ArchivedThe Truth and truthsOh, yes, I understand. I didn't mean to imply that you were calling me a jerk. The "me" in my quote was also meant in a generic sense, not to indicate first person. I agree completely. That's why I said earlier in that post: "From our viewpoint, you are on your way to an eternity in hell if you don’t’ trust Christ as your Savior. We don’t really want that to happen to you, so instead we tell you about the only way that you can avoid that destiny. Sometimes our tactics might not be the best, but if you consider the point we are trying to make, it’s not such a bad message." I agree, that is much better. Ya' know, I'm starting to see the "jerkish" attitude that you all are referring to. There's always a bad way to do things, a good way to do things, and a better way to do things. While telling you that I believe you are wrong may be "good" because I'm sharing with you what I believe is truth, the question has to be, for me, "is this the best way to do this?" When pitting "You're wrong" against "Can I share with you another idea", I think it's obvious that the latter is better. The same has to go both ways, though. In the evolution-creation debate, I seem to hear alot of "You're an idiot for believing creation" - rather a jerkish attitude. You will say: "Ah, but look at all the scientific evidence we have to support our claims." Well, your scientific evidence is all fine and dandy, but I do not believe the conclusions that evolutionists draw from them. Therefore, you using your evolution-based conclusions as proof to me that evolution must be true is about as effective as me using the Bible to prove to you that Christianity is true. I hear your next argument: "How can I prove it to you if you won't believe science?" But, I did not say that I don't believe science. I said I don't believe the conclusions that you all draw from science. I believe that the science that's out there fits in with the idea of creation quite well, but that is for another debate. and inspired by God. Translations are not inspired. The original Greek and Hebrew was inspired, and it alone should be considered infallible. If you have issues in a King James Version Bible, or in a New International Version Bible, then you must go back to the original and see what they say. "Admitted" by whom? And "forged" in what way? Where's your support for this statement? Show me one. Well, supposing that they took the time to try to explain things to you, but you still didn't understand, I'm not surprised that they came to this conclusion. After all, the Bible does say that spiritual (i.e. Christian) things cannot be understood by natural (i.e. non-Christian) men. Yes, I know. We're both speaking in generalities. Indeed we are. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame