Retro Foods Making A Come Back
Food & Drink3 mins ago
Why won't Christians answer awkward questions?
42 Answers
Question their sweeping statements with logical argument and they disappear completely until something else comes up. If they're so sure of their subject, why don't they answer?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hello Naomi - My belief is that the Bible tells us it was Moses, and that's good enough for me.
It also prohibits necromancy, trying to contact the dead, and is clear that the dead cannot return in any form. Therefore, a ghost, is in fact a spirit, or demon, deceiving the observer. That is my belief.
It also prohibits necromancy, trying to contact the dead, and is clear that the dead cannot return in any form. Therefore, a ghost, is in fact a spirit, or demon, deceiving the observer. That is my belief.
Theland dear, I don't want to harrass you because I know you're not well, but that's no answer at all. Moses was dead. The bible clearly states he died, so if the dead can't return in any form, then this apparition that spoke to Jesus must have been a demon. The bible has to be misleading you somewhere along the line. Either the ghosts of those who once lived can materialise, or all ghosts are demons. You can't have it both ways. It makes no sense whatsoever.
-- answer removed --
I have no problem believing in ghosts because of my belief in pergatory and I also believe that Moses and Elijah did return in some ghost like form.
I don't think that a belief in ghosts is in anyway inconsistant with Bible teaching. Look at the story of Jesus walking on water, it's clear from the language used that the disciples believed in ghosts at this point.
Also look at Luke 24:36-40 where Jesus reappeared to the disciples, this would have been a perfect opportunity for him to dispell this dangerous myth about ghosts but instead he stated that a ghost "does not have flesh and bones". If there were no such thing as ghosts, why would he point out what ghosts do not have?
A parent trying to calm a scared child would never attempt to pacificy them by explaining that the monster under the bed does not have sharp teeth. This would be confirming to the child that there is a monster under the bed!
I don't think that a belief in ghosts is in anyway inconsistant with Bible teaching. Look at the story of Jesus walking on water, it's clear from the language used that the disciples believed in ghosts at this point.
Also look at Luke 24:36-40 where Jesus reappeared to the disciples, this would have been a perfect opportunity for him to dispell this dangerous myth about ghosts but instead he stated that a ghost "does not have flesh and bones". If there were no such thing as ghosts, why would he point out what ghosts do not have?
A parent trying to calm a scared child would never attempt to pacificy them by explaining that the monster under the bed does not have sharp teeth. This would be confirming to the child that there is a monster under the bed!
You've got a nerve, Theland to ask for an example when wizard and I have been prompting you for ages to keep your promise to answer my question about how a minor god who emerged from obscurity only a few thousand years ago could have created the universe thousand of millions of years ago. You have claimed that you haven't the time, yet since then you have posted dozens of items on this site. In any case, the question needs no prolonged research or deep thought. And that is only one of the questions you have evaded over the months. I don't suppose that naomi, wizard or anyone else has bothered to keep score.
May I throw in Theland's failure to prove that Egypt was made barren for 40 years in accordance with Biblical prophesy but in complete opposition to the established historical facts:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Cul ture/Religion-and-Spirituality/Question361774- 4.html
It's all very well what the Bible says, but as I've said to him before, the fact that Harry Potter talks about Kings Cross Station does not prove that Hogwarts is real.
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Society-and-Cul ture/Religion-and-Spirituality/Question361774- 4.html
It's all very well what the Bible says, but as I've said to him before, the fact that Harry Potter talks about Kings Cross Station does not prove that Hogwarts is real.
chakka35 - this "minor god" you talk about is not the God of the Jews & Christians. There are enough academic theologians in both camps to maintain that the Creator God we believe in is He who has revealed Himself in the Bible.
I am sure that any suggestion to the contrary must have been debunked a long time ago.
I am sure that any suggestion to the contrary must have been debunked a long time ago.
Waldo - Egypt never again aspired to "greatness " to rule over other nations, and to this day exists on massive handouts from the USA.
Barren waste? Barren empire? Certainly not ever again a power on the world scene.
For all of her rhetoric, Egypt was humpled a few times in recent history by Israel, losing the Sinaii, and only getting it back in return for a promise of peace.
No, Egypt never regained its prominence did it?
Barren waste? Barren empire? Certainly not ever again a power on the world scene.
For all of her rhetoric, Egypt was humpled a few times in recent history by Israel, losing the Sinaii, and only getting it back in return for a promise of peace.
No, Egypt never regained its prominence did it?
Excellent redefinition of 'barren', old chap! Now it no longer means what you were happy to accept it meant before.
Still, it hardly matters because now you're using it in reference to Egypt as a major power, which is strange, because we'd already established that after the period of Nebuchadrezzar, the time under discussion for the fulfillment of the prophesy, Egypt was the centre of the extremely powerful Fatimid empire in the 12th century, from which it had dominion over Sicily, Palestine, Syria, North Africa and more, so again, you conspiciously fail to prove your point.
And hares chew the cud, and bats are birds.
Still, it hardly matters because now you're using it in reference to Egypt as a major power, which is strange, because we'd already established that after the period of Nebuchadrezzar, the time under discussion for the fulfillment of the prophesy, Egypt was the centre of the extremely powerful Fatimid empire in the 12th century, from which it had dominion over Sicily, Palestine, Syria, North Africa and more, so again, you conspiciously fail to prove your point.
And hares chew the cud, and bats are birds.
Theland: The narrative doesn't imply that god and Jesus are the same - which is why you can't tell me where the implication is documented. That's something that men invented - and recorded history tells us so - but nevertheless you choose to believe the lie. Jesus clearly didn't think he was god - he prayed to god, and he appealed to god from the cross - so why don't you believe that rather than nonsense fed to you by other men? It's straight from the bible, which you say is the truth. There's no evidence whatsoever that Jesus and god are one and the same, and if I was into religion, I'd call that idea blasphemy.
I wouldn't be so opposed to religion if it wasn't so utterly dishonest. How can any rational person sincerely, in their heart, believe something they know without doubt to have been invented by man? And I really would like an answer to that question.
I wouldn't be so opposed to religion if it wasn't so utterly dishonest. How can any rational person sincerely, in their heart, believe something they know without doubt to have been invented by man? And I really would like an answer to that question.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.