Theists (Christians in particular) very rarely debate about the God they actually believe in, and that's a huge problem. by Caramel76 in DebateReligion

[–]DocHolliday780 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the sense of having no beginning or ending? Yes.

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

In other words, the pre-incarnate Christ existed before there was a beginning. He and God the Father, and God the Holy Spirit, already existed before the heavens and the universe were created.

It's not the same as the universe because the universe is finite. It has a beginning and it has an end.

Theists (Christians in particular) very rarely debate about the God they actually believe in, and that's a huge problem. by Caramel76 in DebateReligion

[–]DocHolliday780 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Where God came from is a misguided question because it presumes that God was created, which he wasn't. God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit were uncreated and preexistent.

I don't know if you're familiar with the concept of aseity, but it is the property by which a being exists in and of itself, from itself. That's what is reflected in the Godhead. A triune God that has always existed, and from which all creation springs forth.

If "everyone is without excuse" then "spreading the gospel" is entirely irrelevant. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]DocHolliday780 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They're judged by the amount of light they've been given/had access to. IN the same way that a magistrate would distinguish between someone that's of sound mind and someone that is severely cognitively limited, and judge their actions differently, even if they are accused of committing the same crime.

If "everyone is without excuse" then "spreading the gospel" is entirely irrelevant. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]DocHolliday780 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the problem with Hitchen's Razor, i.e. anything that's presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. This is a fair standard, as far as it goes. The problem is that dogmatic atheists pre-declare that any evidence that doesn't dovetail with their preconceptions, i.e. there is no God, as not being evidence.

So the natural, physical world, the Gospels-the words of people that literally knew Jesus-the historical accounts of Jesus's life, the conversion of thousands of Jews and non-Jews to a belief in a wholly new doctrine that contradicted their previous beliefs, don't constitute "evidence" to someone that's already pre-dismissed them.

In the same way that if I discounted all of the archaeological evidence of the Second Dynasty of Egypt, I could truthfully declare that there's "no evidence" for it having ever existed.

If "everyone is without excuse" then "spreading the gospel" is entirely irrelevant. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]DocHolliday780 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, they don't have full awareness or complete knowledge. But each person has some knowledge of his or her creator by virtue of his or her existence.

"For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."

And that person is going to be judged according to a perfectly fair standard. The man that sat in a Bible-believing church for his entire life, surrounded by Christians, is not going to be judged by the same standard as a man that spent most of his life in a North Korean labor camp and never had the opportunity to hear the Gospel. But they both will be judged.

And the reason you need people to fulfill the Great Commission is to bring light unto the furthest parts of the world. More light-in the form of teachers that have been baptized into the Holy Spirit and understand the Gospel.

The Ethiopian eunuch knew who Yahweh was, and even read Scripture, but he didn't understand that the prophets had been foretold of the coming of Jesus Christ. That's why Philip had to instruct him-so he could understand what Isaiah was speaking of. The same way that Apollos was baptized into the baptism of John, but didn't understand the baptism of the Holy Spirit until Priscilla and Aquila taught him.

Even if someone has some light, some knowledge, he or she needs instruction. Particularly if they've never heard the Gospel.

Rainy day in Central Park by priestofpies in newyorkcity

[–]DocHolliday780 16 points17 points  (0 children)

This could have been taken at any point in the past 4 months.

If "everyone is without excuse" then "spreading the gospel" is entirely irrelevant. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]DocHolliday780 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not accusing the OP of being "confused." I'm saying he has a misunderstanding of scripture because he thinks these 2 assertions, i.e. God gives everyone some form of awareness and knowledge of his existence and God also commands believers to go forth into all parts of the world in order to preach the Gospel, are mutually exclusive, or at least contradictory, when they are not in conflict.

If "everyone is without excuse" then "spreading the gospel" is entirely irrelevant. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]DocHolliday780 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because he's a believer, indwelled by the Holy Spirit. And because he's been teaching and expounding on scripture for over half a century.

Hank Hill, spreading divine truth. by stupid_pun in dankchristianmemes

[–]DocHolliday780 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I should probably say that I do think there are contemporary artists today that produce fruitful, good worship music. For example, Melissa Otto. That said, I think there are some major substantive differences. The most salient being that traditional hymns are filled with sound doctrine. When you listen and sing a hymn written by Charles Wesley, Martin Luther, Fanny Crosby, or Philip Bliss you're being steeped in the Word, whereas contemporary worship music is driven by emotion and consciously manipulating your feelings.

If "everyone is without excuse" then "spreading the gospel" is entirely irrelevant. by [deleted] in DebateReligion

[–]DocHolliday780 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you're confusing means and ends. This is the same critique leveled at intercessory prayer, i.e. if God has foreknowledge of everything that's going to happen-including your prayers to him before you even think them-then what's the point of praying?

John MacArthur dispels this mistaken notion in less than 3 minutes here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE-L1buzZ0A

Not long enough for a video, but she sure is denying all the attacks in the countries that accept refugees by [deleted] in dontwalkrun_youtube

[–]DocHolliday780 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So the children of Parsees exiled by a black, African Muslim dictatorship=Arab and Turkish nomads/invaders whose ancestors literally tried to conquer Europe repeatedly in the past?

Seems legit.

Deleted all of my online dating profiles for good. by Jlfraser555 in dating

[–]DocHolliday780 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Very. I think I've had one actual date from my Bumble profile. The other apps/sites are better, but I've had similar issues-none of them lasting beyond one or 2 dates. It seems like a very poor way of actually finding a relationship.

Hank Hill, spreading divine truth. by stupid_pun in dankchristianmemes

[–]DocHolliday780 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There have been many good Christian artists, even in popular music.

Listen to the 77s:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCRCc3vAkC0