Comments for Restore The Gospel

Comment on Why Naturalistic Atheists Can’t Account for Morality by Cameron

Cameron — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:56:28 +0000

Some atheists say that a will/need to survive is a bases for morality, such as on The Atheist Experience when I called in and asked them about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3H5U9g_SuY

I say that has nothing to do with morality in the sense of accounting for why things are really right or really wrong, such as I point out under argument#2 with (c) and (d).

Morals are based on values. Values are completely subjective. However, because humans are very similar, a lot of our values will be the same. Which leads to many similar morals.

Look at my argument for this under argument#1 with (b) and (d).

Comment on Why Naturalistic Atheists Can’t Account for Morality by morsec0de

morsec0de — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:10:24 +0000

“a. Again, this is begging the question because what is the bases by which we determine that surviving is moral?”

Who says it is?

Morals are based on values. Values are completely subjective. However, because humans are very similar, a lot of our values will be the same. Which leads to many similar morals.

Comment on The Shack (Needs To Be Taken Out To The Shack) by Cameron

Cameron — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:13:32 +0000

Thanks Daan, amen.

Comment on Mormons and The Sin of Pride by Cinderella

Cinderella — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 18:35:40 +0000

Good article!!!

Comment on The Shack (Needs To Be Taken Out To The Shack) by Daan

Daan — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:28:46 +0000

I Fully Agree.
Isn’t it incredible how many times God encourages people by revealing His true Character and Power and Transcendance to them? Besides Job, I think of the Samaritan woman at the well, Elijah, and Moses.
God Bless! Daan

Comment on Laurence Tisdall On Evolution by Cameron

Cameron — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:59:04 +0000

Great points Isaac. The die hard empericist would argue back that hearing is physical b/c particles are creating frequences which go into your ear and then your brain by which you can distinguish the sounds and understand, thus is a physical process, etc. blah blah. The real problem isn’t “science” but the bias that “pure” science is only emperical, or only applies to that which we can observe in the physical realm. The thing is though that empericism itself doesn’t account for the emperical!!! You can’t observe a scientists “belief”. Fruther, emperical science requires observers who observe the observable, not of which can account for themselves but something beyond them must account for them. Observeration requires thinking which requires abstract absolute universal meanings. To have observers requires life, which is better explained as comeing from life, not non-life. The observable is the physical realm which can’t account for itself but is finite, thus began from something outside itself. Thus, a Naturalistic worldview internally refutes itself.

Further, empericism only looks at finite matter. Yet God is eternal and immaterial, so emperical proof for God’s existence is a bit silly, let alone for all proofs because you can’t physically proove one’s “belief”, even a scientific belief. There are fine ways to prove God’s existence, it’s just that pedantic biased fundamentalistic empericism conveniently throws out the whole endeavor making science 1. inconsistant and 2. limited. But maybe it’s limited for a reason by Naturalists who supposedly only accept emperical evidence? Maybe b/c they’re hostile to God like Scripture states, thus limit science to supposedly deny His plain existence. But one science experiment we all participate in to see if God exists is death. Can’t wait! Also when Jesus returns that will be physical evidence for everyone. The very one who invented the physical realm and holds it together will show up, judge everyone, and demand His full Lordship! Can’t wait for that too!

Comment on Laurence Tisdall On Evolution by Isaac Grosse

Isaac Grosse — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:51:26 +0000

Trying to explain God to an atheist that has to see God through his microscope is like trying to explain love to a computer that has to turn everything into numbers. What if everyone was deaf except for one person? I mean really, the only reason we believe in sound is because we experience it. Scientifically, it’s movement, something we should feel, not “hear”. But because others also “hear”, we ignore the scientific narrow minded rules and accept hearing as possible. Because lots of people hear. Aren’t there enough people who experience God? Isn’t it possible that something real is there that science doesn’t understand?

Comment on In The Gospel, Should We Emphasize Love Or Death? by Cinderella

Cinderella — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 00:09:21 +0000

“Therefore, all sinners deserve God’s wrath. Jesus took God’s wrath for us on the cross. Thus, our greatest need is righteousness, death (through a substitute), and new life. Christ lived the perfect life we couldn’t. He perfectly loved God with all His heart, strength, and soul and He loved others as Himself. He was never selfish for a millisecond. Then God crushed Him and killed Him instead of us who deserve it. Kind of makes you think about how evil you are considering that that’s what you deserve because of your sin. Wipe that hesitant look off your face because that’s a GREAT thing to realize! Then, Christ rose from the dead proving that all of His work on our behalf was satisfactory. Of course it was. He was God! It was satisfactory for those who believe in Him and repent.” Amen.

Comment on Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. Do They Contradict? by Cameron

Cameron — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:02:10 +0000

Thomas,

Overall, I think your blood pressure went up after reading my post which probably made you type your response too fast. Then your brain was lacking oxygen which made some of your arguments kind of confusing.

“Everyone had it wrong till Martin Luther”? So the Catholic church has been wrong this whole time? I agree.

And Martin Luther didn’t come up with his ideas on his own, nor was he the only one. Many were burned at the stake before him who spoke out against the Catholic church. Also, Luther was reading Augustine’s commentaries on Romans 1 and read that the righteousness we are given comes from Christ, not us. That is what helped spark his Biblical epiphany.

And why would a Magisterium matter? Who infallibly interprets the “infallible interpreter”? And can you provide me with the Roman Catholics interpretation of every verse in Scriputre? I have never seen one yet because it doesn’t exist.

Further, the Scriptures testify of Christ, and Christ is the Truth, not the Catholic church. Therefore, if we study Scripture, the more we will know truth which is a reflection of the Truth (Christ). It’s very simple.

Could you please provide the source where there are 35,000 confirmed denominations which adhere to Sola Scriptura and behave like they do from the pulpit?

Also, last I checked, Mormons and JW’s were on that “list”. No Protestant Christian, however, believes they are Orthodox. So why is this mysterious unsubstantiated figure thrown out by Catholics, and why do the numbers and amounts keep fluctuating? Doesn’t sound honest.

In John 6, the Jews asked Jesus what is the work that God requires. His answer is to believe. Thus, solafide goes all the way back to Christ, the Apostles, and even the OT (as Paul quotes the OT to prove this doctrine). James also quotes the OT to show that faith + works = (real) faith, thus proving one’s justification before men, NOT God (as Paul deals with justification before God). You say I don’t know my history, yet you obviously don’t know your Bible, and you haven’t offered any Biblical arguments which show that I’m wrong. Yes faith without works is dead, dead FAITH, NOT dead justification!!! And baptism doesn’t help one’s salvation. The theif who died next to Jesus probably wasn’t baptized, nor did Paul baptize everyone he could have in 1 Cor 1.

I agree that the Church is the pillar of truth, but we disagree with what the “church” is. I believe it is the invisible church made up of true believers.

Comment on Romans 3:28 and James 2:24. Do They Contradict? by Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:47:47 +0000

Let me guess, you think that your Protestant faith can be traced back all the way through the centuries back to Jesus? How ignorant of history. Everyone had it wrong till Martin Luther, who in his 95 thesis pledged allegience to the pope no fewer than 20 times. He never gave up infant baptism nor the perpetual virginity of Mary. He was a baptized Catholic. He had never known Protestant ideas, until he came up with them himself. Not a magisterium, only himself. Doesn’t sound to God inspired to me, nor does 35,000+ denominations that stemmed off of Catholicism. That condradicts Christ Himself that He would never let the Church be put assunder. Sounds like your beliefs are the false ones. By the way, the NT says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, not scripture as you seem to imply. As far as sola-fide, what a farce…Again, read your history, no one believed that. It has always been faith+grace, with the baptized coorperating with his free will to do good works and gain merit available to him only by the grace of Christ’s Merit. Faith without works is dead.