Well, if they find water, then they will look in it and if they find anything at all in it, down to the smallest amino acid, they are going to compare it to earth and claim evolution works. How? I don't know. It'll be the same "fact a + magic wand of millions of years = evolution" game.
Reguardles, first they need water. Without it no soup to start in. And they are willing to spend hundreds of billions of money to do this in the attempts to discredit God. Which finding anything won't actually do, but they will claim it will and because National Geographic will call them 'scientists', people will believe them.
Besides, why shouldn't they spend all that money? Its not coming out of their pockets, its coming out of ours......
Sincere question I have always wondered. How can someone be a Catholic and not follow all its doctrines when according to the RCC, they are all directly from Christ? Once you start denying the Catholic doctrine, how does one remain Catholic when those doctrines form Catholiscism?
If you do not want this to turn into another battle, please email me directly because I have always wondered this. I have had Catholic friends in the past and always been confused how they reconcilled the two.
"You are only fooling yourself by believing that a person like youself, without an education in biblical languages and Bible studies is capable of making an informed decision about unscriptural doctrines and parts of the Mass."
This is RCC farbage meant to keep them in power and not Christ while keeping their subjects away from God's Word for fear they learn the truth. Christ came not to the highly educated, not to the priests or kings. Christ took up uneducated fisherman and peasents, He preached in the streets to common folk. Those SAME words that the completely uneducated were taught by Christ and the Apostles, are given to us today. If they, most having little to no education were able to get it, why on earth do you think only specifically trained and educate people can understand what common, uneducated, laborrers and laymen use to be able to understand.
No, Christ says ALL who seek. Not All who seek and then find a Catholic Priest to explain everything to them because alone they are too stupid to get it. God's word was able to be understood by all when He gave it. And His Word is the same yesterday, today and forever.
My apologies for not being clear. I do not believe that Santa IS Satan, but that he and his myth are used BY Satan and that the choice to use "Santa" when any number of other choices could have been made, is more than a coincidence.
Sure, you can provide pages of worldly reasoning behind why, but that matters little. I can also provide worldly reasons why I can do all kinds of things that are sinful and therefore of Satan. I can even argue them scriptually (believe me, I use to do that all the time to condone my behaviors). But that too matters little. The truth is we are not fighting a war with worldly reasoning, but a spiritual war (Ephesians 6:12 ).
I am just saying that the closeness in names is more than a coincidence.
"No fan of Santa, either, but wrong on Santa being a mispelled Satan. Santa is Italian for Saint. Santa Claus is simply a slurring of the name Saint Nicholas."
Yes, but why use the Itallian in the US? Why not the German? Latin? Or other? Why choose the one that is only a typo off of supreme evil? I'd say the same reason embroidery floss's color for Santa is #666. Not by accident in MY opinion.
"Aren't you using this verse badly out of context?"
No, I'm using it totally in context. Some pagan group intended that day for evil. God intends it for good. Real God vs pagan god = Real God wins.
"What 'good' is there in having a fixed annual man-made non-scriptural day when we unite with non-believers to celebrate Jesus' birthday?"
The same good there is in praising and thanking God any other day of the year. This one in particular we have designated speciffically for Jesus' birth just like there was one day specified to celebrate the passover day.
The rest of your post again is destroying the wheat with the tares. IS there call to get rid of Santa, selfishness, idols during this celebration? YES. Is there reason to get rid of Christmas trees, carols, cranberry sauc? Maybe, I'm open to listening. Is there reason to get rid of a day to celebrate the birth of Christ? Scripture please.
"my own leetle religious parr-tayyy." I hold no party, but thank God for sending us Christ. It is a day of thanksgiving to God for His Son. Show me with scripture where that is wrong.
"Yes, it has pagan origins" - So you are incabable of worshipping on a day some false religion worships? I still cannot find the scripture that prohibits worship on any day of the year.
"I've decided to celebrate YOUR BIRTHDAY on the day of the Satanic Roman festival of Saturnalia" - So God is incapable of being worshipped on certain days? What you have meant for evil, God has used for good (paraphrase) Gen 50:20
"I'll have lots of presents and‚Ä¶" These things are not part of true Christian Christmas worship.
"attributing GODLIKE POWERS to Santa Claus" Can't argue with you on Santa. There is a reason reversing the order of only 2 letters spells Satan. However, you haven't stated any scriptual reasons we cannot honor the birth of Christ. You have harped on some of the bad stuff some have added to that day. But instead of correctly rebuking those things, you throw them out along with the true worship and praise for the birth of Christ.
We should be rebuking the sinful and idolistic additions and praising the celebration and rememberance of the birth of our Lord.
Daniel, Please state why. Blanket comments are of no value. Otherwise I could say the salvation message doesn't apply to us. But without any support, its a no-value statment. And you can't just say because they were talking about a specific day because I could go back to my previous example and 'prove' it by stating Jesus was talking to XYZ group so it only applied towards them. But we know just because one lesson or letter was directed towards a certain people or person of the time, it is still true for all of us. So please explain why it doesn't apply when the verse says some reguard one day, another day or all days.
Alan, Oh I agree we cannot know a creation date. But we can know a creation age and I think you are right in your "on the order of" comment. My reply was more on your original comment that we don't really know.
While technically correct because we cannot place an astrological day on it, we can definately know.
Now is it 8000 or 10,000? You are right, we don't know exactly. But that's pretty precise when compared to the 12.5 billion year range the evolutionists claim we are off! Heck, its even still precise when compared to the 6 billion year difference in their estimations!
What did we get from Mary that God couldn't have given us countless other ways? Nothing.
Did Mary predate God? We see the Trinity in Genesis. No Mary. Jesus pointed out that David was referring to Him when speaking of his Lord. Did Mary predate David? No. How can one give birth to something that predates them by thousands of years, little lone eternity? God SENT Jesus through Mary to be born a man that He might then die for all of man. Mary birthed a human, not a God.
If you want to worship Mary for God choosing her, worship Noah as well. For through God choosing Noah, mankind exists. If there was no Noah then no humans would exist. No saved, no unsaved, no Mary and no followers for Jesus to be born of nor die for. Noah carried a much heavier burden for hundreds of years. Mary only 9 months.
When blessing people in Hebrews we find who? Mary? No. Able, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets. But no mention of Mary. I am NOT saying she wasn't blessed and shouldn't be honored. But she didn't birth God and shouldn't be worshipped. She does not intrercede, she is awaiting the ressurrection as are we all.
"Through her you gained Jesus Christ...God willed it so."
Blasphemy and herasy. Through GOD we got Jesus. Scripture says GOD gave His only begotten Son. NOT Mary. Mary could have said 'no' and God could have moved on.Though she should be honored for her faith, she was no less a sinner than others for ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
There HAS to be no sadness or tears in heaven. Because if there was, Mary would spend until the end of time in heaven shamed, anguished and sobbing for the worship so many try to bestow upon her.
Very little angers me more than such lies. Grrrrrrr...
Aww come on, presents and singing and presents and football and presents and eggnog and cutesy little nativiety scenes and presents and talking snowmen with flying reigndeer with shinney noses and Santa's kneeling at mangers and magical toy workshops with busy little elves and... well... did I mention presents? And then to be told its a sin not to join the party (and get presents)? wow!
Kenny, I understand. However, I do not necessarilly debate to sway the one I am debating. But to provide others who may be reading with reasoning from scripture before they just jump on a band wagon that sounds fun.
You should see me when arguing creation vs evolution!!! lol
"Remember if Christ had not been born then you would not be saved"
VERY wrong. God could have sent Christ in any way He wanted. He CHOSE to do it that way. Yes, He chose before time and fortold of it, which, by His choice, locked Him into it. This to me is why Easter is much bigger. Jesus could have come from the Heavens in power and glory like the Jews expected. However, He HAD to die for our sins to be forgiven, He HAD to be ressurrected for us to be ressurrected, and He HAD to be taken to Heaven that we too may go. But He could have come into this world in many ways.
Scripture says there is NO remittance for sin without the shedding of blood. It doesn't say there is no remittance for sin unless God is born in a manger.
"The Holy Sprit does not guide individuals to refrain from engaging in scriptural religious activities."
needs to check their scripture before baring their teeth.
When asked about eating food sacrificed to false gods, Paul says it is fine to eat because "there is no God but one". That is unless:
1 Corinthians 8:9Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. 13Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.
Eating meat IS fine scriptually, but we ARE lead NOT to eat it if it may cause anther to sin. So the HS very much does as you claim He doesn't. If celebrating Christmas can cause that person, or another person to sin, scripture commands us to not do it. Read before you rant.