Evidence for God from Science

No.. Because if you are talking about context, Jesus was addressing the Jews.. And eventually, we become a part of His flock (John 10:16), inheriting the same benefits as the people he addressed. Also, certain laws of the OT still apply today. Galatians 3:13 must've led me in the wrong direction. E...

I'm not sure if I follow you.. If we are talking about context, then beliefs taken anywhere out of the Old Testament wouldn't apply to us as well.. Most of the Old Testament doesn't apply to us. It's mostly writings of the religious life of ancient Israel. They very much apply to God, which indirec...

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your statement fully.

Did you mean to say that "what is seen through the eyes/mind of the religious tradition one is exposed to" is what's made up?

2. God has peaceful and good thoughts toward us and our future, NOT evil thoughts. Jeremiah 29:11 I'm sick of this verse being taken out of context. I don't know about you, but I am glad that I get to return in seventy years from my exile from Jerusalem to Babylon (Jeremiah 29:10, NIV). Being broug...

This reply is for the subject of the thread rather than the topic we're discussing now, sorry: Until the Council of Nicea (AD 335?), this belief (or any related doctrine) wasn't fully considered orthodox. For a while, the Bible wasn't even canonized. Different books of the bible were considered scri...

This is a big wake-up call for many. Learning that the gospels weren't chronologically first sparked my curiosity (so were the questions I had about Christianity while learning about Mormonism). Pseudopigrapha (sp) is highly backed in the scholarly field (except among, as mentioned in your quote, fu...

I would say approved-of only, and I really couldn't see it any other way. I'll give my subjective argument for it and then my scriptural one. Subjectively, I feel as though God would've been more specific about certain things had He "breathed" the scriptures himself. This supposes, however...

This is an incredibly late reply, sorry if it's no longer relevant. I think this apologetic pre-supposes too much, unless he shares your beliefs on how: 1) a god must be the greatest possible being, and 2) that the greatest possible being must be all-loving. Unless those two arguments are also a com...

This is one of the trickiest topics to discuss with a Mormon.  For one, they think "one in purpose" sufficiently places them in monotheism. Wonderful doubletalk. I suggest presenting Joseph Smith's view on the matter: " I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Chri...

I skim daily over MRM's blog, and one of the posters pulls references out like some sort of human Google. Ha. Anyways, this is relevant to the actual thread ;) It's a statement by the First Presidency: August 17, 1949 The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stoo...

Oh wow, they do have one. I feel completely ignorant.
Definitely deserve that, shouldve done my own research instead of pick up clues from the media.

Now that it passed, It looks like we'll have to see what happens. I predict more than a few Dems losing their spot. But as I sifted through what I've heard the entire time, which is basically "you're socialist!" vs. "people. Need. Healthcare.", one argument has held a glaring tru...

I need to look into Binlical archaeology more. From what I've heard, Genesis gets historical starting around chapter 12 (or 16?). Either way, I question the historocity due to the timing of the writings. If no one was there to witness the creation, how do we know that was the exact order? Aside from...

Hey guys, I'm Jay. I came across this site while studying Mormonism, and even more so as I began to have my own questions and questions from atheist friends. It's been a wonderful resource, and this forum seems to have some solid apologists on board

Would you include 100% historical in the definition of inerrant?