Evidence for God from Science

LostTribesNotLost wrote:Rick, it's not "That nobody really wants to discuss this topic", it's that the moderators want to paint it in a bad light and are only prepared to discuss it, if I accept their opinions as fact.

In fact, that is the only reason you few moderators have commented to begin with - to try and smear BI as a racist, hateful belief.
Unfortunately for those who have tried to do that, you have failed miserably and now wish to change the subject and discontinue the debate as a result of your failure to discredit BI which was the only reason I was allowed to post to begin with. THAT is what I have started to see, not the fact that nobody is interested.

There have been 1034 views on this thread so far and I doubt that most of those are just from myself and those few who have left comments.
In fact if this thread was allowed into other sections of the forums, I am sure that number would be more than double.
Maybe people are not commenting because they are busy taking in everything I have written and are not shouting their mouths with all their sarcasm and smearing.
Maybe you should allow the users on here to decide if it is abberant, or not - I think you are probably too fearful to even consider allowing that by allowing this in another section. Double standards as RickD himself believes in forms of "Abberant Christianity" as he himself doesn't believe in the rapture, which most Christians consider Bible truth.

"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
- Arthur Schopenhauer

Look, I'm done defending the way we moderate here. If you don't like it, you are free to leave.

And as far as me not believing in the rapture, where did you come up with that idea?

You are accusing me of something. Show me proof for what you claim.

LT: Rick, it's not "That nobody really wants to discuss this topic", it's that the moderators want to paint it in a bad light and are only prepared to discuss it, if I accept their opinions as fact.

Not true! ANYONE can weigh in on such a thread but most have chosen not to. We can speculate, but you won't like what we think (as to the reason so little posting). The mods here tend to agree that your position is unscriptural and cobbles together cherry-picked scriptures to fit your thesis - which is why we don't choose to discuss further. We zeroed in on a few key components of your contentions because 1) we are hyper vigilant with anyone whom might be asserting ANY sort of "Jesus-plus" teachings.

Lt: In fact, that is the only reason you few moderators have commented to begin with - to try and smear BI as a racist, hateful belief.

I don't necessarily YOU believe in some racial component but you've been somewhat vague when asked what is God's ONLY criteria for salvation, which may well indicate a heretical teaching, but that's not to say that the thrust of others who believe this DO have some idea that God is somehow racially selective in whom he saves.

LT: Maybe you should allow the users on here to decide if it is aberrant, or not - I think you are probably too fearful to even consider allowing that by allowing this in another section.

The section this is posted in really doesn't change anything. And we don't "vote" on what we consider to be Scriptural or not - numbers, either in agreement or disagreement, do not determine Scriptural truth. I think what you must accept is that you are very isolated in your theological views considering this Lost Tribes stuff. And if you think all of the mods and regular posters here stand in mindless unison over common issues, you've not seen the wide-ranging debates and serious contention over various issues. And that might tell you something, that here we have an issue (Lost Tribes) that the vast majority reject as being unScriptural. It's not that we have ANYthing against you are that you are new to this forum. We're merely being honest in our responses as to what we think.

LT: Double standards as RickD himself believes in forms of "Abberant Christianity" as he himself doesn't believe in the rapture, which most Christians consider Bible truth.

So where are Rick's posts stating such?

Re: Are we still required to follow Mosaic law? [http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=180]

Postby RickD » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:25 am
Gman wrote:
"What I'm trying to address here however is this idea that it is faith alone that saves us... Hence you can sit all day in front of the TV and wait for the rapture to take you away from it all."

Then one would have to believe in a pre-trib rapture too.

I don't see anyone arguing for this point, here in this thread. So, although you keep using this picture of a believer sitting on the couch watching tv, nobody is saying that here."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's were I got the idea from.
Am I wrong, do you believe in the rapture?

LostTribesNotLost wrote:Re: Are we still required to follow Mosaic law?

Postby RickD » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:25 am
Gman wrote:
"What I'm trying to address here however is this idea that it is faith alone that saves us... Hence you can sit all day in front of the TV and wait for the rapture to take you away from it all."

Then one would have to believe in a pre-trib rapture too.

I don't see anyone arguing for this point, here in this thread. So, although you keep using this picture of a believer sitting on the couch watching tv, nobody is saying that here."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's were I got the idea from.
Am I wrong, do you believe in the rapture?

Your interpretation of my post, is on par with your biblical interpretation which led you to British Israelism.

Thanks LostTribes. I've been a little stressed at work, and I needed a good laugh.

Oh really?
Is this post below also just a mis-interpretation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Does the forum believe in the rapture?? [http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... it=RAPTURE]

Post by RickD » Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:01 pm

Canuckster1127 wrote: "My background is Premillenial and PreTrib. The denomination I ministered in for many years required a Premillenial view because they tied their focus on missions into the belief that world missions and completing the great commission was what would precede the return of Christ. The denomination did not require a pretrib position but it tended to fall in line in that direction.

"I still tend to lean toward Premill, but I'm not as dogmatic about it. Amill makes sense to me in other contexts. When I entered ministry and had to declare an espoused position, post-trib makes more sense to me. I'd prefer to believe that believers would not go through tribulation but I don't find scriptural evidence for that. I also believed though that the wrath of God was reserved for everything outside of Christ and his Kingdom and so I espoused a position of posttrib - pre-wrath. The difficulty in that position was explaining how the return of Chris could be both imminent and unexpected but it was an acceptable posiiton."


Canuckster, I agree. Many Christians I have spoken with want to believe that believers will not go through tribulation. Just look at the popularity in the Church of those Left Behind movies. I think we as Americans live in our own little bubble. We don't realize how much tribulation the Church has seen in other parts of the world at different times in the past.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Looks like your view on the rapture is not very popular among mainsteam Christianity Rick - even by your own admission above.
Dare I say, perhaps even "abberant", just like mine!!!
Maybe you should also be confined to posting in the Abberant Section - at least when it comes to the rapture.

LostTribes,

You're grasping at straws now.

Where did I espouse a specific rapture belief? At most from anything you've posted from what I said, someone might say I lean away from a belief in a pre-tribulation rapture. And even if I held strongly to a rapture belief different from pre-trib, I think you'd have a difficult time showing that a rapture belief other than pre-trib is aberrant. You're welcome to start a thread on different rapture views, to see what others think.

And FYI, I really have no set belief about the timing of the rapture. So, you'll have to try again if you want to find something that I believe that is aberrant.

In the meantime, it would do you some good to think about what others here are telling you. We are trying to help you. We're not your enemy.

Rick, you know what your problem is?
You can never be wrong!!! - - I'm not the one who needs help

Here is some more evidence below backing up BI:
(I am sure you will try to spiritualize it all away, despite these descriptions being clearly physical)

Do these ancient charactaristics below resemble modern day, brown skinned, arab-type people? People change over time Rick and so do their locations.

"My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand."
(Song of Solomon 5:10)

"Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, and thy speech is comely: thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks." (Song of Solomon 4:3)

"Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies."
(Song of Solomon 4:5)

"And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance. (1 Samuel 17:42)

"And he sent, and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, and withal of a beautiful countenance, and goodly to look to. And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he." (1 Samuel 16:12)

"Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire." (Lamentations 4:7)

"And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. (Genesis 25:25)

"And it came to pass, when he was come near to enter into Egypt, that he said unto Sarai his wife, Behold now, I know that thou art a fair woman to look upon: And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair." (Genesis 12:11-14)

"And it came to pass after this, that Absalom the son of David had a fair sister, whose name was Tamar; and Amnon the son of David loved her." (2 Samuel 13:1)

"And in all the land were no women found so fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren." (Job 42:15)

"And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter: for she had neither father nor mother, and the maid was fair and beautiful ; whom Mordecai, when her father and mother were dead, took for his own daughter." (Esther 2:7)

"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1: 1)

"Now it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the mixed multitude." - Nehemiah 13:3
Why would they do that if Israel was already mixed itself?

Go ahead, I am waiting for the excuses this time round...
All just metaphorical?
Or maybe I am taking a few "isolated" verses completely out of context and thus twisting scripture.
1+1=2 Rick.

Losttribes,

I'm really not interested in discussing BI anymore. I've read enough to know I disagree with it. If you want to continue posting, that's fine. You may or may not find someone who is interested.

And again, if you want to start a new thread about a different topic, or respond to another thread, you are welcome to do that too.

Rick, you know what your problem is?
You can never be wrong!!! - - I'm not the one who needs help

Since you like to search my posts to try to look for some aberrant belief I hold to, why don't you search my posts for the word "apologize". That way you can see how I apologized when I was wrong.

Here is some more evidence below backing up BI:

LT: Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

Copious asserted "evidences" do not make a truth. It seems LT's self identity is all wrapped up in his BI stuff.

This leaves only one conclusion - the "apostle" Paul was a false prophet.
He persecuted Christians, contradicted what Christ said above, after claiming to be reformed by Christ and called himself an Apostle when he was not one of the twelve apostles.

And now the writings of Paul are inauthentic?!!!

Oops: "... and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the REST of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." (2nd Pete).

So, Peter, an apostle, endorses Paul's writings as Scripture, warns of those that distort them, refers to the "wisdom given him" (by God), and yet Paul is supposed to be a false apostle?

LT, what will you amaze us with next? Sorry, I shouldn't have asked that.

The book of 2 Peter has long been known as a Pauline forgery by those who bother to study scripture properly themselves and not just accept what their minister tells them. There is virtually no evidence anywhere else in the NT to support Paul (besides his own books), including the fact that the word 'Paul' is not even mentioned once in the book of 1 Peter. Co-incidence? Even Christ himself teaches the opposite about the law of Moses, but you conveniently leave that part out.

Not only that, but Christ warned of the false profits that will come in His name - Paul was one of many who "came in His name."
"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."
Matthew 24:24
"For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."
Mark 13:22

These verses make clear that these false prophets would be greatly successful with their lies.
From the days of the Catholic church till even now, the false prophet has always been IN the churches.

Gman did an excellent job in those few posts (of discrediting Rick on the law).

I am not the only Christian in history that has expressed mistrust in some of Pauls doctrines.
Some Christians since the time of Christ have expressed similiar views - there has been a split over Paul for a long time within Christianity and it should not amaze anyone to hear that.

Wikipedia confirms this: "Opponents of the same era include the Ebionites and Nazarenes, Jewish Christians who rejected Paul for straying from Second Temple Judaism.
"Most of Christianity relies heavily on these teachings and considers them to be amplifications and explanations of the teachings of Jesus. Others perceive in Paul's writings teachings that are different from the original teachings of Jesus documented in the canonical gospels, early Acts and the rest of the New Testament, such as the Epistle of James." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Christianity

LostTribesLostHisMind wrote:
Not only that, but Christ warned of the false profits that will come in His name - Paul was one of many who "came in His name."
"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

Everybody reading this thread, read this carefully. This is what we are dealing with here. Someone who believes the apostle Paul was a false "profit".

British Israelism is fruitcake theology, but Paul being a false prophet?

This could actually be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here.

Only second occurrence I've come across a professed Christian denying Paul's words to being Scripture - the other being a Swedenborg believer I once knew.

Philip wrote:Only second occurrence I've come across a professed Christian denying Paul's words to being Scripture - the other being a Swedenborg believer I once knew.

LostTribes uses scripture to back his British Israelism beliefs. But to him, that same bible is unreliable when it comes to the Apostle Paul's teachings.

Talk about sawing off the branch he's sitting on.

There are various schools of thought around Paul.
Obviously the most common believing that he did away with the law of Moses (and that Christ did the same).
However there have long existed those who rejected his anti-law teachings and even some who say that Paul was pro the law of Moses.

Since initially breaking away from Catholicism, protestant Christianity has come a long way (down) over the last few decades and now resembles the Catholic church more than ever. Early Christians going back hundreds of years did not even celebrate Christmas, yet I am sure you would have called them crazy fruitcakes too!!!
Or maybe set "the grinch" on them for not keeping a holiday not required by Christ himself, or even Paul!!!
Many European Christians, even the Pauline ones kept the Sabbath and even circumcised their children over the last few centuries.
Circumcision was relatively common a few decades ago and only now the practice is starting to become less popular.

By the way, scripture has changed many times througout the ages - to include, or exclude various books the Pope, or others deemed appropriate at the time.
You judge the validity of scripture using many factors, the author, whether it seems divinely inspired, or not and also whether it agrees with other scriptural books, or not, especially - at the very least - the ten commandments and Christ.
Paul does not agree with Moses and the prophets and does not even agree with Christ and the 12 apostles who at the very most only did away with the sacrificial laws.

he book of 2 Peter has long been known as a Pauline forgery by those who bother to study scripture properly themselves and not just accept what their minister tells them.

LT, what historical and factual evidence is there for this assertion? And note that the thrust of the letter is Peter's grave concerns over false teaching and the reliability of Scripture and prophecy. But that you discount and dismiss the Apostle Paul shows your bias on this matter. In fact, you are doing precisely what Paul warned about and Peter was so concerned over. You are treading on dangerous ground, as this forum is not a debate forum over whether Scriptures are the Word of God. If you want to say they are not, you need to move on.

LT, pay close attention! http://carm.org/religious-movements/jeh ... -apostates