Responding to the Great Youtube Debate 7

This is my response to TelcontarRulz

ok I’m here so lets get it on.. before I get into talking about Genesis.. I guess I need to address these comments you made in the Great Debate. 


You said:


You were the one who first called me ‘arrogant’. Yes, you were judging my character when you’d only met me on the internet once, and I was naught but a name witha message beneathit. So, in fact, you are saying, “Don’t judge me, but I’m free to judge you all I want because it’s the right judgement.” Yeah, that shows you’re a truly born again Christian with the mind of Christ.


My Reply:


The defining the different meanings of arrogance first:


arrogant implies a claiming for oneself of more consideration or importance than is warranted <a conceited and arrogant executive>. haughty suggests a consciousness of superior birth or position <a haughty aristocrat>. lordly implies pomposity or an arrogant display of power <a lordly condescension>. insolent implies contemptuous haughtiness <ignored by an insolent waiter>. overbearing suggests a tyrannical manner or an intolerable insolence <an overbearing supervisor>. supercilious implies a cool, patronizing haughtiness <an aloof and supercilious manner>. disdainful suggests a more active and openly scornful superciliousness <disdainful of their social inferiors>.


When I see #1.. evolutionist attacking Christians for their belief in creation when #1, they don’t have to believe it.. just state way you don’t believe it.. but don’t start insulting people and think that you are more superior an individual that is arrogance.  If you notice the video is an evolutionist attacking the idea of the Creation Museum.. if neo’s were simple saying why without resorting to saying we are ignorant, etc, etc.. then I wouldn’t call them arrogant… If you had been around awhile, every neo faith believe has always, always 100% resorted to name calling, saying someone is ignorant, stupid, a moron, and the list go’s on and on.. for what?  You have shown that you are no different. 




You said:



You are so certain that every word of the Bible is the word of God. Have you any proof? You say our theoretical proof for evolution isn’t proper proof, so where’s your proper proof that the Bible was actually dictated to humans by God? You have no such proof. You must think the ancient world was Utopia, Ego-eimi, where people didn’t lie and didn’t use God to justify their evil acts. Did God really tell the Israelites to massacre the Canaanites, down to the very last child? I doubt it, especially he’d just given them that simple commandment which said, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’


My reply:


I can’t believe you claim to be a Christian when you ask how do we know that God dictated the what He wanted said to those who followed Him.


#1.. Let me quote what Peter said:  2 Peter 1:16

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.


#2 Let me quote more of what the Apostle Paul said in his letters to the Apostle Timothy: 


1 Timothy 4:7

Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly.


IN Titus:


13This testimony is true. Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith 14and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. 15To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.


Now if you look at that text.. if doesn’t prove nothing yet.. but I will add.. based on the science of archeology… it’s a fact the bible is a historical text.. King Herod verified… the pool of Besadaalong with thsi also


Jesus would be born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14, “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

Fulfilled in Matt. 1:18,25, “This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary…was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit… But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.”


To not take up more and more space.. I ask you.. Peter. .was an eyewitness of what Jesus did.. it’s a fact that people they mentioned in the Gospels existed.. the Apostles recorded what Jesus said about Scripture.. Paul wrote that All Scripture is God breathed.. Jesus told them not to lie.. the Prophecies which I only mentioned one.. the fact that archeology has never contradicted the bible and has only continued to verify it.. that proves that it’s inspired, because they witnesses the Jesus that you are suppose to believe and have faith in.. so my premise is simple


1.  Jesus existed

2.  Jesus preformed miracles

3.  Jesus had eyewitnesses to the miracles

4.  Even Jesus enemies saw the miracles and didnt’ write against it as false

5.  Jesus said and talked about the Word of God and living by the Word of God

6.  Therefore the Bible is the Word of God


Because Jesus Himself.. demonstrated who he was in front of real people.. told them to go and preach the Gospel.. and validated them by giving them power to do miracles just like the pattern has been thru out the bible OT Prophets and Apostles were given power to demonstrate..


So u tell me how it’s not Inspired when they witnessed the one prophecied about.. saw Him do miracles as was prophesied that Jesus would do, they died for it.. when they simply could have denied all of it to live, and Jesus Himself gave them Authoirty, which u think ordaination means nothing.. well when Jesus does to someone, it suppose to mean something…


You said..


If the words of every prophet was actually written down correctly and validated by God, then perhaps I should believe every single word of the Qur’an as well, because Mohammed was a prophet.



My reply:


No Mohammed isn’t a prophet by biblical standards.. and u are suppose to know this.. how long have u been a Christian?  The rules for a Prophet are laid out in Scripture.


OT Prophets.. this is another thing that validates them as speaking the very words of God, and I already gave you an example u didn’t address.. If a Prophet said anything that God said would happen if Israel for example didn’t repent.. if it didn’t come true 100% they didn’t hear from God, but if it did then they did speak the words of God.  The prophecies about Jesus like His virgin birth, Jesus was born of a virgin, His mother was looked upon as unclean because she was preganant before marriage.. and Jesus was called a bastard if you don’t know what is said in Jewish history.  And how do we know she was a virgin.. well it’s simple.. it was prophecied coupled with Jesus’ miracles.. if Jesus wasn’t born of a virgin, that would make God a liar which the bible says God can’t do.. and the miracles validate that He was indeed the one.. and people friends and foes saw Jesus doing the miracles… so what am I suppose to reject it.. give me a good reason to reject it.. again, when there were eyewitnesses to the miracles which validate Jesus and if He wasn’t virgin born, then He would be invalidated as the Messiah..


So to say.. Mohammad wasn’t a Prophet.. not by the biblical standards He didn’t do Miracles like the Apostles.. and the Quran speaks against Jesus as Resurrected.. therefore why would u a so called Christian even try to use it to make your point against the Bible?


You said:  How do you know that every single prophet spoke the absolute truth and that they didn’t somehow misinterpret information?


My reply:


Already addressed it.. if they spoke for God it had to happen 100%, if they didn’t it was false.  Anyone who exams the Scripture the Dead Sea Scrolls and see the verses mentioned in Isiah about Jesus.. knowing those things were written hundreds of years prior and they happened the way God said it.. then it’s from God.. and if you read the OT and what the Prophets said.. it’s consitent all the way thru..  God doesn’t change.. how He validates people…


You said:

You must think the ancient world was Utopia, Ego-eimi, where people didn’t lie and didn’t use God to justify their evil acts. Did God really tell the Israelites to massacre the Canaanites, down to the very last child? I doubt it, especially he’d just given them that simple commandment which said, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’



My reply:


I never said people don’t use God to justify their behavior.. why didn’t u quote so everyone could see the verse I quote about people thinking they were doing things in the name of the Lord when we were talking about the Crusades?  Why did u leave that out?  You give the appearance that I didn’t address that in your forum..


About Moses ordingthe Israelites to go to war with the Canaanites.  Yes God would order that.. remember.. God sent the Flood that killed more people than that.. so why would I not think that?  Second.. the people of the day like Israel lived under a ban.. which means that when they went to war in those times tribes would often kill who villiages.. and secondly from what I have studied about the Cutlureof the day Jewish people.. God always gave nations time to repent.. God never, ever sent Israel to war without giving a nation a chance.. and thirdly, you don’t know either that.. the only ones killed when it says Israel killed all.. it’s not talking about all in the sense u are thinking.. it’s all those who choose to fight Israel.. you do realize that woman and young children went withIsrael.. but also that children there are also several views.. some see those children as of fighting age the ones that died. some see it as if God chooses He can take life at any age, b/c He created view is there were woman and very young children who were not corrupted were spared and lived as aliens with Israel.. ever heard of Rahab?  A non-Jew… God took in those that accepted Him. and those that rejected Him in that time period when Israel was going to the Promised Land.. that was that time period..


And why are you trying to defend God.. God is well aware of what People would say reading the Old Testament?  God needs no defending.. the Gospel message is offensive… and that needs no defense.. so if you are trying to say your God is mercyful, not Vengiful, then you are ignoring a whole lot of what is to happen on Judgement day.. when God will judge the wicked.. I”m not worried about what people think of God and what God ordered.. why are you?




You said:


Jeremiah might have been telling the truth, but would every prophet be like him and tell the absolute truth? And Paul was simply writing down his views. They could be wrong. How can you prove anything? Are you going to say that you know Paul was completely right because you have the mind of Christ, and since you think he’s right, then Christ must surely agree with you? Just because someone is ordained doesn’t mean that they don’t make mistakes. They’re still human.


My reply:

You are making an assumption which you can.. asking question that could have someone been wrong.. of course.. but when it comes to God telling those who He selects as when they Prophecied.. or said what God will do if someone doesn’t repent.. that isn’t wrong but truth as long as if it happened as they said God said it.. that eleminates error.  Same thing with Paul it applies, if he said anything that God said, it has to happen 100%, that is how you eliminate the Jim Jones and the David Koresh’s.  And I didn’t say Paul was completely right.. Paul got into arguments with other Apostles they had disputes.. but that doesn’t remove the fact that God can use ordinary people, and it is you that sounds like an unbeliever lacking faith in God’s abilities to use people?  Do you doubt God can use people since you have claimed to be a Christian?  Can God exercise the use of people if they are willing to be used by Him?


and yeah.. ordaintion doesn’t eliminate make a sinful mistake.. why do you think 1 John 1:9 is there for all Christians to see?  Peter denied Jesus 3 times.. but Jesus still used Him.. your problem seems to be that yes we are mistake prone.. but that doesn’t mean we can’t communicate God’s truth, one has nothing to do with the other.. it doesn’t mean just because you tell a lie at one moment that you can’t ever speak truth…. God commanded repentance, but God also commanded being truthful to your neighbor, and they were truthful when it came to communicating things about Jesus, God, Faith, the Holy Spirit.. why would they lie about Jesus? Why would they lie about God?  When there is warnings of misleading people like Jesus said about misleading children?  There is a consiquence.




You said:


If Christianity means discriminating against people of other beliefs, and universalism means getting along with everybody and spreading peace, then I’ll gladly be a universalist, Ego-eimi


My reply:


Then what are you going to say or what would you say to Jesus when He clearly said that He is the truth, the way and the Life, no one comes to the Father except thru Him?  Are you going to say John lied then about what Jesus said, when John was an eyewitness to Jesus?  Does that mean Jesus is a bioget?  Does that mean Jesus isn’t peaceful?  No.. but Jesus Himself, said He came to bring division, do you know where that is even written in the Bible?  Jesus came to seperate the sheep from the goats.. meaning the wicked from the richteous, Jesus came to get those who will and are willing to repent.. that is what it is weater I like it or not.  But what would you say to Him, because Jesus isn’t a universalilst.. and that makes me question your faith, why would you go against Jesus. unless you are going to call people lies without justification, u are assuming that Prophets or Apostles lied, withproving it.. so why don’t you prove John lied.. I believe John told the truth about Jesus being the only way to Heaven, because He too witnessed miracles done by Jesus so what’s the justification for lying?




You said:


A religion which spreads dissension, discrimination and hatred is not one which I want to be part of. And how is your attitude spreading Christ’s love?


My reply:


LOL.. if society was all atheistic, guess what there will still be dissension, discrimination and hatred.  Look you have got to be kidding if you think that Christianity is the cause of any of those things.. you can look to the late communist country of Russia, and see that there was dissenstion in that country.  I have been discriminated against for several reasons, by non-religouspeople… so if you are saying you don’t want to be a part of a faith because of those things, then where are you giong to go live?  Because those things weather a person is white, black, green, a Muslim, a Buddist, an Atheist, there will always be someone out there with a population of 6.5 billion people that is non-religousthat will do one of those things.. heck, I’m married, and me and my wife have experience dissension between each other.. i had that withmy sister growing up, u can’t avoid it, and faithsometimes or not has nothing to do with it.




You said:


Yes, I’m a broken record for declaring that evolution makes more sense than creationism. However, I’m at least not quoting anyone, and adding my own arguments as to why I believe that evolution actually happened and is compatible with religion. Which brings me to the ‘correct way’ to interpret historical texts, whether they are secular or  religious. Just because someone has a Ph’D doesn’t mean they’re smarter than me. If we all just deferred to people with Ph’Ds, then no one would ever get new ideas. We’d still be living in the dark ages, believing that ”God has revealed the truth through religion. Reason can be used to prove the truth. However, if reason contradicts religion, then reason is obsolete.” Wait, you still believe that twelfth century teaching, don’t you? 


My reply:


Are you serious.. just because someone has a Ph’D doesn’t mean they’re smarter than you?  Really.. so does that mean that a Doctor who has a Ph’d in cardiology isn’t smarter than you in that context?  How about oncology?  You need to make a comment when it comes to Ph’d’s in proper context.. yes they are smarter than you which ever the context.. Yes an evolutionary Ph’d in genetics is smarter than me.. that’s why I quote a ph’dcreationist with the same degree from a major university against it.


But I do come up with my own ideas and see that creation makes more sense than evolution.  I asked you the other day a question you didn’t even answer based on your own words that you like to think for yourself, but you didn’t address in the context of evoution of why it’s explained in the context of it better then creation.  So I’ll ask again.. explain in your own terms how red bioluminescent light isn’t seen prior to what we see today which it’s something an animals has to have deep in the ocean where there is no light.. explain to me. how it survived, what was it’s way of getting food while this was developing,, where is the animal it came from that had this feature in development.. if you are going to walk the walk, then talk the talk and explain to me how evoution explains this better than evolution?




What 12th century teaching are you speaking of?


And if that is how you interpet historical text.. then that is why you are in much error.. about Genesis.


You say Adam is symbolic.. or that Genesis is symbolic when it comes to creation.




Then tell me how this is symbolic when there is no appearance of symbolic language used and I’ll quote several verses and by the way.. u didn’t address the sin question… If Adam is a symbolic person, then that means sin is symbolic, and Jesus had no reason to die for sins.. or do you not know why Jesus came?


Here are some verses:

Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.


The LORD God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them.


Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, “With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.”


I quoted a few verses referencing to Adam.. now how is it that Adam lay with his wife symbolic?  It’s the same Adam that God created in the verses preceding it.. Why would God makes garments for a symbolic person?  ARe you going to call Moses a liar without justification?  Adam named his wife Eve, how is that symbolic language compared to your misuse of Jesus answering Matt. question about seventy times seven in the proper context of forgivness which they were talking about..


And in ending..


What is your purpose.. to entertain yourself.. I notice that your comment in the end and I quote


“So come on, defend your faith. You said in your last reply that you’re never a coward when it comes to defending what you believe. So come and defend it now, or you will be a coward in front of the world. I won’t even have to say it.”


What?  is this a game to you?  A teenager having fun?  Seeing how many people will jump on your bandwagon?  See how many people like it has been as I have read some comments from onlookers the same old thing of mocking a Christian for believing in the Bible which that is what a Actual Christian does in comparison to you which you are misleading people away from the bible, which there is warnings against. 


I didn’t come here to show the world I”m not afraid.. i’mnot. but if someone gets some help, weather it be one person that turns to Jesus.. I’m happy withthat.. because I already been there and done that.. being mocked and laughed at makes my faithstrong, because I’m experiencing what those who put their faith in Jesus prior the same thing.. Jesus said to rejoice and if you are not being persecuted for your stand for Jesus.. then what does that make you?





78 Responses to “Responding to the Great Youtube Debate 7”

  1. The symbolic function of the Adam and Eve story is precisely that the names are collectives for mankind and womankind respectively. We know there were other people beyond the garden of Eden; we are told that Cain went off into exile and found a wife among them. Who do you think created those? Not to mention that the species would have died out swiftly if it was left to Seth alone…

    Please get some help in the form of a spelling/grammar checking tool. This is not YouTube.

  2. Assentia I hope you will tell that to my biggest opponent about my spelling. She also mispelled a word and I told her all she had to to was mispell one word that would make her a hypocrit. I went back thru Youtube, and guess what.. she had a mispelled word. So if you are going to criticize me, make sure you also criticize your friends. And that would be TelcontraRutz.

  3. There are typos, and there’s ignorance. And when you get someone’s name wrong, especially after exchanging communications with them for so long, that’s downright insulting. You’re on a platform with people who know how to write here, not a bunch of kids on textspeak.

  4. Assentia,

    LOL it depends on the person. Just because I may have gotten someone’s name wrong isn’t offensive to everyone. I’m not offended when people get my name wrong, so what. And if you are about ad hom attacks like so many people over spelling and grammer issues, then that means one or two things. Either A. you simple don’t know what common courtesy is or Either B. you are immature.

    So if you want me to continue to respond to you which I have given Tel more air time then I should when issults are not the issue but the topic at hand, I will simply ignore you.

    I”m glad you know how to write.. good for you.. but it’s insulting to insult a person and think you like her are some sort of god in the area of writing. Because you too make mistakes just like Tel thought she didn’t but did. The moment you make a writing area what will that make you? A hypocrit and I’m sure you will and have, because after all you are human.

  5. What am I.. debating everyone in the world?

    Assentia said: The symbolic function of the Adam and Eve story is precisely that the names are collectives for mankind and womankind respectively. We know there were other people beyond the garden of Eden; we are told that Cain went off into exile and found a wife among them. Who do you think created those? Not to mention that the species would have died out swiftly if it was left to Seth alone…

    My reply:

    What’s a symbolic function? They are not symbolic. The name Adam has been found in ancient records during the time period Christian Theologians date back to their time. And if you have been following along with the discussion between Tel and myself, you would have seen that.

    I think you know the answer the the Cain issue.

    And what are you talking about concerning Seth?

  6. Just because I may have gotten someone’s name wrong isn’t offensive to everyone.
    I said insulting, not offensive. They are not the same thing. And passing gas in public isn’t offensive to everyone either, but it’s still rude.

    Either A. you simple don’t know what common courtesy is or Either B. you are immature.
    You say that because something is not offensive to everyone, those who do find it offensive should shut up, and lecture me on common courtesy? And then you accuse me of immaturity after starting off with a LOL. Pot, kettle, black. (It’s ad hominem, by the way. Get your facts right, if not your grammar and spelling.)

    The moment you make a writing area what will that make you?
    What’s a writing area? I don’t think the condition of my desk has anything to do with my views. Unless you mean error.

    What am I.. debating everyone in the world?
    Since you have chosen to air your views on a public forum, you have opened yourself to commentary. If you don’t want to deal with it, don’t accept comments. It’s just a matter of tweaking your settings, not brain surgery.

    The name Adam has been found in ancient records during the time period Christian Theologians date back to their time.
    As theology is not a science, I’d take any attempt at such dating with a good pinch of salt.

    And what are you talking about concerning Seth?
    Very simply: Who did he mate with, in order to have children and populate the world, if there were no other people on the earth? Let’s not even go into the incestuous particulars.

  7. That’s an interesting point Assentia brought up. Incest is a sin in the sight of God, one deserving of utter damnation; yet if Genesis is to be believed, the only humans around would’ve been Adam, Eve and their children. Unless you’re telling me that those children mated with each other, which would be a huge SIN–there’s no one else around that doesn’t come under the laws on consanguinity. (I am NOT even going to go near the other idea such a thought provokes!) Also, if the third generation of humans were that inbred, genetic problems would’ve ensured that the human race died out extremely soon, not survive to the present. Inbreeding genetic abnormalities and inbreeding depression are documented fact, I should say.

    Four individuals are not enough to propagate a new species through sexual means. I’m not considering the lower eukaryotes or protists, bacteria, other unicellular organisms, etc.–those aren’t germane to the current discussion as most of those reproduce by asexual means.

    So unless you’re telling me that God created other human couples besides Adam and Eve and let them loose on the Earth, which if I recall rightly Genesis does not say and seems to regard Adam and Eve as the only human couple around bearing offspring at the time, humankind springing from the union of a single couple doesn’t make any sense to me. However, Adam and Eve standing as symbols for the fall and eventual hope of reconciliation between God and man? Makes a whole lot more sense.

    NB: Agree with Assentia on all points: if you’re going to put up stuff in public, then you can certainly take disparaging comments in good grace. Or simply close yourself off from comments, and remain in your own little world. Theology is not a science, and its findings should be considered suspect without further concrete evidence from other branches of human knowledge, since it can only deduce its findings from what it believes to be fact, but may not necessarily be so.

    As to your spelling and grammar: Get Firefox, and use its inbuilt spelling checker. Better yet, type your responses in MS Word or OpenOffice Writer with auto spell-check on. Everyone taking the time to read the debate will thank you profusely for it. Minor spelling errors are fine; I will not claim infallibility on that issue: but posting lengthy, dragging comments that look as though they came from a semi-illiterate, with mistake upon mistake piling one on top of the other simply says you’re lazy and gives you a bad image, in that you seemingly can’t be bothered what anyone else thinks of you.

    You have obviously studied the Bible with great effort to defend it with zeal–could you not turn a minute part of that same devotion to presenting yourself as one of God’s people with a little more decorum? Remember that your language while posting is a reflection of the person you are out of cyberspace. Debates are smoother when everyone understands rightly what the parties are trying to say and don’t feel insulted by perceived lack of respect.

  8. Oh.. come on. is a synonym to offend. Check Webster’s Dictionary. And really it’s not a big deal to me, but since you people have a condensending way of talking to someone, I will not approve anymore of your comments if you are going to continue to be condensending any further.

    LOL. You again over look the point. When you said “You’re on a platform with people who know how to write here, not a bunch of kids on textspeak.”

    That is my point about common courtesy. You lack it when you flat out come off with a condesending tone. and textspeak, it is more like text speak. So even in that you contradict people knowing how to write here LOL there is no such word as textspeak, it’s text speak when you google it.

    LOL.. u knew what I was saying concerning writing error, I’m sure of it.. since you said “unless you mean error”

    LOL.. I was speaking to one person, on her blog engaged in a specific conversation. If you want to comment fine, but dont turn your attention towards me again talking about my spelling errors or grammatical habits.. comments about what is being said as far as not agreeing fine.. but don’t turn to my spelling, again, you say that isn’t ad hom.. yeah it is, when you direct it to something personally I’m doing rather than the argument about the subject at hand. So we disagree on weather it’s ad hom or not.

    LOL.As theology is not a science, I’d take any attempt at such dating with a good pinch of salt.

    I’ll let you keep guess then… if you think that theologians don’t speak or talk to Christian Scientist on the geological records and learning how far back that go’s.

    LOL. Who did Cain mate with.

    Cain married his sister (or possibly a niece). The Bible says Adam “begot sons and daughters’’ (Gen. 5:4). In fact, since Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5), he had plenty of time for plenty of children! Cain could have married one of his many sisters, or even a niece, if he married after his brothers or sisters had grown daughters. In that case, of course, one of his brothers would have married a sister.

  9. And when it comes to Ad Hom.

    Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive). This is argument by character assassination. “Reject whatever he says because he is a bad person.” Literally, the fallacy’s name means “argument against the man.” It is not an attack on the proposition, but against the person. It is like a lawyer standing up and saying, “We have no case, your honor; but certainly you’re not going to believe the alcoholic, El Sleazo, ambulance chaser that the plaintiff hired.”
    Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. 1990. Come, let us reason : An introduction to logical thinking . Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Mich.

    So it would be saying, don’t pay attention to him because he first needs to learn how to write. In fact, Tel said in our conversations that if I want to win an argument, I first need to learn how to spell. So you are doing nothing any different.

  10. telcontarrulz Says:

    Ego-eimi, you know what protocol in blogosphere is? Write in language that people can understand, receive all non-spam comments graciously or keep to yourself if you can’t deal with contructive criticism. Criticizing your spelling and language skills and giving you suggestions on how to improve them is constructive criticism, I assure you.

    Yes, to win an argument, you need to learn how to use language properly. Your spelling mistakes, as I’ve said before, make your posts hell to read. A debate is best presented when your opponent does not get bleeding eyes from your grammatical, spelling and punctuation mistakes.

    As for ‘ad hom’ attacks, you’re doing the same thing, both to me and to others on YouTube. ‘They’re atheists, so whatever they say will be wrong.’ Isn’t that your attitude? I’ll refer you back to the screenshot in this post: You were just going to dismiss my arguments as total crap because I believed in something different from you, and therefore was a damned person who knew nothing worth knowing. Isn’t that right? You’re ignoring wysiwyg666 on YouTube despite his/her reasonable well thought out arguments just because s/he is an evolutionist. That’s ‘ad hom’; you can’t point your finger at anybody. So get your act together and take that plank out of your eye before you point out the splinter in anyone else’s, for how can you see a tiny little splinter with that great big thing blocking your vision like blinkers on a horse?

    By the way, the name is Telcontar Rulz. I’ve not given you permission to shorten my name. If it’s too hard to type correctly, then it’s ‘T. Rulz’. ‘Tel’ is reserved for friends only.

    Also, about Cain’s wife, did you actually read ArianneG’s post?

  11. telcontarrulz Says:

    And yes, I’ve posted my response and yours on my blog.

  12. […] Religion, spelling Ego-eimi has not replied to me directly, but he did write this on his own comment thread: Oh.. come on. is a synonym to offend. Check Webster’s Dictionary. And really it’s not a big […]

  13. So Cain marries his sister or a niece. That action is incest, a sin leading to Hell and eternal damnation. I would’ve thought that God would lead us away from sin, not encourage it. That’s what the Lord’s Prayer says. Is it not written? “And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”

    Adam and Eve put their foot into it big time, and now the second generation is about to make a terrible mistake at least equaling their parents’–and God doesn’t say a word? I cannot believe that God, who is a loving God, would not at least warn them that what they were planning was against his law, as he later set them down for all the prophets beginning from before Abraham and Noah, but willingly let them go into sin. After all if daughters lying with their father (incest) is a sin, so too should brothers lying with their sisters. In fact it’d be worse–the genetic relationship is closer between siblings, if memory serves correctly. And a close uncle (within the first degree) is also bad.

    Your argument with Genesis doesn’t wash, egoeimi3. I really can’t conceive that the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, who kept faith with the Israelites and warned them again and again throughout their disastrous career in the lands of the Covenant, and who I believe must watch over them still, as the shepherd his unruly sheep, would allow such travesties of his law to occur without Him speaking a single admonishment. God is perfect–surely he would not drive his creations to sin because they had no choice. Such a God who did that would be a cruel one, which the God of the Bible is manifestly not.

  14. So when someone who knows better than yourself on something corrects you, they’re being condescending. Grand. You’ve been plenty condescending yourself with our mutual friend, not to mention the ad hominem attacks about her age. So you’re simply projecting.

    Before going to Webster’s, I’d check more reliable dictionaries, like the OED and Chambers (which is the official dictionary of Scrabble, by the way).

    Textspeak is usually found hyphenated, and we linguists know how the tendency goes with such words. LOL and such acronyms, on the other hand, belong firmly to chatrooms and mobile phones, not debates. Glad to amuse you, though.

    Are we talking Christian scientists or Christian Scientists here? Mrs Eddy and her ilk are a travesty of faith and I put no stock in their nonsense.

    Your version of Cain’s story doesn’t keep up with the timeline. For all Genesis says, at the time of Abel’s murder and Cain’s exile, there were only the four of them in the world. Seth was born afterwards, as were the ‘sons and daughters’ you mention. So the question remains: if Cain wandered off to faraway lands, found other people and married into them, who created those people? And why was he afraid he would be killed for what he had done, if there was nobody else to do that anyway?

    The whole sisters and nieces affair is an abomination. Apart from the genetic consequences that Arianne mentioned, Biblical law came down very hard on such relationships. The term ‘bastards’ was reserved for children born out of forbidden relationships, of which there were just two: adultery and incest. Polygamy, concubinage, even rape, were all acceptable. Given how the Egyptian royal custom of brother-sister marriages is treated in later books, I’d very much doubt it was ever prescribed by God himself.

  15. My timeline.. LOL.. that is what theology says.. theologians like Norman Giesler, Hank Hanegraff.

    So what is your creditials may I ask? Are you a theologian? Have you been studing biblical hermentics?

    And obviously you didn’t pay attention. Adam and Eve live along time.

    So let me repost and then explain what I think you are overlooking.

    Cain married his sister (or possibly a niece). The Bible says Adam “begot sons and daughters’’ (Gen. 5:4). In fact, since Adam lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5), he had plenty of time for plenty of children! Cain could have married one of his many sisters, or even a niece, if he married after his brothers or sisters had grown daughters. In that case, of course, one of his brothers would have married a sister.

    So let me re-state.. again.. Adam and Eve lived along time. If you studied like a theologian, people that are mentioned are of importance. In other words.. Adam and Eve had other children, but Abel and Cain were mentioned due to the nature of the first person murdered. You are reading into the text as if Adam and Eve only had two children at that point. Moses simply doesn’t mention how long a time went past before Cain killed Abel.. it could have been a 100 years had gone by and Adam and Eve had other children beside those to.. it’s the murder of Abel is what is important.

    So both of us are making assumption.. my assumption is there is no timeline to when Abel was killed.. so I see it as they possibly had more children before the even. Secondly, Cain killed abel.. there also could have been and apparently had to be along period while Adam and Eve were still having children.. it could have been 20 years after before Cain took a wife.. either way, there is time that went past in order for there to be someone for Cain to marry.

    You assumption is there was no body, and you assume that there were others created outside and I don’t agree.. time just went past for Adam and Eve to have children, and they aged very slowly compared to us so it could have been 200-300 years of procreation before Cain took a wife who knows.

    Genetic defects.. you don’t even study the creationist postion. We are talking about the beginning if we are talking about the bible timeliine. So genetically there were not many problems and there wasn’t until later in the Bible God issued that it was a problem marry your closest relative. So until God says something is a sin, it simply was not a sin to sleep with a sister or a niece because we are talking about the beginning not today. Read thru Lev. during this time closest relative would genetically be a problem.. and the time from Genesis to Leviticus is 1000’s of years not 5 years. There is time between Genesis to Leviticus.

    So we just agree to disagree simply.. you have your view I have mine.

    And as far as ad hom. I don’t attack Tel personally and say she is uneducated, or stupid, or an idiot. Or talk about her spelling abilities and mock her for it.. Post anywhere I have mocked her for her abilities? Or we are looking at the situation differently which is common.

  16. And no.. I’m not talking about Christian Scientist.. they would be consider heretical and unorthodox. Not Christianity.

  17. ArianneG,

    My apologies.. I didn’t see your comment. God didn’t outlaw marrying your closest releative until Lev. So incest wasn’t a sin in Genesis. We are talking about the beginning of Creation in the Bible sense. Of course people who look at that thinks it’s incest.. but God didn’t say it was a sin until later much later. No where will you find in the book of Genesis sleeping with the closest relative unless I have simply forgotten but you won’t find it in the first 5 chapters, and there is time between each chapter, book… it wasn’t like Moses wrote the books at the beginning.. remember Moses wrote the account and when he wrote the account most theoligans would tell you it’ was several thousand years before this stuff was written down.

    So quite simply, incest didn’t come up until a later time. Right at the beginning of the world.. you are looking at it based on genetical problems now.. but those that hold to the biblcal timeline there simply wasn’t any genetic problems in the beginning. And in fact I forgot to bring out this point.

    In genesis 1… Adam and Eve had been producting children for along time.

    Assentia you might want to take note of this.. i just thought about this.. Genesis 1 says they had been producing chlldren from along time and here is the text.

    (28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”)

    That was told to Adam and Eve. So Assentia there is your answer.. Cain married a realtive obviously and there was a length of time.

    Genesis 2 just brings out the account of when Abel was Murdered which was the first murder..

    And if you don’t think my argument holds water.. there are people that do.. and there are people that think your arguments hold water. So what, everyone chooses a side.

  18. First, there were no genetic imperfections at the beginning of the human race. God created a genetically perfect Adam (Gen. 1:27). Genetic defects resulted from the Fall and only occurred gradually over long periods of time. Further, there was no command in Cain’s day not to marry a close relative. This command (Lev. 18) came thousands of years later in Moses’ day (c. 1500 b.c.). Finally, since the human race began with a single pair (Adam and Eve), Cain had no one else to marry except a close female relative (sister or niece).

    Geisler, N. L., & Howe, T. A. 1992. When critics ask : A popular handbook on Bible difficulties . Victor Books: Wheaton, Ill.

  19. Biblical timeline means by Bible verses. And the way that goes is: Cain kills Abel, Adam and Eve have Seth to replace Abel, then they have other sons and daughters. Is there any reason to assume the narration of events is anything else but linear?

    The Book of Jubilees, which gives names for Cain’s and Seth’s sister-wives is non-canonical, so it doesn’t count.

    So incest wasn’t a sin in Genesis.
    Please, read more closely. The incest of Lot’s daughters with their father produced two cursed tribes, the Moabites and Ammonites. That’s in Genesis itself, and long before Leviticus.

    Post anywhere I have mocked her for her abilities?
    Belittling her about her age IS mocking.

  20. Again.. I disagree.. just because of Lots daughters did what they did is a different matter.

    sleeping with ones closet relative wasn’t instituted until Lev 18. So you read again.. this like Tel is a moot point. If you want to have the final word be my guest. But the situation with Lot and his daughters isn’t saying a law against incest. Here is what the text says:

    30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let’s get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father.”
    33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.

    And here are the theological implications behind it.
    1. It gives the origin of the Moabite and Ammonite nations that played major roles
    as inveterate enemies in the history of Israel. Moab sounds like the words
    translated “from the father,” and Ammon means “son of my kin.”
    “His legacy, Moab and Ammon (37f.), was destined to provide the worst
    carnal seduction in the history of Israel (that of Baal-Peor, Nu. 25) and the
    cruelest religious perversion (that of Molech, Lv. 18:21).”577

    577Kidner, p. 136. See also Henry O. Thompson, “The Biblical Ammonites,” Bible and Spade 11:1 (Winter

    2. It illustrates the degrading effect that living in Sodom had on Lot’s daughters.578
    His older daughter was so desperate to marry that she exaggerated the effects of
    the recent catastrophe (v. 31).

    Bottom line.. the text doesn’t say anything as far as incest was a sin.. that’s the point. What they did was wrong as far as getting their father drunk. The whole situation was sick bar none.. they still had a little of Sodom in them to act in this fasion.

    And biblcal time line means by verses.. no it doesn’t but you are welcome to your opinion. Verses and the numbering of those verses didn’t come into play until I believe in the 1200’s if my memory serves me correct.. so there is no time line by verses. The point still remail there was time from Genesis Chapter 1 until the point of Abel being killed. There is no time of how long they were in the Garden before the event of Abel being killed.. but we know based on the text they were having Children while in the garden.

    And we disagree.. saying that she is young isn’t ad hom.. it is no where like putting her down the way I have been put down personally. And what about her mocking of my age then if you want to go that route.. what nothing to say about that? I guess not, since we are talking about her being your friend.. just let her mock my age, mock my spelling, but that’s ok.. just don’t do it back. I don’t care for doublestandards I really don’t.

  21. LOL.. i’m not concerned about winining an argument Tel, only you are based on your elite spelling and grammer…

    I have done just fine and have lead some people to Jesus.

    And I’m not ignoring anyone on youtube.. i have made my points to whomever and if they want to continue so be it.

    And you are damened if you don’t know Jesus as Lord.. so if your opinion is that I damned you it’s based on your attitude of the bible that has be concerned.. i have told you that time and time again.

    So just because i’m not responding in Youtube doesn’t mean anything, but it does to those who are trying to win arguments. I have been debating in youtube for more than a year.. and that person you are speaking of is bringing up things that I already talked and answered months ago… I don’t continue to talk and talk and talk about the same thing over and over.. a few times is enought.. and I can post what those that dieagree what and where is that going to get anyone?

    You see.. I can post what Ph’D scientist say against what you say about evolution and vice versa… so what. There comes a time when it’s over.. and what wy. is talking about has already been addressed… and you would do well to know that Jesus didn’t even answer everyone questions because it depends.

  22. and by the way tel.. I’m new at this wordpress.. so I have posted on your site and not always on mine lately.

    and if this continues.. the way it’s going.. if this is all you people are all about is trying to intemidate.. well #1 it won’t work… but if that is all you are interested in.. speak now or forever hold your peace? because I rather be talking to people who are searching for Jesus and sharing the Gospel then trying to argue with 3 on worldpress and several on youtube..

    I don’t have time to be debating almost ten people by my count.. like I have heard before.. many non-believers and evolutionist have their strength in numbers and it has made a believer out of me… not surprised though

  23. You talk of law, I talk of sin. One doesn’t legislate against something before it becomes a problem.

    By the way, God only dictated 10 commandments. How did Israel end up with 613 mitzvot?

    Obviously you read a different Bible than I do. As for my theological credentials, unless you are an accredited theologian yourself, they are par for yours. I see your modern ego-stroking scribblers and raise you the early church fathers (

    Have a fun life.

  24. Assentia hit the nail on the head again. Sin is sin, surely you agree? Just because God didn’t say anything we know of in the Bible, doesn’t mean he didn’t consider incest a sin before Leviticus.

    And Tel hasn’t mocked you age. Where was that? And she mocks not your spelling–simply telling it the way she sees it, albeit in a less than pleasant way.

  25. LOL.. the 10 commandments for a purpose if you would have read in the NT to show us Israel and all people later the awareness of our state.

    The 613 laws are dietary, for dieases, for woman and their monthly, etc, etc which have nothing to do with the 10 commandments.

    And whatever the rest.. have no clue of the link and it’s purpose.

    And the reason about creditials.. you have no clue of what I know. All I notice is that you and your friends don’t even have a clue what my name means, or I don’t see a lot of understanding in interpetation of the bible, when it comes to means and context of scripture. So we will just agree to disagree, and again, whatever your church fathers comment I have no idea.

    If you are talking about Cahtolic Doctrine church fathers, no I’m not catholic.. i don’t follow Popes or Priest. If that is what you are talking about. But I have studied in my 12 years as a Christian enough to know that many people who don’t take the time to study the Word of God have no clue what is proper context, and what is pretexting to make their points.

  26. Arianne,

    If God didn’t say something is wrong concerning incest prior to the situations going on in genesis, procreation, Lot and his daughters it can’t be sin, there is no violation yet if God hasn’t said something was wrong. Now when it comes to the topic of slavery I think you might be hinting at. God never said slavery was wrong, but He permitted it. But slavery wasn’t the same in the Israelite camp as it was in the surrounding nations. So I think that is something similiar you are talking about. But things mentioned in scripture as sin clearly stated there is not argument. Incest simply wasn’t said to be wrong according to what was told to Moses by God until Lev chapter 18.. sorry, but that is what the text says. And in the beginning, if they didn’t mate with a close relative the earth would have not been populated.

    Tel mocked my age in youtube and I have a record of it if you like to see it. In fact if you examine her earlier pages she might have been kind enough to have admitted it, just like the appearance given here in wordpress that she doesn’t make spelling errors, I found that in youtube dialogue that she has but you don’t see me making a big deal out of it, because it’s not necessary.

  27. And if you were wondering what sources I use since you gave the church fathers link and wondering about what bible I use I use several translations based on my study habits.

    NIV, NASB, Amplified, KJV, NKJV to name a few. is one site., which has theological videos you can watch. or that could be .org for blueletter. But I also have a logos file with 12 books in it that is stored on my computer to help me with the hebrew,greek, etc for form appropriate studing. That’s how I understand and grow closer to God with the leading of the Holy Spirit which I havn’t heard to many of you even address, heck I havn’t even heard Tel even address that one yet or if ever.

  28. Being Greek, and thus able to read my NT in the original, I know what your name means. I also know who used the expression, and I find your choice of username arrogant and pretentious.

    I hope you have more than a cursory look at the link I provided. That is the complete exegetical and ethical canon of the early church, the One Church, long before there were denominations. No accredited or wannabe theologian should run their mouths about doctrine and interpretation before reading everything that those people wrote, in the very times when Christianity was defining itself.

  29. telcontarrulz Says:

    Ego-eimi, you insulted me personally from the very start. If you hadn’t called me an arrogant neo, then I would have been kinder, and perhaps overlooked your spelling. But you first called me an arrogant neo, and then you called me a coward. That made it personal. As for calling someone arrogant not being an insult, you can look at that definition you provided again. Every single thing mentioned there was negative. ‘Coward’ is an insult in any language.

    You want this to become neutral again? Then you owe me an apology. I’ll admit that I have shown you my worse side, but until you apologize, I have no regrets about behaving in such a hostile manner. Should you apologize, we can agree to disagree or continue this debate in a detached professional manner. It’s up to you. But if you don’t, then I sure won’t let someone insult me and get away with it. You made it personal first, Ego-eimi, and it’s now up to you to make it impersonal.

  30. telcontarrulz Says:

    And while you’re at it, I believe you might owe some other people apologies as well.

  31. Tel.. LOL.. i owe you an apology.. first off, I was engaged like I have to keep explaining with others… you decided to butt in.. and I have called people neo’s because that is what is presented todayd.. is neo-darwinism.. a phliosophical faith.. so I owe no one apologies..

    And i’m not going to ask you to apologize for mocking me.. and pretending to not misspell words.. you came off as someone who didn’t make those mistakes then when I find the post where you in fact made it.. then you pretend it’s not a big deal. You were hypocritical in attacking my spelling.. when you in fact did it yourself.

    You choose to engage me while I was engaging others on the issues.. I didn’t ask you for it.. Just like this forum, it’s no different tag teaming comes with neo’s and you have shown yourself to be no different.. and claiming to represent a faith that you deny.. so save it.. just deal with proving the question I asked earlier about your bat problem of where they evolved from in the myth of evolution.

  32. And let me give you a word of advice.. since you don’t use the bible as your foundation.

    The bible says love is not easily angered.. love does not return evil for evil but always overcomes evil with good.

    So when you admit you basically retailated.. well that speaks for itself.. not acting in love.

    If i’m not acting in love.. then I will apologize.. i have no problems doing so.. but you better check yourself.. because it’s you that is denying the bible and are acting contrary to scripture and what Jesus taught.. and calling genesis a non-literal truth.. yeah.. you have bigger problems then worriying about me.. i’m not leading people away from the authority of scripture you are… and it would be better like Jesus said that you tie a millstone around your neck.

  33. And if you think that i’m apologizing for what you think that I misstreated you.. i’m not.. because i see nothing about calling someone what they are.. if you are a neo.. u are a neo.

    And if you are trying to get out of answering questions.. using this as a way out.. just leave it alone.. you don’t have to engage a conversation any longer.. your choice..

    It’s harder to prove the myth of evolution then anything.. you need a tag teaming team to do it.. and if you want to follow my youtube profile page.. i’m engaging.. wy.. whom you think I was avoiding… if you want to follow that one.. your choice.. just giving you an invitation..

  34. LOL.. Christianity was defined by Jesus.. and those He left as the only Apostles there will ever be.. the Super Apostles were the foundation of the Church and Christ was and still is the Cornerstone…

    So looking at your link and them defining the Church.. sorry, the Church was already defined.

    Bible clearly declares that Christ is the foundation of the Christian church, insisting that “no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11).

    Paul declared that in this sense the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20). Indeed, the early church continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine [not just Peter’s]” (Acts 2:42). Even “keys of the kingdom” given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) were also given to all the apostles (cf. Matt. 18:18).

    So I suggest you come with Scripture using that website showing that they defined Christianity.. i would disagree.. it was defined by Christ and the Apostles who established the church.. and denominationlism.. is the followers of Jesus’ fault.. because Jesus prayed for the Apostles that there would be unity.. and that problem started even during the Apostles time.. of division.. lack of Unity shows lack of Love…

    So sorry, but your link doesn’t define Christanity or the Church.. that was during the time of Christ.

  35. Tel.. I’ll leave you with the comment of the Apostle you love to hate.. The Apostle Paul spoke it well.. I don’t believe I cross the line when it came to first meeting you.. my mind is clear on the issue….

    Paul said….”2Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.”

    I feel as he did… when people were trying to judge him being an Apostle.. you can judge that I was being rude all you want to.. calling you a neo… when that is what you hold to.. is the neo darwinian concepts of bacteria to man theology.. i have to call it like I see it.

    Just like you had no problem calling me a hypocrit.. without a foundation… i have been up front presenting myself as a bible believing Christian who doesn’t beleive in the myth of eovlution… i have never changed from that… when it flat out calls the God of the Bible a liar and genesis a myth..

  36. And here is the link to my youtube front page.. so you can’t use the same old line that i’m afraid to engage my attackers.

    At this very moment he is trying to think of an answer to the oxygen problem that debunks the very foundation of macro-evolution. I hope you know that evolutionist once thought the earths beginnings had very little if not any oxygen in it.. to show how that very first cell over millions of years came together.. and you get to us the most advance creatures on the earth.. but it just so happens that geology has shown oxygen has always existed which causes a huge problem for your presious bacteria and those other single celled organisms shouldn’t have existed because anything that lives in a environment that has oxygen has to have the ability to not oxyidized.. if you want futher proof, I can quote what science says about the orgins of that first living single celled organism..

    So have a good one if you continue to engage.. great.. if not.. I pray that God really does show you that you can not lead people away from Him and call yourself a follower… Jesus is due 100% of your dedication no exceptions.

  37. A cornerstone is essential to a building, but unless you actually build around it, there’s no building to speak of.

    Christ established no church. He just left his teachings, and the apostles took on the organisation. Who said anything about Peter and denominationalism? The Church is pre-denominational. You’re letting your fear and loathing of the RCC cloud your judgment there.

    I suggest in turn that you refrain from pronouncing on things you haven’t even read. Since you are so sure that your own understanding of Scripture is valid and sufficient, kindly don’t quote or even mention anyone else’s words but Christ’s and your own. You shouldn’t need backup from self-proclaimed evangelists who get their kicks out of getting published.

  38. telcontarrulz Says:

    As I said, I’m not ‘Tel’ to you. It’s T. Rulz. I never said I loved you, did I? I have very little patience for intolerance. As for butting in–it’s a public forum, dude. Butting in is what people do. If you can’t deal with more than one person at a time, then you shouldn’t be posting.

    I offered you truce; you refused. Therefore, I will continue to ‘mock’ your spelling and your complete lack of understanding of anything rational and scientific. I pray that you do not contaminate others with your man-made religious fanaticism.

    You’re the type of ‘Christian’ who makes all other Christians shake their heads and look down in embarrassment.

  39. telcontarrulz Says:

    By the way, you think I was angry at you calling me a neo? I was referring to the ‘arrogant’ part, as well as the ‘cowardly’ part. If being a ‘neo-darwinist’ means being rational, then go ahead, call me a ‘neo’ all you want. But if you use terms like ‘arrogant’ and ‘cowardly’ with people, don’t expect them to love you.

  40. […] Great YouTube Debate | Tags: bitch, debate, Religion, youtube Ego-eimi replied to me on his own comment thread. Is the guy really too stupid to post his argument in a blog post? Possibly; he still hasn’t […]

  41. LOL.. Tel.. I’m not offended by anything you say. I have come to the conclusion that I see no fruit.. you havn’t even addressed the Holy Spirit.. and I guess you shouldn’t.. after all the Bible isn’t real to you anyways.. and I don’ t have a problem with people attacking and several doing it.. it’s encouraging at the most.. let it happen. .I don’t care, and I’m not going to lose any sleep over the insults you make. .so continue to mock my spelling, it’s consitent with your hypocrisy anyways.. you mis-spelled and continue to be a hypocrit.. no surprise.. it doesn’t matter to a carnal thinking person anyways as you have proven according to Scripture.. you are indeed Carnal.. no doubt.

    And I’m back.. so I’ll be replying to your sad Debate #12..

  42. And what blog post are you talking about.. LOL.. and to stupid. yeah. that’s real Christian.. I bet you will never find me ever calling someone stupid for what they believe.. write.. or not posting something..

    In fact that is way to childish for me to consider…. I have better things to do.

  43. Assentia,

    I suggest you stop trying to act like a communist.. this is a free blog space. and I can quote anyone I choose to. If you don’t like it.. don’t read it.. but I will continue to quote. And you have no idea what I know.. like your friend Tel.. you people can make your own judgements about whatever.. I don’t care.. why should I?

    And as far as the Church go’s.. LOL.. I beg to differ.. even theologians agree with me.. and I with them.. that the Church was established by Christ and the Apostles which there were only 12 with Paul being the one abnormally born.. is the Apostle to the Gentiles.. so I don’t expect you like Tel to know anything about Scripture.

  44. And Tel.. I will continue to call you Tel..

    I don’t care if people call me “ego” which it already has been done that way.. the only difference is.. I’m a lot more mature in handling people calling me “ego”.. or “egoeimi”.. it’s not something on my priority list to complain about. because someone calls me “ego”

    I have grown beyond getting upset about a non-sinful thing.. LOL.. I suggest you learn that as well, or continue to name call.. it only continues to encourage me.. and proves that fact that you are missing something very important which you havn’t even figured it out yet.

    The “writing is on the wall”!

  45. Assentia,

    I know a lot about the RCC by the way.. so I suggest you learn more about the RCC.

    Ever heard of Mariology? I’m sure you have. Ever heard of the extra books Cathollic Thehology preaches.. I”m sure you have.

    So have I.. I know enough to comment about it.. and again.. don’t try to control a free world.. people can say what they want to say.. it’s that simple.

    Like I allow the attacks that Tel does.. calling me names.. and I’ll continue to post the doublestandard her friends operate by.. so next time I say something you don’t like about Tel.. don’t operate by a doublestandard. .because it’s proven.. that she can call someone stupid, and no one has a problem with that.. but if I call her stupid.. i bet many would have said. . how unChristian like that behavior is.

    Yeah.. it’s clear, very clear.

  46. Tel.. by the way.. who said I expect people on a blog space to love me?

    Get it right.. I don’t, and never did.. my life doesn’t evolve around some blog space.. and people’s attitudes.

    I’m loved enough.. I don’t run to a space to find that.. and I have Christ’s Love which supercedes anything found here or in my life period…

    LOL. like I need love from anyone here.. my purpose for coming here isn’t love. that’s for sure.. LOL..

    And yeah.. i’ll continue to call you a neo-darwinian lover..just give it time anything can be explained.. in that myth

  47. No, I don’t know about the extra books the RCC and Eastern Orthodox churches preach. I do know about those the Protestants removed, though. And oh lookie, they are the same! Who would have thought?

    I’m not trying to control you, I just made a suggestion. As you said, it’s a free world, so you’re free to parade your ignorance as much as you like.

  48. Ok.. llst the books you are talking about concerning Protestants. Lets talk about the Canon of Scripture.

    And please don’t be like everyone else.. parading my ignorance. Be specific. What is it that you think of ignorant on? Evolution? The Bible? Give examples of which ever you are talking about.

    Because evolution is ambiguously defined. Everyone likes to use the word evolution which is talking about change. But no one likes to talk about how it’s so ambiguously defined.

    And about the bible.. again give examples. I seek to understand it from the culture of the day, and find out what the construct of the text from correct understanding.. not what like or don’t like..

  49. 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch, and portions of Esther and Daniel. All those were canonical in the early Church, established over the Ecumenical Councils (do your own research on them) and continued to be so even after the split into Western and Eastern branches.

    Your ignorance of church history and your prejudiced refusal to study theological works from long before the Reformation aren’t doing you or your beliefs any credit. Take your time… each file on the page I linked to is about 3000 pages of text. If everyone had studied them, there wouldn’t be so many so-called Christian ‘reformers’ talking out of their rear ends.

  50. So you want to argue the Canon of Scripture if I understand you correctly? You want to argue the apocrypha? So I understand you. Saying I don’t understand church history is based on what?

    And are you making that judgment based on which statements that I have made? Because I know enough about Church History and the arguments for the apocrypha vs. the arguments against it.

    To each his own, I don’t believe the apocrypha is Canon based on the RCC arguments.

  51. This is from one of the books I have. So please next time don’t assume I don’t know about different groups in the East. That is a tactic atheist like to use.

    “Eastern rite churches include Armenians, Chaldeans, Copts, Ethiopians, Marianites, and Syrians. As one might expect, tensions arose between the two groups and consequently the Roman Catholic Church founded the “Congregation of Eastern Rites” in 1862 in order to address problems. Eastern Rite Catholics now number over 12 million worldwide. The churches were represented at Vatican II and subsequent events will be considered in the conclusion of this appendix. 17 “

    7 For material on the Eastern Rite Churches, see Broderick, Catholic Concise Encyclopedia, pp. 138–39; Cross, Oxford Dictionary, p. 1407; and González, Story of Christianity, 2:316.
    Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. 1995. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.

  52. I gave the source so there aren’t any mistakes that I don’t read. I know more than people think. I’m not here to impress anyone. I’m here to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ when that opportunity happens and to speak out against a myth that contradicts Scripture and puts the focus on man rather than God.

    So anytime you would like to talk about what I’m sidestepping do let me know specifically what you are talking about.

  53. I don’t want to argue anything with you. We’re not on an even footing, it wouldn’t be fair to you.

    You say apocrypha, I say canonical. The point remains: Protestant denominations removed books that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches considered canonical. Because the canon of Scripture was set long before the Great Schism.

    Church history is recorded in those files I linked and that you still refuse to study. So I can safely assume that you know squat about it. Proof is that you cite one paragraph and one footnote from non-Orthodox sources and you think you’re done and covered. Simpleton.

  54. LOL. So I’m lacking in common sense then because you consider me a simpleton. I asked a question and you rather come back with ad Hominem attack. Yeah, ok that’s real character to come back with an attack rather than answering my clarification question.

    I don’t accept the non-canonical Apocrypha. The Jews were correct to reject them as not inspired by God. And I like the Protestant arguments against it vs. the RCC arguments for it.

    That’s why the crazy idea of purgatory is so stupid considering what Jesus did for humanity.

    So I’m not going to even go there and come back with an attack, I’ll just post on my blog the non-sense of the Apocrypha that it’s non-canonical and not inspired by God. God Bless, and I’m not going to call you a simpleton, after all it wouldn’t be fair.

  55. And by the way, I used sarcasm so don’t take it as an insult, it’s saying that you are calling yourself that for unjustly accusing me of something that you don’t know about me. You don’t know my knowledge of the issues, so that would mean you are operating without common sense here.

    Common sense means you would first talk to me about the issues and see if I know anything or not, then educate me rather than assume I know nothing. So anyways, I’ll go do that blog now posting some material that I agree with about the extra books being NON-CANONICAL.

  56. And so there is no confusion. Here is what personal attacks look like, just a little for the people to read with the source also quoted.

    Argumentum ad Hominem (abusive). This is argument by character assassination. “Reject whatever he says because he is a bad person.” Literally, the fallacy’s name means “argument against the man.” It is not an attack on the proposition, but against the person. It is like a lawyer standing up and saying, “We have no case, your honor; but certainly you’re not going to believe the alcoholic, El Sleazo, ambulance chaser that the plaintiff hired.”
    “Behold, a gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of taxgatherers and sinners!” [Matt. 11:19]
    “Kubler-Ross’s views on the stages of grief should be rejected because she has contact with departed spirits.”
    It should be noted here that whether the accusations are true or not makes no difference, since the argument is irrelevant. Even if Kubler-Ross has had contact with “departed spirits,” her work on the grief process (which has been verified by others) is still helpful. Jesus’ claim to be God was in no way diminished by the fact that he associated with sinners. These attacks are simply ways to dodge the issues.
    Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. 1990. Come, let us reason : An introduction to logical thinking . Baker Book House: Grand Rapids, Mich.

  57. And the accusation of books the Protestants removed.. here is what theologians that are orthodox say.

    “10. Apocryphal books did appear in Protestant Bibles prior to the Council of Trent, but were generally placed in a separate section because they were not considered of equal authority.21
    Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. 1995. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.

    And source for #21 reference.

    “Even knowledgeable Catholics acknowledge that the appearance of apocryphal books in Protestant bibles does not prove they were accepted as inspired but only that they were valued.”

    Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. 1995. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences. Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.

  58. Just for your information. I’m pasting point number 10 from my library that has just as many words 3000 plus in it so there is no pride on your part. But this is an interesting point which you should take note about the extra books. If you want to read more, go to my bible link I posted the several points against the extra books there.

    “10. Apocryphal books did appear in Protestant Bibles prior to the Council of Trent, but were generally placed in a separate section because they were not considered of equal authority. 21  While Anglicans and some other non-Roman Catholic groups had a high regard for the devotional and historical value of the Apocrypha, they did not consider it inspired and of equal authority with Scripture. Even Roman Catholic scholars throughout the Reformation period made the distinction between the Apocrypha and the canon. Cardinal Ximenes made this distinction in his Complutensian Polyglot ( a.d. 1514–17) on the very eve of the Reformation. Cardinal Cajetan, who later opposed Luther at Augsburg in 1518, published a Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament ( a.d. 1532) many years after the Reformation began which did not contain the Apocrypha. Luther spoke against the Apocrypha in 1543, placing its books at the back of his Bible. 22 ”

  59. The Eastern Orthodox Church uses the Septuagint Canon, which was compiled between the 3rd and 1st century BCE and used in the early church. St Augustine, by the time of the Synod of Hippo, in 393 CE, considered the canon closed. Anything the Protestants came up with 12 centuries later was tampering. Plain history. Sorry to burst your bubble.

    I call you a simpleton because you keep ignoring the Eastern Orthodox Church, which has kept its lineage unbroken since Apostolic times, and when cornered about it, you offer a measly paragraph by someone who isn’t even a member of that church. Bias much? (By the way, that paragraph had to do with the Oriental Orthodox Churches only. Chew your information or it will stick to your throat. And Google is your friend.)

  60. LOL I’m not going to even bother with this non-sense. If anyone wants to read what scholarship says go to my Bible link. There are at least 15 arguments against the extra books posted by theologians with the source.
    And LOL the points made against the Apocrypha is the topic not Oriental Orthodox, LOL. Read the material I posted but no Red Herrings. We are talking about weather the books should or should not be included.
    So use common sense properly, a red herring move isn’t using common sense but changing the subject.
    Go to the Bible link and comment on the points made by theologians and counter it, otherwise your personal attacks on me means you have nothing to say against what is said against the extra books, you rather talk about the person rather than the argument put forth.
    It’s a Red Herring if you don’t address each point that theologians in favor of the Protestant view verses the RCC view. LOL Red Herring

  61. I even posted it on my front page the attack against the extra books and you rather Red Herring.

    Wow indeed funny, personal attacks yeah, that is really addressing the issue that is brought against the books the Jews rejected.

    I don’t care what your Pope’s and Priest have said about the books the ones that accept it, but there are those within the faith that didn’t either if you would have read the different points brought out in a theological format. LOL

  62. I have a Bible, thank you very much; Septuagint OT (the only translation completely free from denominational agendas), and NT in the language it was written. I don’t need your translation.

    The link I provided has several thousands of pages of points made by theologians of acknowledged authority, people who contributed in building the Church. I doubt there’s anything new your link can tell me. Anything non-heretical, that is.

    Your comment of yesterday at 3:46 pm had nothing to do with the Apocrypha and everything to do with the ignorance of the West towards the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. Backpedal and claim fallacies all you will. Theological error is your right, factual errors I will keep correcting.

  63. LOL. Factual errors. Ok, so disprove the Jews rejected the extra books as inspired.

    The factual error is denial of what the Jews accepted and did not accept.

    I don’t care if you ignore that fact, that the Jews themselves did not accept the extra books not written by OT Prophets, prove it wrong.

    Otherwise all your evasive moves proves that you can disprove that actual fact that Jews did not accept the extra books as Scripture.

    I’ll give yet another fact about the extra books, LOL. Yada, yada, it’s a fact the Jews rejected them, and it’s a fact below what is written by some good theologians contrary to the theologians you have not even mentioned yet.

    “First, no apocryphal books claim to be written by a prophet. Indeed, as already noted, one apocryphal book even disclaims being prophetic (1 Macc. 9:27). Second, there is no divine confirmation of any of the writers of the apocryphal books, as there is for prophets who wrote canonical books (e.g., Exod. 4:1–2). Third, there is no predictive prophecy in the Apocrypha, such as we have in the canonical books (e.g., Isa. 53; Dan. 9; Mic. 5:2) and which is a clear indication of their propheticity.”
    Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. 1995. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.

  64. Here is information about one of the theologians I use. And it wasn’t a link to a website but an actual book I have digitally stored on my PC lol.
    Norman L. Geisler is one of the world’s most knowledgable and respected apologists. Dr. Geisler has taught at the university and graduate level for almost forty years and has also spoken or debated in every state in the U.S. and over twenty-five countries. He is currently serving as president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina (, which he co-founded in 1992. He is also a professor of theology and apologetics at the seminary.
    Dr. Geisler has published countless articles in academic journals and is the author or co-author of more than fifty books. He earned his master’s degree at Wheaton Graduate School and his Ph.D. in philosophy at Loyola University of Chicago.
    For more information about Dr. Geisler, visit his web site at
    (Now there is a link you can check out if you choose) And don’t try to argue the majority rules, that doesn’t fly. There are more unbelievers than believers that reject the bible so what! That means we should just stop believing then because there are some pretty secular educated theologians out there that don’t believe in any of it.)
    So if you don’t prove what is non-factual based on what Geisler a theologian said with what your theologians say then you are avoiding the accusations and conceding that you have no defense. Either put up or shut up as the slogan go’s. This is Mars Hill on my blog, either get it on, or remain silent and prove what is said isn’t a fact.

  65. Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἔδωκεν ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ᾽ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον

  66. It is irrelevant whether the Jews accepted the so-called Apocrypha or not. The fact is that the early church, as early as the 2nd century, did. See mention above of St Augustine and the Synod of Hippo.

    You can keep your Dr Gleiser, I’ll stick to my St Athanasius and St John Chrysostom, thank you very much.

  67. Don’t forget the other theolgian Ralph E. MacKenzie. I’ll name somemore, like Hank Hanegraff also.

    LOL, amazing, overlook the Jews who didn’t accept it. It’s funny that not even the Apostles accepted them which was consistent with the Jews actions for a reason. No Catholic Church Father is greater than the NT Apostles LOL and they didn’t even quote from them, nor did Jesus Himself, LOL and that is more powerful than some Pope who thinks they were worthy books to included over the non-quoting of those books by the 12 Apostles or Jesus for that matter.

    “4. Although some individuals in the early church had a high regard for the Apocrypha, there were many who vehemently opposed it.9 For example, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and the great Roman Catholic biblical scholar and translator of the Latin Vulgate, Jerome, all opposed the Apocrypha (see below). Even the early Syrian church did not accept the Apocrypha. In the second century a.d. the Syrian Bible (Peshitta) did not contain the Apocrypha.10”

  68. About Augustine, LOL, I bet you simply ignore the history and better theologians then him rejecting it.

    ” the local councils of Hippo and Carthage in North Africa were influenced by Augustine, who is the most significant voice of antiquity that accepted the same apocryphal books later canonized by the Council of Trent in a.d. 1546.13 However, Augustine’s position is ill-founded for several reasons. (a) His contemporary, Jerome, a greater biblical authority than Augustine, rejected the Apocrypha (see below). (b) Augustine himself recognized that the Jews did not accept these books as part of their canon.14 (c) Augustine erroneously reasoned that these books should be in the Bible because of their mention “of extreme and wonderful suffering of certain martyrs.”15 On that ground one could argue that Foxe’s Book of Martyrs16 should also be in the canon! (d) Augustine was inconsistent, since he rejected books not written by prophets yet accepted a book that appears to deny being prophetic (1 Macc. 9:27).17 (e) Augustine’s acceptance of the Apocrypha seems to be connected with his mistaken belief in the inspiration of the Septuagint, whose later Greek manuscripts contained them.18

    Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. 1995. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences . Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.”

  69. Augustine debunked by a greater Biblical Authority in Jerome that all Catholics should know. Here are the references to the numbers in the post. Read them or not, your argument doesn’t hold water. Augustine wasn’t the greates Authority compared to Jerome on the issue.
    The Council of Rome did not list the same books accepted by Hippo and Carthage. It does not include Baruch, thus listing only six, not seven, of the apocryphal books later pronounced canonical by the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic scholars assume it was part of Jeremiah. However, Trent lists it as a separate book. See Denzinger, Sources, 84, p. 34″

    “Augustine, City of God 19.36–38.”(14)

    (15)”Of the books of Maccabees Augustine said, “These are held to be canonical, not by the Jews, but by the Church, on account of the extreme and wonderful sufferings of certain martyrs” (City of God 18, 36).”

    (16)”John Foxe (1516–87), Acts and Monuments of Matters Happening in the Church (1563).”

    (17)”This verse denies there was a prophet during the period it was written, which would mean the author was not a prophet. In response, Catholics appeal to verses that say there were no prophetic visions in Israel before God raised up Samuel (1 Sam. 3:1). But this misses the point: the books of Samuel were not written before God began to speak to Samuel but after. Likewise, Psalm 74:9 refers to no prophet being left “in the land,” since the Babylonians had destroyed the temple (v. 3) and the prophets were in exile (e.g., Daniel and Jeremiah). And Lamentations 2:9 does not say there were no prophets anywhere (Jeremiah, who wrote it, was a prophet) but that there were none in the land who were getting a “vision from the Lord.” By contrast, the writer of 1 Maccabees was bemoaning the fact that there were no longer any prophets in Israel, even after they had returned to the land. Nor does 1 Maccabees state that the prophetic lull in Israel was to be only temporary. Indeed, Judaism has acknowledged that even before the time of Maccabees the prophetic spirit had departed from Israel (see Josephus, Antiquities, Against Apion 1.8: “From Artaxerxes until our time everything has been recorded, but has not been deemed worthy of like credit with what preceded, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased.”

    (17)”However, Augustine’s later acknowledgment of the superiority of Jerome’s Hebrew text over the Septuagint’s Greek text should have led him to accept the superiority of Jerome’s Hebrew canon as well, which did not include the Apocrypha.

    Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. 1995. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences. Baker Books: Grand Rapids, Mich.”

    So as far as I’m concern your argument for the Apocrypha has caught a beat down. I’m backing what I’m saying with the sources that show that even the likes of Jerome and what is known about Augustine with point #17 shows that he was sadly mistaken about them.

  70. Since I’m not Catholic, you’re wasting your breath and tiring your fingers copy-pasting your Catholic/Evangelical stuff.

    Of course not all Church Fathers agreed with everything. That’s where Tradition and perspective come in, and that’s why the Ecumenical Councils had to take place. I see your McKenzie (who?) and raise you three Gregories (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Gregory the Great II).

  71. LOL who said you were. Catholics argue for the extra books, you support as it appears that they are ok to be apart of the bible. So it doesn’t matter if you are not, but you are throwing in there your support for the extra books.

    And what is this a competition about how many theologians you can list? Nope just giving you some recommendations as you are giving me to look up.

    So if you can’t prove your postion tha they should be added then just decline without further comments.

  72. Since they were there at the beginning, they could hardly be ‘added’. And I keep repeating that not only Catholics accept the particular canon. Are you too mule-headed to understand, or too lazy to find appropriate resources?

    You choose to depend on modern theologians, I choose to consult those with authority going back up to 17 centuries. Not all theologians are created equal. But since you seem not to care for the early ways, here’s a modern one for you:

    “When one steeps oneself in the literature of the Fathers, one is aware of entering a different world, of breathing a different air. For the Fathers, the Scriptures spoke with the voice of God and an apt citation of a Scriptural text (read and interpreted, of course, through the Tradition of the Church) was seen as bringing all godly controversy to an end. This was not “proof-texting” (which involves the use of Scripture separated from Holy Tradition). Rather, it was an awareness of Scripture as a locus and carrier of that Holy Tradition and therefore as a reliable arbiter in all Christian disputes.”-Fr. Lawrence Farley

    And what exactly do I have to decline, by the way? Or did you mean to use some other verb entirely?

  73. LOL appropiate resources I could use the same tactic and say you should do the same.

    The issues that I have brought up you are not even addressing. Prove that the resource that I quoted my material is wrong, show that it’s not correct. My sources are in agreement with what the Jews did, they rejected the extra books and the Apostles and Jesus not once quoted from them like they quoted from the many of the other books in the OT except those you won’t find any.

    So which part to you not understand? Your sources are in denial that you won’t find any quotes from them by the Apostles or Jesus Himself which speaks volumes.

    And LOL I quoted a Authority over Augustine in Jerome and you still are in denial LOL.

    So you better check yourself rather than me, because Jerome is looked at by the Church as a greater Authroity figure in the faith then Augustine.

    But your choice, you continue to look at the resources you have, I’m sticking to the fact that the Jews rejected the extra books, Jesus never quoted any of them, and neither did the Apostles and that is reason enough without knowing all the ends and outs of what is argued overall.

  74. You’re still shying away from Athanasius and John Chrysostom, so your hierarchy of authorities in exegesis doesn’t go quite all the way, does it?

    Of course Christ and the Apostles didn’t quote scripture. Neither did the early apologists. That’s a prerogative of modern twerps.

    But people will always believe what they want, whatever evidence to the contrary they get, so I’ll stop raising the hit counter of your copy-pasting project.

    • LOL and you accuse me of shying away from Athanasius and John Chrysostom. Yeah ok, but never mind that you are shying away from Jerome who is in greater Authority then Augustine LOL. And Athanasius and John Chrysostom are not in greater Authoirty either.

      And you are definetly you are shying away from the fact that Jesus never quoted from them, or the Apostles and you have not once addressed that. What you don’t care either that they never,ever quoted from them like you can find Jesus quoting from Psalms, or example. You said you didn’t care that the Jews never accepted them, but I suspect you don’t care regardless that not even Jesus quoted from them or the people He left in charge the spread the Gospel in the Apostles.

      And I’m shying away.. lol the two people you mention are not greater in Authority then Jerome. But the biggest Authoirty of them all Jesus didn’t even quote from them.. so address that. You can make excuses for everyone else, but Jesus Himself is known to have quoted various books of the OT, but none of the extra biblical books LOL.

  75. wysiwyg666 Says:

    Ego said:

    “until God says something is a sin, it simply was not a sin to sleep with a sister or a niece”

    So if I understand you correctly, God changed his mind about what was right and what was wrong. One day he’s thinking “Lets watch Cain get it on with his sister”, but 1000 years later he thinks “Ugh, that’s disgusting, better tell them its a sin”.

    So in the end, what you are really telling me is that God makes things up as he goes along. There is no absolute truth, no absolute right and wrong. God changes the rules whenever he wants.

    Is that right Ego?

  76. egoeimi3 Says:

    LOL.. typical crtics.. very typical. Again, I told you I was writing you off the list. I’ll reply and allow no other comments from dishonest interlects.

    It’s called progressive revelation. Secondly lots of people lack critical thinking and don’t understand our position. During that time there were not incest because the world had to be populated who else was he to mate with? Secondly, we all are related in a biblical worldview just that a cousin just isn’t a genetically close as my sister would be. Third during that time, there was a very low chance of genetic problems, as you would have today. Fourth, God makes the rules and it has nothing to do with absolute truth, it doesn’t apply, it’s a different subject. God doesn’t say that Jesus is the way to Heaven then say it is.. no that is a truth that doesn’t change, but when it comes to behavior it depends on the context.

    And who are the critics to be critical. In a post modern world where if there isn’t a God then morals are relative. So what is sin? It doesn’t exist. So don’t come on my blog and try to be critical of the topic. If you don’t believe in God then morals are relative and so what you call evil may not be evil to someone else after all, we are suppose to be just related to apes and they mate with each other you don’t call it incest do you. We are just animals according to evolutionist so this subject shouldn’t even be an issue, now should it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: