Question ...

[Jorge]

You don't upset me. You confuse me though. I have never met a person before that was so convinced that they have it all 'right',

HOLD IT right there! I do NOT believe that I have it "all right" --- I believe that NO ONE has it "all right". Therefore, right off the bat you are beginning with a LIE / MISREPRESENTATION and so the remainder of your post has to be regarded under the adage, "Garbage in, garbage out!"

so convinced they are above the normal Christian in terms of their personal assessment of their faith and commitment to scripture, and yet who at the same time violates some teaching of Christ in almost every single post he creates. It's as if you have never read any of the teachings of Christ in the Gospels, and a good many of the teachings of Paul and the Apostles (esp John). They may as well have never been recorded - if I was to evaluate them against how you behave.

Like I said above, "Garbage in, garbage out!"

Such a complete disconnect of personal morality from professed faith is difficult to comprehend.

Of course for you it would be "difficult to comprehend" since you have established a FALSE baseline from which to judge (judging being your favorite activity).

Usually if someone acts a little out of Christian character and they are called on it, there will be some sort of acknowledgment they could do better, some sort of humility or contriteness, maybe a little indication of embarrassment over placing such a corrupt image of Christian behavior up for public view.

But not you. Never so much as a hint that you recognize how far you are from the true standard of Christian integrity.

WOW - I am indeed a fortunate soul in that O-Mudd doesn't have one iota to do with my Judgment. In fact, it's much worse for O-Mudd because as he judges me he shall be judged himself. It's the spiritual 'boomerang effect' - the measuring rod he uses on me shall be used on him. Methinks he's not going to like getting whacked with his own rod. Bwahahahahaha

I mean none of us is perfect. Not one. But most would at least acknowledge that texts like the beatitudes or 1 Cor 13 represent a goal we should aspire to.

Jim

Good heavens ... STOP with the 'holier than thou' BS, O-Mudd.
It fits you as well as a newborn-size Huggies diaper would fit you.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

HOLD IT right there! I do NOT believe that I have it "all right" --- I believe that NO ONE has it "all right". Therefore, right off the bat you are beginning with a LIE / MISREPRESENTATION and so the remainder of your post has to be regarded under the adage, "Garbage in, garbage out!"

Just an observation Jorge. And your response here and below is just yet another example of exactly what I'm talking about. You pour out literal judgement on the faith and salvation of those that are not YEC, having even fostered not one but TWO threads asking if a person that accepts evolution can be a Christian. And in the second one, answering a resounding 'NO'. And consider here, in the two currently most active threads (this one and "a quiz") you have claimed to have 'exposed' me, and that I'm a 'false Christian', I mean with each post the tone an air of judgement of myself and anyone that holds to some form of TE or OEC grows. And yet, when I call out your obvious behavior problems, when I point out that you in almost every post ignore the teachings of Christ and Paul and the Apostles on behaviour - which any and all can observe - you then with more hypocrisy than the proverbial Pharisee start accusing me of 'judgement'.

And yet I get the impression you actually are blind to the absolute hypocrisy of it. That you may actually not understand that the standard you hold out for others you violate in almost every single post you write. That the behavior you demand from others is at a 'thousand fold' higher level than the behavior you expect from yourself. Hence my earlier post about reversing who has the splinter and who has the log relative to what Christ taught.

Of course for you it would be "difficult to comprehend" since you have established a FALSE baseline from which to judge (judging being your favorite activity).

Not at all. One can pick a post almost at random in the two threads I've mentioned above and observe exactly the point I'm making.

WOW - I am indeed a fortunate soul in that O-Mudd doesn't have one iota to do with my Judgment. In fact, it's much worse for O-Mudd because as he judges me he shall be judged himself. It's the spiritual 'boomerang effect' - the measuring rod he uses on me shall be used on him. Methinks he's not going to like getting whacked with his own rod. Bwahahahahaha

And again.

Good heavens ... STOP with the 'holier than thou' BS, O-Mudd.
It fits you as well as a newborn-size Huggies diaper would fit you.

Jorge

And again. With what you dish out, and with how you routinely violate so much of what Christ and the Apostles taught as regards behavior, it is just mind boggling how you can on the one had administer so much judgement on so many people, and then go off like you have here when your own lack of commitment to Christ's teachings is pointed out.

As an example. How often, in a bold rebuke to Christ Himself, have you thanked God on these pages that you are not a 'sinner' like someone else (myself or others), how often have you thanked God you have not committed their sins and that you can 'sleep like a baby' on account of your own better and higher commitment to the scriptures than the other fellow? I mean Christ devoted an entire parable to saying who it was that would be forgiven in a scenario like that. And it wasn't the fellow thankful for how much better he was than the other guy!

Or how many times have you called someone an idiot on these pages? And yet Christ says someone that does that is in danger of Hell itself!

And as for 'Do not judge lest you be judged'. Again, its a one way deal in your Bible it seems. You are free to pass judgement on the standard of faith of everyone at TWEB, and yet anyone that so much as hints at something you might be doing wrong is railed upon exactly as you've done here. It would seem that in your version of the Bible Jesus said something along the lines of "Judge not lest you be judged, excepting of course for my servant Jorge Fernandez that will live in the late 20th and early 21st century after my Resurrection - He shall judge with a righteous Judgement".


Jim

[Jorge]

Just an observation Jorge. And your response here and below is just yet another example of exactly what I'm talking about. You pour out literal judgement on the faith and salvation of those that are not YEC, having even fostered not one but TWO threads asking if a person that accepts evolution can be a Christian. And in the second one, answering a resounding 'NO'. And consider here, in the two currently most active threads (this one and "a quiz") you have claimed to have 'exposed' me, and that I'm a 'false Christian', I mean with each post the tone an air of judgement of myself and anyone that holds to some form of TE or OEC grows. And yet, when I call out your obvious behavior problems, when I point out that you in almost every post ignore the teachings of Christ and Paul and the Apostles on behaviour - which any and all can observe - you then with more hypocrisy than the proverbial Pharisee start accusing me of 'judgement'.

And yet I get the impression you actually are blind to the absolute hypocrisy of it. That you may actually not understand that the standard you hold out for others you violate in almost every single post you write. That the behavior you demand from others is at a 'thousand fold' higher level than the behavior you expect from yourself. Hence my earlier post about reversing who has the splinter and who has the log relative to what Christ taught.




Not at all. One can pick a post almost at random in the two threads I've mentioned above and observe exactly the point I'm making.




And again.




And again. With what you dish out, and with how you routinely violate so much of what Christ and the Apostles taught as regards behavior, it is just mind boggling how you can on the one had administer so much judgement on so many people, and then go off like you have here when your own lack of commitment to Christ's teachings is pointed out.

As an example. How often, in a bold rebuke to Christ Himself, have you thanked God on these pages that you are not a 'sinner' like someone else (myself or others), how often have you thanked God you have not committed their sins and that you can 'sleep like a baby' on account of your own better and higher commitment to the scriptures than the other fellow? I mean Christ devoted an entire parable to saying who it was that would be forgiven in a scenario like that. And it wasn't the fellow thankful for how much better he was than the other guy!

Or how many times have you called someone an idiot on these pages? And yet Christ says someone that does that is in danger of Hell itself!

And as for 'Do not judge lest you be judged'. Again, its a one way deal in your Bible it seems. You are free to pass judgement on the standard of faith of everyone at TWEB, and yet anyone that so much as hints at something you might be doing wrong is railed upon exactly as you've done here. It would seem that in your version of the Bible Jesus said something along the lines of "Judge not lest you be judged, excepting of course for my servant Jorge Fernandez that will live in the late 20th and early 21st century after my Resurrection - He shall judge with a righteous Judgement".


Jim

Yawn

Face it, O-Mudd --- with me you are EXPOSED as a "Christian" fraud; as a "Christian" wanna-be; as a wolf in sheep's clothing spreading heresy and false doctrine. If only you would face that fact then perhaps there would be a chance at reformation.

And you do it all under the pretense of trying to "spread the Gospel". BTW, in a sense I agree - you are "spreading the gospel" except that it is YOUR "gospel" - a distorted version of the Scriptural Gospel. You do this appealing to the ignorance of others. You do it by vilifying Biblical Creationists at every opportunity. Brrrrrrr ... in a way you are frightening - more so to me than Richard Dawkins is.

There's no need for me to repeat all of this since you've heard it all before.

Jorge

[One Bad Pig]

That is a dishonest misrepresentation AND YOU KNOW IT!

I specifically stated that I did this only for CERTAIN individuals.
And even then, on occasions curiosity gets the better of me and I dig in.
But even if that weren't the case you have misrepresented me.

How is it a misrepresentation if you've admitted to doing it?

Be a man and say, "Yes, I have done as you say. I apologize."

I'm not going to apologize for calling things as I see them.

Again, is it by Divine Revelation that you know this?
Nahhhhh ..... more like blind, fanatical prejudice!

False dichotomy.

Watch this: You may have noticed that I often answer posts point-to-point.
Just as I am doing now ... line-by-line.
Kindly explain how I could do that unless I read each individual point in a post?
Go ahead, explain it. This ought to be good - let me grab some popcorn.........

That just gives you more opportunity to fling poo. I have not alleged that you do not read each individual point in a post, but that you do not read them very carefully. This is a perfect example, by the way, of you not reading very carefully.

Pot - kettle - black.

Er, no. Quit looking in the mirror. I try not to call people out for dishonesty, and I don't recall having called you out for dishonesty (I'm sure you'll correct me with specifics if I have). And I already told you I don't fling poo.

[oxmixmudd]

Yawn

Face it, O-Mudd --- with me you are EXPOSED as a "Christian" fraud; as a "Christian" wanna-be; as a wolf in sheep's clothing spreading heresy and false doctrine. If only you would face that fact then perhaps there would be a chance at reformation.

And you do it all under the pretense of trying to "spread the Gospel". BTW, in a sense I agree - you are "spreading the gospel" except that it is YOUR "gospel" - a distorted version of the Scriptural Gospel. You do this appealing to the ignorance of others. You do it by vilifying Biblical Creationists at every opportunity. Brrrrrrr ... in a way you are frightening - more so to me than Richard Dawkins is.

There's no need for me to repeat all of this since you've heard it all before.

Jorge

Sorry Jorge. I am not a fraud - but you are. I have not written a case advocating a provably false alternative explanation for Asteroid impacts and stood behind it in spite knowing the alternative I've presented has no chance of answering the obvious questions.

(1) there is no way for a steam explosion to create the artifacts found in the formations classed as asteroid impacts.
(2) there is no way for a stream explosion capable of creating those artifacts (if they were possible) would not produce the VERY SAME problems for YEC as the actual impacts themselves.

There is NOTHING about what you wrote in that paper that offers even the slightest real hope for a resolution to the problem presented by asteroid impacts.

But your audience doesn't know that.

When you tell you audience a falsehood on the expectation they will not be able to discover that falsehood, it makes you a fraud.

You also are a fraud in that you bet some folks you could produce evidence you never were able to produce, and then you never followed through and paid the debt.

So where exactly am I a fraud Jorge:

Fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

Exactly what about me being a Christian is fraudulent Jorge? Where have I deceived anyone about what I actually believe? And what about my claim to follow Christ violates ANY historical (Creeds) definition of the faith? I have NEVER claimed to follow your particular extensions to Christian faith.

To put not to small a point on it Jorge, you can't call me a fraud as regards Evangelical Christian faith without calling more than half the Protestants out there frauds for the same or similar reasons. And I don't doubt you do that given your own testimony regarding what sort of church you attend and the sorts you avoid/despise. Nevertheless, if we're going to be honest, let's be completely honest. Instead of singling me out specifically, let it be known just how many denominations are 'frauds' in your eyes Jorge. And after you are done, let's see the percentage of Christian readers of this website left not on the list.


Jim

[Jorge]

How is it a misrepresentation if you've admitted to doing it?

I'm not going to apologize for calling things as I see them.

False dichotomy.

That just gives you more opportunity to fling poo. I have not alleged that you do not read each individual point in a post, but that you do not read them very carefully. This is a perfect example, by the way, of you not reading very carefully.


Er, no. Quit looking in the mirror. I try not to call people out for dishonesty, and I don't recall having called you out for dishonesty (I'm sure you'll correct me with specifics if I have). And I already told you I don't fling poo.

Okay, fine, I gave you the courtesy of listening to your rantings.
.......................... Now it's back to the pig-pen for you, Bad Pig.

Jorge

[Jorge]

.
So where exactly am I a fraud Jorge?

Fraud: a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

Jim

This is getting old. I also notice that you have something of a masochist in you.
I mean that in the sense that you seem to actually enjoy punishment. To wit ...

Above you ask a question and then provide a definition. Well, the definition that
you yourself provide answers your question!

Let me spell it out for you (my text inserted in green):

"Fraud: a person (that would be you) or thing intended to deceive (yup, deceive it is!) others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities (the quality being claimed is that of being a bona fide (biblical) Christian when in reality you follow a "Christ" of your own making ... a "Christ" with an ad hoc definition ... a "Christ" that is not the Scriptural Christ except in a few selected aspects.).

It merits repeating that you should NOT take any of this personally. I would say the same thing to Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins - to name just two out of countless others.

In case you hadn't noticed, this represents the solution to the question that has been tossed out thousands of time: Is it possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist?

I personally struggled with that question for decades until the answer came to me (God takes full credit for that). YES, it is possible but ONLY if Christ is defined in a way that differs from the Christ of the Bible.

In other words, TEs do follow "Christ" (so they are "Christians") but it is their "Christ" - a "Christ" that uses billions of years, pain, suffering and death as the means of obtaining the creation. That IS your "Christ", is it not. Well, that "Christ" is NOT the Scriptural Christ (which is my Christ).

In summary, you are a "Christian" under YOUR "Christ". That way you get to have your cake and eat it too (i.e., you get to claim "Christ" AND retain Evolution and Giga-Years). I am a Christian under the biblical (my) Christ - my Christ did not use Evolution or Giga-Years for His creation.

Live with it.

Jorge

[Kbertsche]

It merits repeating that you should NOT take any of this personally. I would say the same thing to Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins - to name just two out of countless others.

In case you hadn't noticed, this represents the solution to the question that has been tossed out thousands of time: Is it possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist?

I personally struggled with that question for decades until the answer came to me (God takes full credit for that). YES, it is possible but ONLY if Christ is defined in a way that differs from the Christ of the Bible.

In other words, TEs do follow "Christ" (so they are "Christians") but it is their "Christ" - a "Christ" that uses billions of years, pain, suffering and death as the means of obtaining the creation. That IS your "Christ", is it not. Well, that "Christ" is NOT the Scriptural Christ (which is my Christ).

In summary, you are a "Christian" under YOUR "Christ". That way you get to have your cake and eat it too (i.e., you get to claim "Christ" AND retain Evolution and Giga-Years). I am a Christian under the biblical (my) Christ - my Christ did not use Evolution or Giga-Years for His creation.

Live with it.

Jorge

And you would also have to accuse B.B. Warfield of following a different Christ. (He was the last of the great Princeton theologians, a defender of orthodox Christianity against Modernism, and a TE of sorts.)

It's odd that the great defender of biblical inerrancy did not follow the biblical Christ, don't you think?

[One Bad Pig]

Okay, fine, I gave you the courtesy of listening to your rantings.
.......................... Now it's back to the pig-pen for you, Bad Pig.

Jorge

You're doing that mirror-gazing thing again. I rarely rant, and have yet to do so in this forum.

[oxmixmudd]

Noticing once again Jorge side-steps the issue of his fraudulent paper on Asteroid impacts and his welshing on a bet:

This is getting old. I also notice that you have something of a masochist in you.
I mean that in the sense that you seem to actually enjoy punishment. To wit ...

Above you ask a question and then provide a definition. Well, the definition that
you yourself provide answers your question!

Let me spell it out for you (my text inserted in green):

"Fraud: a person (that would be you) or thing intended to deceive (yup, deceive it is!) others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities (the quality being claimed is that of being a bona fide (biblical) Christian when in reality you follow a "Christ" of your own making ... a "Christ" with an ad hoc definition ... a "Christ" that is not the Scriptural Christ except in a few selected aspects.).

It merits repeating that you should NOT take any of this personally. I would say the same thing to Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins - to name just two out of countless others.

In case you hadn't noticed, this represents the solution to the question that has been tossed out thousands of time: Is it possible to be a Christian and an Evolutionist?

I personally struggled with that question for decades until the answer came to me (God takes full credit for that). YES, it is possible but ONLY if Christ is defined in a way that differs from the Christ of the Bible.

In other words, TEs do follow "Christ" (so they are "Christians") but it is their "Christ" - a "Christ" that uses billions of years, pain, suffering and death as the means of obtaining the creation. That IS your "Christ", is it not. Well, that "Christ" is NOT the Scriptural Christ (which is my Christ).

In summary, you are a "Christian" under YOUR "Christ". That way you get to have your cake and eat it too (i.e., you get to claim "Christ" AND retain Evolution and Giga-Years). I am a Christian under the biblical (my) Christ - my Christ did not use Evolution or Giga-Years for His creation.

Live with it.

Jorge

There is only one God, and only one begotten Son of God - Jesus Christ. "One name under heaven by which mankind can be saved." What you've said is quite literally double speak. Take away the direct attempt at deception and what you have said is that TE's are not Christian.

And, as has been said before, you yourself don't follow the "Biblical Christ" by your own standard. Because you have no choice (being human and all) but to have errors in your own conception of who Christ is/was. In fact, by your standard, no-one anywhere actually follows the "Biblical Christ", because not only limited by our current circumstances to 'see through a glass darkly', that is only indirectly, we don't actually know what the precise full text of the Gospels is in that we don't know for sure what exactly was in the originals (though we do come very, very close to it). The implication of these two realities is that non of us has a fully precise image of who Christ was, or even who the 'Biblical Christ' was.

It's all very silly. And the truth is, Christ came to set us free from this sort of 'law' based definition of salvation. We need only recognize Christ is God in the flesh and turn to Him and away from our sins. This is the 'good news'. That God has paid for where we come up short - paid the penalty for our sins - known and unknown. That we no longer have to cross every 't' and dot every 'i' just so to find life with God here on Earth, and eternally with Him in Heaven.

All you've done is erect barriers to faith that conveniently still let you in and hold out anyone who happens to disagree with your particular take on things.



Jim

[Jorge]

And you would also have to accuse B.B. Warfield of following a different Christ. (He was the last of the great Princeton theologians, a defender of orthodox Christianity against Modernism, and a TE of sorts.)

It's odd that the great defender of biblical inerrancy did not follow the biblical Christ, don't you think?

Come on, KB, please tell me that you aren't as shallow and illogical as that?

I would say exactly the same thing to B.B.W. as I just finished saying to O-Mudd and I would do so for the same reasons. Why would you find that so hard to believe? Warfield was like many great theologians today -- right on many things, wrong on others. I would simply have pointed out to Warfield the facts that I've pointed out here. I see him stroking his beard, deep in thought, and saying something like, "Hmmm ... you've definitely made me reconsider my position."

Many a person has been bamboozled by the Evolutionary fairy tale just as many people have been convinced by the alleged "evidence" for Evolution and for Giga-Years. The simple fact is that the vast majority of people aren't sufficiently well read on these matters to be able to defend any position and so they just accept whatever the "experts" say.

"Golly gee wiz ... Drs. Bluh, Bleh, Bloh and Blah from Harvard, Yale, Princeton and MIT say so and therefore it must be true! After all, those very smart scientists would never lie to us, would they?"

Sheep to the slaughterhouse. I honestly feel very sad for those people.

B.B.W. was absolutely right on biblical inerrancy but he was equally absolutely wrong on equating a "Christ" that would use Evolution and Giga-years of pain, suffering and death to bring about His creation with the Christ that did the same over 6 literal days. Or were you maybe expecting Warfield to be right on everything?

I don't blame Warfield entirely -- there was much that hadn't been thought through in his day just as Evolution hadn't yet been scientifically shown to have more holes than Swiss cheese. My beef with many of today's TEs is that they DO know better (i.e., they have a huge advantage over Warfield) but willingly and dogmatically refuse to accept facts, evidence and arguments that challenge their anti-biblical views.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Noticing once again Jorge side-steps the issue of his fraudulent paper on Asteroid impacts and his welshing on a bet:




There is only one God, and only one begotten Son of God - Jesus Christ. "One name under heaven by which mankind can be saved." What you've said is quite literally double speak. Take away the direct attempt at deception and what you have said is that TE's are not Christian.

And, as has been said before, you yourself don't follow the "Biblical Christ" by your own standard. Because you have no choice (being human and all) but to have errors in your own conception of who Christ is/was. In fact, by your standard, no-one anywhere actually follows the "Biblical Christ", because not only limited by our current circumstances to 'see through a glass darkly', that is only indirectly, we don't actually know what the precise full text of the Gospels is in that we don't know for sure what exactly was in the originals (though we do come very, very close to it). The implication of these two realities is that non of us has a fully precise image of who Christ was, or even who the 'Biblical Christ' was.

It's all very silly. And the truth is, Christ came to set us free from this sort of 'law' based definition of salvation. We need only recognize Christ is God in the flesh and turn to Him and away from our sins. This is the 'good news'. That God has paid for where we come up short - paid the penalty for our sins - known and unknown. That we no longer have to cross every 't' and dot every 'i' just so to find life with God here on Earth, and eternally with Him in Heaven.

All you've done is erect barriers to faith that conveniently still let you in and hold out anyone who happens to disagree with your particular take on things.

Jim

WOW, your intellectually-dishonest gymnastics would impress even an Olympic coach. Then you try to sneak in the "law-based salvation" nonsense stupidly believing that I wouldn't notice.

And your dishonesty continues by not mentioning the fact that I have previously stated that I too would not be a "Christian" under YOUR "Christ".

And your dishonesty continues by neglecting to mention that MANY will claim to be Christ and to come in His name when in fact they are false (anti) Christs and/or come in their own name spreading false doctrine that would lead the flock astray were it not for the Holy Spirit.

And your dishonesty continues by implying that unless we have EVERYTHING right about the biblical Christ then we are ALL doomed. That is sheer stupidity (beyond dishonest). We don't have and probably never will have EVERYTHING right about God/Christ. But we are certainly expected to have SOME KEY things right about Him. To wit: I do not know what Christ's favorite color was when He walked the earth but I DO know that He would not use billions of years of pain, suffering and death to bring about His creation. That is why YOUR "Christ" is different than the biblical Christ -- in the same sense as Shiva is a different "god" from the God of the Bible.

And your dishonesty continues by beginning the post with the "Asteroid" accusation. This time you reminded me of Hovind's debate with Bartelt: Hovind was mopping the floor with her and so out of nowhere Bartelt whips out, "Well, at least I pay my taxes." See, it's a common, dishonest tactic that the TEs et al. use whenever they are cornered. Dishonesty personified.

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

And your dishonesty continues by not mentioning the fact that I have previously stated that I too would not be a "Christian" under YOUR "Christ".

That has nothing to do with 'dishonesty', and in fact indicates you don't really understand the point at all. There is only ONE God Jorge, only ONE Christ. We both attempt to heed the words of and follow the leading of the ONE Christ. There are not two.

And your dishonesty continues by neglecting to mention that MANY will claim to be Christ and to come in His name when in fact they are false (anti) Christs and/or come in their own name spreading false doctrine that would lead the flock astray were it not for the Holy Spirit.

This is just an completely gross misapplication of those verses. I'm not following someone else that claimed to be the Messiah, Nor do I claim to be Messiah. You are just totally off in the weeds here.

And your dishonesty continues by implying that unless we have EVERYTHING right about the biblical Christ then we are ALL doomed.

Dishonesty? You are the one implying that - not me? You've got this very long list of 'other things' outside what the scripture presents in terms of faith in Christ. You are the one discounting the legitimacy of others faith in Christ based on elements of faith that have little or nothing to do with the core of the faith. You have made the age of the Earth, something far less important than Baptism or the Lord's supper, MORE important than these. For you ALLOW for differences in the implementation of those things, yet do NOT allow for differences in how we understand the age of the Earth.

That is sheer stupidity (beyond dishonest). We don't have and probably never will have EVERYTHING right about God/Christ. But we are certainly expected to have SOME KEY things right about Him. To wit: I do not know what Christ's favorite color was when He walked the earth but I DO know that He would not use billions of years of pain, suffering and death to bring about His creation. That is why YOUR "Christ" is different than the biblical Christ -- in the same sense as Shiva is a different "god" from the God of the Bible.

That is absurd. Name a core doctrine of the faith that I deny Jorge. What do I deny that is critical to our understanding of who Christ is, to our capacity to believe on Him and be saved from our sins.

Name them Jorge - stop talking in generalities. Name a core doctrine of the faith I deny.

And your dishonesty continues by beginning the post with the "Asteroid" accusation. This time you reminded me of Hovind's debate with Bartelt: Hovind was mopping the floor with her and so out of nowhere Bartelt whips out, "Well, at least I pay my taxes." See, it's a common, dishonest tactic that the TEs et al. use whenever they are cornered. Dishonesty personified.

Jorge

No Jorge - YOU wrote that paper just like Hovind didn't pay his taxes. The paper is fraudulent, and your support of it and refusal to admit it is fatally flawed makes you a willful participant in the fraud. And it has EVERYTHING to do with the points made in my posts. You judge everyone else's faith as false, all the while mocking calls to act according to Christ's teachings, not honoring your promises, and writing false documents that directly mislead others.


Jim

[Carrikature]

People are people. A commitment to Christ changes a person, but it doesn't make them perfect. And then some people's commitment is only superficial, they are Christians for reasons other than Christ and a call to repentance. They find a place perhaps they can have recognition or power. That people would then act out of their old nature or even out of a purely non-Christian nature altogether is then to be expected - or at least that is how I see it. My focus is how do I follow Christ. And unfortunately, over the years, I have to recognize there are times I was the hypocrite, I was the fellow that caused a division. But that doesn't make my commitment any less (but it does mean I've had to change over the years, sometimes very painfully). And I don't think it makes the work of Christ in my life any less. In fact, it is the evidence of that work over time.


Jim

While I grant all of this, it doesn't relate at all to the improvements that could have been made without eliminating free will. It's never going to be perfect, but there's no way this is the best possible world.

[Jorge]

That has nothing to do with 'dishonesty', and in fact indicates you don't really understand the point at all. There is only ONE God Jorge, only ONE Christ. We both attempt to heed the words of and follow the leading of the ONE Christ. There are not two.

Tell me something I don't already know. Yes indeed, only one God.
But people CREATE other (false) gods in order to satisfy their own agendas.
They create those "gods" then they replace the one true God with their false "god".
Then they elevate and follow their "god" while trashing the one true God.
Is any of this sinking in?

This is just an completely gross misapplication of those verses. I'm not following someone else that claimed to be the Messiah, Nor do I claim to be Messiah. You are just totally off in the weeds here.

Stop playing dumb (or perhaps you're not "playing"?). I have more-than-adequately illustrated the "false Christ" that TEs have created - the "Christ" that they follow. Mind you, there are multiple versions of that "Christ". I would hazard a guess that your "Christ" is not the same as that of Kenneth Miller.

Dishonesty? You are the one implying that - not me? You've got this very long list of 'other things' outside what the scripture presents in terms of faith in Christ. You are the one discounting the legitimacy of others faith in Christ based on elements of faith that have little or nothing to do with the core of the faith. You have made the age of the Earth, something far less important than Baptism or the Lord's supper, MORE important than these. For you ALLOW for differences in the implementation of those things, yet do NOT allow for differences in how we understand the age of the Earth.

Once again you play the fools part (or it's not "playing"). Here are your own words:

"Because you have no choice (being human and all) but to have errors in your own conception of who Christ is/was. In fact, by your standard, no-one anywhere actually follows the "Biblical Christ", because not only limited by our current circumstances to 'see through a glass darkly', that is only indirectly, we don't actually know what the precise full text of the Gospels is in that we don't know for sure what exactly was in the originals (though we do come very, very close to it). The implication of these two realities is that non of us has a fully precise image of who Christ was, or even who the 'Biblical Christ' was."

What you are (falsely!) accusing me of with those words is obvious. Since NO ONE knows the full, precise Gospel ... since NO ONE knows what was in the originals ... since NO ONE has a fully precise image of who Christ was ---------- then you imply that I am legalistically condemning everyone, even myself.

Your insinuation is pure, unadulterated, preposterous horse crap and you know it.
Your dishonesty grows by leaps and bounds.

Our limitations (as finite beings) will always prevent a complete, clear knowledge of God/Christ/Holy Spirit. That does not mean that we can't have the KEY, FUNDAMENTAL parts right. We don't need total knowledge and understanding (which we will never have anyway), just enough knowledge and understanding. The problem is that TEs distort-trash those KEY, FUNDAMENTAL parts in order to elevate Evolutionism above God's Holy Word.

That is absurd. Name a core doctrine of the faith that I deny Jorge. What do I deny that is critical to our understanding of who Christ is, to our capacity to believe on Him and be saved from our sins.

Name them Jorge - stop talking in generalities. Name a core doctrine of the faith I deny.

I have already done so many times. Is it that you need things spelled out as if to a toddler? What twisted theology did you learn and now practice wherein you get to fashion Christ in YOUR own image?

Salvation is by grace and by grace alone BUT it doesn't end there. It's not that works must be added to grace - if that were so then grace would not be sufficient and that is certainly non-Christian. However, following salvation (by grace) then the life must bear testimony to the Source of that salvation. If not, then a saved person can go out and do as he pleases - get drunk, rape pretty girls, lie, cheat and steal ... nothing would be prohibited since, hey, "a person is saved by grace and works are not needed".

Over the years I have posted plenty of material refuting that false belief but, bluntly, you are a very poor student.

Here's a bit more ......... not that I expect any positive response from you .........

Since God's word is truth (John 17:17), and truth never contradicts itself, we know there are no contradictions in the Bible. However, many people are confused about grace because some passages appear to them to be contradictory.

Consider some examples:

We are saved by grace through faith, not of works (Eph. 2:8,9)
But we are justified by works, not by faith only (James 2:24)

Again,

If salvation is of grace, it is not of works (Rom. 11:6)
But He who fears God and works righteousness is accepted before Him (Acts 10:35)

And,

We are not under law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14)
Yet Paul said he was "under law to Christ" (1 Cor. 9:21).

[See also Titus 3:3-7; 2 Timothy 1:9; Romans 4:5]

One reason people are confused about such matters is that they study only part of what the Bible says and do not put it all together. Another reason is that people ignore passages that seem to teach different from what they have believed and been taught. So they may study certain passages that teach about grace but then ignore other passages. The result is confusion.

A. Different Uses of Terms

Studying various passages will show us that the same word can have different meanings in different contexts. One reason people are confused is that they assume a word has one certain meaning, then they try to force that meaning on all contexts.

Examples in this study are:
Grace

Grace means unmerited favor - a blessing or gift that one receives, though it is not earned by the one who receives it. But the same word can refer to different kinds of grace.

* Unconditional grace in which one receives a favor but has no choice in the matter. The favor is given regardless of the choice, character, life, or conduct of the receiver.

* Conditional grace in which a gift is offered, but to receive it one must do certain things or act in certain ways. God's grace makes the gift available, but the person has the power to choose to do or not do whatever is required to receive it. Yet what is done does not earn the gift.

Either of these definitions can fit the meaning of grace. Only context tells what is meant in a particular instance. Many people assume grace must be unconditional, but this leads to false conclusions because, as we have already proved, the grace of the Gospel is conditional.

Law

Law simply means a command, rule, or precept (or a collection of commands) that a person is expected to obey. But again the New Testament mentions several different kinds of law. [Everyone obeys some law - Rom. 6:16,19.]

* The law of sin - Romans 7:23 [7:25; 8:2]. This is the principle by which one obeys his own will or the will of someone else other than God (actually he is obeying Satan). Note that 7:22,23 says this law is different from the law of God.

* The law of works - Romans 3:27. Note that this is different from the law of faith. The Law of Moses is an example of a law of works. The Gospel is not this kind of law.

* The law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), also called "law of faith" (Rom. 3:27), "law of God" (Rom. 8:7), "law of the Spirit of life" (Rom. 8:2), or "law of liberty" (James 1:25; 2:12). 1 Cor. 9:20,21 says this is a law, but it is not the (Mosaic) law that the Jews were subject to.

Again, all of these fit the definition of law, but they are different laws. Only the context tells which is meant in a particular case.

Often people become confused because they assume that there can only be one kind of law. They read passages saying we are not saved by a law of works (like the Old Testament), then they assume this means there is no law at all involved in our salvation. When we realize there are different kinds of laws, then we see how we may not be saved by certain kinds of laws, yet there still may be a kind of law that is necessary to our salvation.

Works

Works means deeds, actions, things a person does. But again there are different kinds of deeds mentioned in different contexts in the New Testament.

* Works of the flesh - Galatians 5:19-21. These are acts that violate God's law and are therefore sinful (this is parallel to the law of sin). These works do not save but rather condemn us. [Rom. 13:12-14]

* Works of the law (or works of human righteousness) - Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28 [Titus 3:5]. These are deeds done as part of a "law of works." Again, these cannot justify and are not the works of the Gospel.

* Works of faith or deeds done in obedience to the Gospel - 1 Thessalonians 1:3 [Galatians 5:6]. These deeds result from faith as part of a law of faith. These are done, not to earn a gift, but to meet conditions to receive a blessing one does not deserve. [1 Cor. 15:58; John 6:28,29]

That's just a small sampling of what appears (to me) to be lacking in your basic Christian theology. P.S. I don't have the source of the above - it is from something collected a while back. It expresses nicely some of my own foundation.

No Jorge - YOU wrote that paper just like Hovind didn't pay his taxes. The paper is fraudulent, and your support of it and refusal to admit it is fatally flawed makes you a willful participant in the fraud. And it has EVERYTHING to do with the points made in my posts. You judge everyone else's faith as false, all the while mocking calls to act according to Christ's teachings, not honoring your promises, and writing false documents that directly mislead others.

Hehe ... just as you are totally clueless about the injustice perpetrated on Hovind, you are clueless about my paper. You simply refuse to accept anything that forces you to face your errors - it is pride at exponential levels. Your cluelessness about Hovind's case does not prevent you from unjustly attacking him. Ditto in my case. It's a recognizable pattern ... it's your M.O., O-Mudd.

Jorge