DeyDurkie5;759822 wrote:you honestly believe that noah got 2 of every animal and brought them into a huge arc?

First, it's two of every unclean animal and 7 of every clean. You have to account for genetic diversity in the clean ones so they prosper. We really don't need that many of the unclean so the more retards the better; most of them probably died out by now! Can you imagine how many unclean animals we'd have today if Noah didn't take these precautions?

Second, you ain't carrying nothing in no arc, except maybe a tangent!

Bigred1995;759883 wrote:Second, you ain't carrying nothing in no arc, except maybe a tangent!

I intentionally side-stepped this, but I'm SO glad someone else didn't.

O-Trap;759824 wrote:Show me, if you will, where God's Word claims that Branham. My Bible doesn't mention him once./QUOTE]

Where in the old testament was Jesus Christ mentioned by name? Not once, but we all can read the writings and see the many prophets of old tell us about him and we believed them and neither will you find anyone in these last days mentioned by name. Just as Jesus said he thanked the Father because he hath hid theses things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes. Jesus didn't preach to everyone in the world and didn't heal everyone, but just the ones the Father showed him and he still works the same way today believe it or not.

riders1;759936 wrote:Where in the old testament was Jesus Christ mentioned by name?

I didn't ask where the Bible mentioned Branham by name. I asked where he mentioned him, period. Jesus is not mentioned by name in the Old Testament (largely because it would have been extremely odd for a Hebrew text to mention a Greek name before the Greeks came into power), but he is mentioned, and thoroughly.

Moreover, unless you're suggesting that the Bible treats Branham the same way it does the Christ, I fail to see how your point is relevant.

riders1;759936 wrote:Not once, but we all can read the writings and see the many prophets of old tell us about him and we believed them ...

I would say that Christ is of special relevance in the context of God's Word. Do you not agree? Isaiah certainly wasn't given such foretelling. Neither was Jeremiah. Neither was Moses. Neither was any other human being. I'd contend that your effort to equate the foretelling of "hamashiach" to some mention of an end times prophet is a stretch at best. Even if you are referring to the "Eli/Moishi" tandem, your assertion that Branham is the fulfillment of this just doesn't hold up.

But I digress to this simple question: Where is Branham, not in name, but in position in God's plan, mentioned in Scripture? I'm curious.

riders1;759936 wrote:... and neither will you find anyone in these last days mentioned by name.

Eli and Moishi are mentioned by name. Technically, "Abaddon" (or Armageddon) is a name. They are referenced in the end times literature, are they not?

Tell me, how is it that you believe that you've somehow got this whole "thief in the night" thing figured out?

The interesting thing about apocalyptic literature in the Scriptures is that it does not present some special duty that applies only to the end times. We are called to live each day in obedience to God and out of gratitude to his Son for the merciful redemption of our souls, none of which we deserve.

It's the beauty of Revelation and the portions of Daniel that are apocalyptic. They give us some kind of foretelling glimmer, but our job is to live each day as we ought. The Lord could have ended the world shortly after Christ left the earth, or he could do it a million years from now. Whether you think it or not, you know no more of when the Lord will come back than the Apostles did.

riders1;759936 wrote:Just as Jesus said he thanked the Father because he hath hid theses things from the wise and prudent and hast revealed them unto babes. Jesus didn't preach to everyone in the world and didn't heal everyone, but just the ones the Father showed him and he still works the same way today believe it or not.

And the whole "he still works the same way today" part of that is referenced where in Scripture?

On a random note, am I to guess from your avatar and your name that you are from Orrville, Ohio?

O-Trap;759870 wrote:No idea how he did it, which I'm okay with.

I don't carry a preconception that the physical world and that which exists in it is the end-all of what can be determined as reality. Moreover, I contend that, given the limits of the physical world, and the limitlessness of the nonphysical world (not bound by physical or natural laws), it would only make sense that the nonphysical supersedes the physical, if not authoritatively, at least as it pertains to what can be comprehended.

From there, it's mostly the result of several years of questions with a good friend of mine (rest in peace) who had the kindness and intelligence to talk through a lot of my own worldview with me.

Went from scientific naturalism, to what I suppose you could call soft atheism, to maybe agnosticism, to loose supernaturalism, to loose theism, to hard theism, to monotheism, to Judeo-Christian monotheism, to a blend of Jewish and modern-day Christian monotheism, to a more and more Christian-leaning monotheism. From there, it became more personal to me, and I was able to experience elements of what it means to be a Christian. I naturally don't use these as tools for explaining epistemology, because they are anecdotal. However, an anecdote experienced by a person can be as telling as anything, and to me, it certainly has been.

Because of all this, I rarely try to "shotgun evangelize." That is, if someone does not even believe in any sort of non-natural, non-physical reality, then I certainly don't preach to them, "Get saved or be lost." That not only strikes me as disingenuous, but also as silly. It never appealed to me, so I have a hard time understanding how it appeals to others. Not saying it doesn't, but just that I don't get it.

Moreover, I still see a lot of validity in nontheism, if given certain presupposition, which is why I continue to have a great deal of respect for those who don't adopt theism because of actually contemplating and studying the subject.

However, if those presuppositions are removed, it's been my experience that scientific naturalism becomes the more difficult worldview. That's been my experience anyway.

Posts like this are probably why you're (probably along with jmog) the religious-viewpoint people on this site I most pay attention to (ie: read and don't feel like I'm reading the words of a brainwashed sheep). Especially since, while I tend to be VERY snarky when discussing religion, I'd say I fit into the next-to-last paragraph group, as I have read and studied a good bit of religion in my life before coming to my current decision on what's what (like you, I've shifted beliefs a few times...hell, while I never was officially one, I studied with the Jehovah's for roughly a year or so).

One question from a later post on this thread. You inserted armageddon right after Abaddon with what I inferred to be you saying they basically meant the same thing. Is that right? I'll admit I tend to look at Revelation (happy now, OSH?!? ) as this over-the-top vague and cryptic acid trip and so I never really studied it, but I always got the impression that Abaddon was more a symptom of the thing than actually it. Like a locust demon from hell up to mess shit up. Although my main knowledge of the nature of Abaddon comes from bizarre and likely unreliable sources like...

1. One of those dreadful Left Behind debacles.
2. Two different Final Fantasy games. In VIII, it was a big skeletal boss. In IX, it was an insectoid regular encounter in a late-game dungeon.
3. A horror/fantasy novel by Whitley Strieber (before his alleged alien abduction) and some other guy called Cat Magic. Where Abaddon was essentially some demon who punished people by sticking their souls in personal hells where they'd pay for the sins they were plagued with remorse about until they learned to forgive themselves.

Oh, and for the lulz. Since I've been in religion-argument mode today, I vCash bet 666 on the Pirates to win. They did. Insert Twilight Zone music...

Heretic;760043 wrote:One question from a later post on this thread. You inserted armageddon right after Abaddon with what I inferred to be you saying they basically meant the same thing. Is that right? I'll admit I tend to look at Revelation (happy now, OSH?!? ) as this over-the-top vague and cryptic acid trip and so I never really studied it, but I always got the impression that Abaddon was more a symptom of the thing than actually it. Like a locust demon from hell up to mess shit up. Although my main knowledge of the nature of Abaddon comes from bizarre and likely unreliable sources like...

1. One of those dreadful Left Behind debacles.
2. Two different Final Fantasy games. In VIII, it was a big skeletal boss. In IX, it was an insectoid regular encounter in a late-game dungeon.
3. A horror/fantasy novel by Whitley Strieber (before his alleged alien abduction) and some other guy called Cat Magic. Where Abaddon was essentially some demon who punished people by sticking their souls in personal hells where they'd pay for the sins they were plagued with remorse about until they learned to forgive themselves.

Admittedly, Revelation has been the book I've studied the least. It's basically for a reason I mentioned to rider. I am not instructed to do anything differently in light of Revelation. As such, it comes across very much like God is saying, "This is how things are going to turn out, but I'll take care of it, so it's not written as instruction. I just wanted to let you know what was up."

Having said all that, I realize I meant to write Apollyon instead of Armageddon anyway.

Still, these are NAMES! That was my point.

Heretic;760045 wrote:Oh, and for the lulz. Since I've been in religion-argument mode today, I vCash bet 666 on the Pirates to win. They did. Insert Twilight Zone music...

I prefer X-Files themed music.

Heretic;760043 wrote:Posts like this are probably why you're (probably along with jmog) the religious-viewpoint people on this site I most pay attention to (ie: read and don't feel like I'm reading the words of a brainwashed sheep). Especially since, while I tend to be VERY snarky when discussing religion, I'd say I fit into the next-to-last paragraph group, as I have read and studied a good bit of religion in my life before coming to my current decision on what's what (like you, I've shifted beliefs a few times...hell, while I never was officially one, I studied with the Jehovah's for roughly a year or so).

I admit, 'twas a beautiful thing when I realized that God could reach a logically driven intellectual. When I was in the "sort of agnostic" phase, I was actually upset with any being who might exist because I felt too much like he was playing hide and seek, and that it put people like me further behind the 8-ball since I couldn't just "have faith" one day and start believing.

It's the beauty of such a God ... that he can appeal to anyone in terms they can accept (whether or not they will accept them might not be the same).