suggest something that is firm and solid. A rock suggests something immovable. The fact that Christ said, "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" shows unequivocally, that what Peter confessed is the foundation on which Christ's church is built. It is Jesus Christ who is the chief corner stone according to Peter. It is not Peter who is the corner stone, but Jesus Christ.

Salvation cannot be built on men, for there is no other name that is given among men through whom we can be saved.

Listen to God's word as it speaks,

Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, a tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; whoever believes will not act hastily.

In ancient times the cornerstone was the stone at the corner of two walls that united them. It was the visible corner of the foundation of the building and the starting point of all future building above the foundation. It was the most costly stone because of its beauty and strength. It was also the largest, most solid and carefully constructed stone.

Here Peter quotes Isaiah 28:16 in 1 Peter 2:6 "Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded."

Here again Peter calls Jesus the Rock of offense, 8 "And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."

Under no circumstances has Peter even referred to himself as the rock, yet Catholics have taken upon themselves what the bible has not.

This warning that Peter gave to the Jewish leaders, and those who opposed Christ, as those who stumbled at the word, is what I give to all Catholics who are stumbling at the word.

1) The Catholic Church is the only one with authority from Christ, Go and read your Bible for that one
2) Imposed what and on whom? Are you a Catholic? Did it say all non-catholics must follow the rules? You just want to open mouth and say something so people will think ur intellingent when ur not.

But you and I know that whatever is passed on to the bishops and priests, it will be passed on to the other denominations over which the RCC desires dominion. It takes intelligence to know that the RCC wants total control, but is simply using a front of unity in order to achieve its goals.

As an insider you certainly have not a clue as to what your denomination is up to,

Let me tell you something. The RCC has not received one instruction from Jesus Christ, because it is not, and never will be the true church. It is the counterfeit organization that was predicted to have come to bring about the tribulation upon God's true church.

God's true church will never abuse little boys. God's true church will be spotless when Jesus Christ bursts through the clouds of heaven to redeem His people. God's true church will show respect for God's commands and instructions, unlike the RCC that has placed images and idols for people to kiss and adore. The true church will not accept indulgencies from its members so that their relatives will be taken from purgatory. The true church will not pay homage to dead people including Mary. The leaders of God's true church will not take on titles that only belongs to God.

I could go on.

@ Huxley

OK, let's explore the design option for a minute by considering the following questions:

1) If it is design that accounts for the diversity of lifeforms on the planet, what or who is the designer?

The person the bible refers to as God, since its one of the major sources of His revelation to us as humans. The ultimate source of proof of God's existence is the first advent of His Son to live among men.

2) If there is indeed a designer, then this desiger has to be at least as complex as the things he designed. In the case who designed the complex designer?

Not necessarily. The bible makes it clear that God isn't mortal or finite. As humans we are not in a position to say that He is as complex as His design because that would distract from His attribute as being omniscient. We dare not use what He has designed to conclude that He is either as well designed or more designed, since He has no beginning nor end. That would defeat the whole purpose of He being called God.

3) If design accounts for complexity, why to we find complexity in a hierarchical structure, from the simple about 500 million years ago to the complex over recent epochs?

That is an assumptive question by you, but unfortunately for you we do not believe that the earth is that old. There is evidence to prove that the earth was made instantaneously by God as recorded in the bible.

4) Why would a designer design lifeforms so that 99.99% of all life that has ever lived is now extinct?

And what are these life forms of which you speak?

5) Why would a designer design whales with legs? Of what use are legs to a whale?

Have you ever seen a whale with legs before?

6) How many different types of diseases of the eye exists?

Quite a few.

@ mazaje

what are the biblical "truths" if i may ask?

For one it spoke about people like you who'd be mocking and jeering. How did it know about persons like you?

Why do historians depend on the bible to shed light on ancient historical figures? Before they started doing that they used to refute its names of personages. When it became obvious that the science of archeology favoured what the bible said, those scientists in turn began using the information from the bible to confirm what archeology happened upon.

the bible only made its case(ideas of the writers). the koran too has made its case, so did the hindu text etc. . . you do not believe in their own case but you are unable to disprove it. . .by the way are the creation accounts in genesis 1 and 2 what you call "truths"?

Yet while the bible's predictions came true, theirs' haven't. History highlights an historical man named Jesus who the Romans killed in AD31, and who was predicted to have come to live among His people by the ancient prophets. What is your answer to that?

What about the four world kingdoms that came in the same as predicted by the ancient prophet Daniel? Can you refute that Babylon came before Media-Persia, which came before Greece, which came before Rome?

How about the prediction by several prophets that the then kingdom of Babylon after its demise would never have risen up again, and that the place in which it stood would have been occupied by wild animals? God had said in His words that it would never rise again, yet Saddam Hussein attempted to rebuild Babylon and failed.

You have not described how the alternative theory has greater explanatory power than Darwnian natural selection. Until this "new" theory is shown to have greater explanatory power and accounts for all the evidence, Darwinian natural selection will remain the theory supported by the vast majority of scientists.

C'mon, do us a favour and tell us what this new theory is and who are its proponents, will you?

There is nothing to explain really. The term natural selection is not a bad term per se, but my problem with it is simple. It doesn't account for the fact that genes and how they operate don't require millions of years to bring about adaptations.

The design argument makes more sense, because for an animal to adapt to its environment over a period of time, and assuming a short period so as to maintain the same species, there has to be an array of factors present in order to achieve such changes.

As you're very much aware the central dogma of biology wouldn't stand up well based on Darwin's theory of the original species of life. The simplest of cells called bacteria are so complex in their operation. The flagellum in one bacteria species is so complex and ordered, that the likelihood of its machinery gradually being put together over time is ludicrous, based on how we know proteins and genes operate in harmony.

Every living species were made with intact working parts whether from a macro-biological or micro-biological point of view. The basic structures had to have been in place already for any accommodation of adaptations to have occurred.

Darwin's finches simply learned to adapt so as to survive, and the genetic mechanisms had to have been in place so as to afford such changes. The adaptations in themselves do not support the idea that new creatures resulted over millions of years.

Once again its obvious that the RCC is always imposing its own rules and dogmas. If God introduced Himself as Yahweh, then that is what He should be called. It was Hebrew that God's people spoke, and that language so happened to have pronounced that name.

The irreducibility Complex principle has blown Darwin's theory out of the water. In fact quite a few scientists have come to their senses, and can no longer see any sense or logic in what Darwin postulated in a time, in 1831 to be exact, when he knew very little about how complex a cell was. Everything Darwin theorized was based on physical changes he witnessed among certain bird species on an island. He coined the ability for birds, and other creatures for that matter, to adapt to change in their environment for their survival- the process of natural selection

While I have no qualms with such a term, I do have a problem with the idea that these adaptations tend to occur over millions of years, which resulted to where we are today from a single cell. His very species of origin tree as to how life began smacks of gross incompetence, and ignorance.

If Darwin were alive in our time and knew what we now know about the cell he would never have dared to embarrass himself the way he did.

Later I will go into more details.

@ desthan

While I agree with your views I don't agree with your style of presentation. You need to allow other posters time to react to your posts. You're posting way too much information all at once, and that amounts to spamming. I hope you understand my point.

Cheers,

Is it ever possible for decent and respectable people to have a discussion on a topic without getting personal? What is the point of arguing for arguing sake? Are you guys on an ego trip or something?

Come one goodly people we can disagree amicably. Where is the love and respect that all of you were taught as virtues to uphold and die for?

Cannot you see that we all stand to lose, while the enemy of souls stands by and laughs us to scorn?

So you have moved out of darkness and seen the light uplawal