-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Your responses aren't making sense because you aren't actually addressing what we say.
You're acting like Cycel was accusing people who claimed to have heard or seen God as being liars. He wasn't. When a person claims they have seen or heard God, they are either telling the truth, lying, or mistaken. Therefore, not believing someone doesn't automatically mean you think they're lying. In fact, Cycel is honestly stating he doesn't know which of the three it is. He sees that it's possible for a person to be lying, or be telling the truth, or mistaken. Therefore, he doesn't automatically assume they're telling the truth. He doesn't assume any of the three. He simply remains undecided and waits for evidence before he makes a statement in any direction.
You keep responding in ways that do not address the above paragraph, which is what we've been trying to tell you.
You're acting like Cycel was accusing people who claimed to have heard or seen God as being liars. He wasn't. When a person claims they have seen or heard God, they are either telling the truth, lying, or mistaken. Therefore, not believing someone doesn't automatically mean you think they're lying. In fact, Cycel is honestly stating he doesn't know which of the three it is. He sees that it's possible for a person to be lying, or be telling the truth, or mistaken. Therefore, he doesn't automatically assume they're telling the truth. He doesn't assume any of the three. He simply remains undecided and waits for evidence before he makes a statement in any direction.
You keep responding in ways that do not address the above paragraph, which is what we've been trying to tell you.
I wonder what the margin of error of the poll would be. I know gallup polls are usually +/- 3% or 4% margin of error. The changes are well within 1 standard deviation of the data presented too.
I dunno, I conclude from that poll that religion in America is pretty much the same from 2007 to 2012. Nothing in this poll suggest anything too interesting. Gallup's may be a little better as they have data going back further. To me their poll is a little more suggestive that religion has been in an ever steady and slow decline since the late 50's early 60's. Changes in things like this should naturally take decades as people don't tend to change their core/foundational beliefs too much, too quickly or at all, unless there were some sort of significant event that "shocked" people into changing their core beliefs (war, economic booms, economic depression, etc..).
Religion | Gallup Historical Trends
I dunno, I conclude from that poll that religion in America is pretty much the same from 2007 to 2012. Nothing in this poll suggest anything too interesting. Gallup's may be a little better as they have data going back further. To me their poll is a little more suggestive that religion has been in an ever steady and slow decline since the late 50's early 60's. Changes in things like this should naturally take decades as people don't tend to change their core/foundational beliefs too much, too quickly or at all, unless there were some sort of significant event that "shocked" people into changing their core beliefs (war, economic booms, economic depression, etc..).
Religion | Gallup Historical Trends
What in the world do you think I'm talking about? Your response to me has nothing to do with what I said AGAIN. In fact, you just parroted the same exact thing I criticized just like you did when Cycel corrected you. Do you like to pretend me and Cycel are talking about things completely different from what we said.
Your response is the equivalent to, "This statements shows you have little knowledge of Harry Potter." Harry Potter wasn't addressed in the same way neither me nor Cycel addressed the NT. And even if you want to act like the NT is relevant, you'll have to provide some sort of link between what the NT says and what me and Cycel said.
1. You claimed that if Cycel doesn't accept what someone says as true, he must therefore assume they're lying.
2. Cycel corrected you stating that you're wrong. For one, it's possible the person could be mistaken. For another, one can remain undecided and await further evidence before being convinced of either of the options.
3. You ignored the above points and condemned us of not understanding the NT. Way to ignore the argument.
It my post seems repetitive, it's because I don't know how to be more clear. I'm hoping one of my explanations will click and you'll finally realize, "Oh, I haven't actually addressed their statements. My statements about how they don't understand the NT has nothing to do with what they said!"
Why do they have to be lying? Isn't it possible they're simply mistaken?
Your response is the equivalent to, "This statements shows you have little knowledge of Harry Potter." Harry Potter wasn't addressed in the same way neither me nor Cycel addressed the NT. And even if you want to act like the NT is relevant, you'll have to provide some sort of link between what the NT says and what me and Cycel said.
1. You claimed that if Cycel doesn't accept what someone says as true, he must therefore assume they're lying.
2. Cycel corrected you stating that you're wrong. For one, it's possible the person could be mistaken. For another, one can remain undecided and await further evidence before being convinced of either of the options.
3. You ignored the above points and condemned us of not understanding the NT. Way to ignore the argument.
It my post seems repetitive, it's because I don't know how to be more clear. I'm hoping one of my explanations will click and you'll finally realize, "Oh, I haven't actually addressed their statements. My statements about how they don't understand the NT has nothing to do with what they said!"
Why do they have to be lying? Isn't it possible they're simply mistaken?
That research appears to be based on regional rather than global data.
During recent decades, Christianity has grown comparatively in the Global South (Asia, Africa, Latin America) but declined comparatively in the Global North (Europe and North America).
Global population has approximately doubled over the past fifty (50) years. World population estimates show growth from approximately 3.7 billion in 1970 to a projected 7.7 billion in 2020.
Adherents to most (not all) religions have grown as populations have grown.
During recent decades, Christianity has grown comparatively in the Global South (Asia, Africa, Latin America) but declined comparatively in the Global North (Europe and North America).
Global population has approximately doubled over the past fifty (50) years. World population estimates show growth from approximately 3.7 billion in 1970 to a projected 7.7 billion in 2020.
Adherents to most (not all) religions have grown as populations have grown.
K
Percepi, what is what. Can we make certain of anything. Can we say that ebola will be eradicated? what can we do? if eradicated what else will come. Something more deadly, I meant what if the flu meet up with ebola both have killed millions. In the 60's the swine flu killed thousands. Is this evolution at work? if so who is behind it and decides who will die. Maybe your next, Have you been to an airport or train terminal in the past 30 days. Has some one sneezed on you.
The only hope a person can have is faith in the cross and not science. Science does what, it says your dead and there is no hope. Do you know how many people with brain cancer have heard those terms, yet they are alive today because of their faith in the cross. Thousands and my mother in law was given 6 months 20 years ago by the best cancer doctor in Atlanta GA. He still is overwhelmed and is now a christian.
Spew your deceit, if you feel you must.
The only hope a person can have is faith in the cross and not science. Science does what, it says your dead and there is no hope. Do you know how many people with brain cancer have heard those terms, yet they are alive today because of their faith in the cross. Thousands and my mother in law was given 6 months 20 years ago by the best cancer doctor in Atlanta GA. He still is overwhelmed and is now a christian.
Spew your deceit, if you feel you must.
Is this a response to something I said or are you simply trying to inform me? Regardless, I'll bite.
Can we be certain of anything? Yes, we can, but only relatively. In one sense, we can't truly know anything for sure - but we can make reasonable conclusions based off of our senses. More importantly,we have developed tools that can measure our environment without bias or with less bias so that we can correct areas where our senses might fail. There's always room for error, but that doesn't mean we can't rely on our senses at all.
We rely on science every day. Do you mean we can't rely on science at all or that we can't rely on science as much as faith in God? If the prior, I'd have to strongly disagree. If the latter, I'd still have to disagree.
No hope? No hope for what? Hope must accompany a want. Hope for everlasting life? Hope for riches? Hope you'll fall in love? I know you're referring to hope for everlasting life, but you can't act like that's the only kind of hope anyone can have.
I've given up hope that there's an afterlife. So what? Does this mean I can't enjoy my life today as I live? Does that mean I can't hope for future generations to enjoy their lives? That I can't hope to be successful? That I can't hope to love? And more importantly, instead of hope, make those things actually happen?
Whenever something seemingly miraculous happens to a Christian, Christians claim it's because they had faith in God. When something seemingly miraculous happens to a non-Christian, Christians claim God is trying to make himself known or that he has a plan involving the non-Christian to live. The problem here is that if you claim God helps those who believe in him, then what about the people who are apparently helped despite not believing in him? Obviously, faith in God isn't required to have miraculous things happen to you and therefore you don't need faith to heal from wounds or illnesses or to survive cancer.
But, what about those who have faith and do suffer and die? If you point to someone who praised God and got better, then I can immediately point towards someone who praised God and died. How come it works as proof for you that God exists, but my argument doesn't prove God doesn't exist? Realistically, neither one of us would be right to conclude the existence of God on whether or not a person lives or die, but why is it that you look at one's survival as proof of God and one's failure to survive as proof of God as well? If something isn't falsifiable, then it isn't provable.
Can we be certain of anything? Yes, we can, but only relatively. In one sense, we can't truly know anything for sure - but we can make reasonable conclusions based off of our senses. More importantly,we have developed tools that can measure our environment without bias or with less bias so that we can correct areas where our senses might fail. There's always room for error, but that doesn't mean we can't rely on our senses at all.
We rely on science every day. Do you mean we can't rely on science at all or that we can't rely on science as much as faith in God? If the prior, I'd have to strongly disagree. If the latter, I'd still have to disagree.
No hope? No hope for what? Hope must accompany a want. Hope for everlasting life? Hope for riches? Hope you'll fall in love? I know you're referring to hope for everlasting life, but you can't act like that's the only kind of hope anyone can have.
I've given up hope that there's an afterlife. So what? Does this mean I can't enjoy my life today as I live? Does that mean I can't hope for future generations to enjoy their lives? That I can't hope to be successful? That I can't hope to love? And more importantly, instead of hope, make those things actually happen?
Whenever something seemingly miraculous happens to a Christian, Christians claim it's because they had faith in God. When something seemingly miraculous happens to a non-Christian, Christians claim God is trying to make himself known or that he has a plan involving the non-Christian to live. The problem here is that if you claim God helps those who believe in him, then what about the people who are apparently helped despite not believing in him? Obviously, faith in God isn't required to have miraculous things happen to you and therefore you don't need faith to heal from wounds or illnesses or to survive cancer.
But, what about those who have faith and do suffer and die? If you point to someone who praised God and got better, then I can immediately point towards someone who praised God and died. How come it works as proof for you that God exists, but my argument doesn't prove God doesn't exist? Realistically, neither one of us would be right to conclude the existence of God on whether or not a person lives or die, but why is it that you look at one's survival as proof of God and one's failure to survive as proof of God as well? If something isn't falsifiable, then it isn't provable.
K
9Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake. 10And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. 11And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. 12And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. 13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Poly carp, Stephen, and yet John. Some are given life in this flesh and others are taken. What do you think rose up in the heart of that young girl at Columbine
when the guy put the pistol to her head and said deny Christ and she said no I will not. He pulled the trigger and she dropped dead, but not dead, but alive in Christ with a robe of righteousness
yet John was cast out to the isle of Patmos because they could not kill him. They tried to deep fry him in oil and he did not die nor was burned. so they banned him to the isle of Patmos where he wrote the book of revelation.
Poly carp, Stephen, and yet John. Some are given life in this flesh and others are taken. What do you think rose up in the heart of that young girl at Columbine
when the guy put the pistol to her head and said deny Christ and she said no I will not. He pulled the trigger and she dropped dead, but not dead, but alive in Christ with a robe of righteousness
yet John was cast out to the isle of Patmos because they could not kill him. They tried to deep fry him in oil and he did not die nor was burned. so they banned him to the isle of Patmos where he wrote the book of revelation.
K
but you will believe that a mouse came from a dinosaur and man from a monkey.
From FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS
CHAPTER I, Persecution Under Nero
The churches of Smyrna, Pergamos, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, and Thyatira, were founded by him. From Ephesus he was ordered to be sent to Rome, where it is affirmed he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation. Nerva, the successor of Domitian, recalled him. He was the only apostle who escaped a violent death.
From FOX'S BOOK OF MARTYRS
CHAPTER I, Persecution Under Nero
The churches of Smyrna, Pergamos, Sardis, Philadelphia, Laodicea, and Thyatira, were founded by him. From Ephesus he was ordered to be sent to Rome, where it is affirmed he was cast into a cauldron of boiling oil. He escaped by miracle, without injury. Domitian afterwards banished him to the Isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Book of Revelation. Nerva, the successor of Domitian, recalled him. He was the only apostle who escaped a violent death.