Stream

Join this community to post or comment

Kenny Strawn

Apologetics Content  - 
3
Destin McWhorter's profile photoLance G's profile photo
2 comments
Lance G
+
2
3
2
 
Good post.
Add a comment...

Luis Alberto Rodriguez Goff

CAA-Seeker Discussion  - 
 
So..., the quality (good and bad, moral and immoral) of an action is determined by the intention and the effect..., and yet you believe that God is the source of the objectivity of morals..., the mind boggles ladies and gentlemen.

This is not the first time that I see such comments from theists, so I ask, how can God be the source of objective morals, and yet, the quality of actions be determined by intention and effect?




1
1
Thomas Bridgewater's profile photoTravis Wakeman's profile photoLuis Alberto Rodriguez Goff's profile photo
6 comments
 
A question +Luis Alberto Rodriguez Goff

You seemed to say in your previous post here that you have come to believe in God. From your post here you seem to contradict that post.

Can you clarify your personal religious views and whether or not you agree with the statement of faith for this community?
Add a comment...

Ronald King

Introductions / Hello!  - 
 
I am new and very excited to learn and fellowship with a group with the intentions of answering the questions nobody has the answers to. Bless you all in the name of our Lord amen!
6
Add a comment...

Matthew Files

Apologetics Content  - 
 
Because this is a short post, there is much that I have assumed, but I believe it gets the point across. It is very controversial, but an important topic to discuss.
1
Matthew Files's profile photoThomas Bridgewater's profile photo
21 comments
 
+Lance G 
"the tired ole familiar Berkeley evolution page. I'm surpised you didn't trot out the obligatory Wikipedia page too."
Maybe if you learnt from it, you wouldn't be linked to it so often then...

+Matthew Files 
"Thomas, the question is "why" be moral?"
Well that's easy. If you value a moral outcome, then you ought be moral. For example, if you value the health of your child, you ought to get them vaccinated.

"The problem is that without God, you do not have to be moral, its your choice and there is nothing binding you either way, whereas for the theist his choice to be immoral is directly against the objective, universal moral law of God."
You don't have to be moral if a god exists either. The only difference it makes is that it gives you another categorical imperative. It just adds "If you value avoiding hell/going to heaven, then you ought be moral".

"I'm not sure that you see this, but you have admitted the drastic difference between how your system defines right and wrong and how the theist does. For the Theist, what is right or wrong exists outside of himself, and in the unchanging everlasting nature of God."
Well you'd need to clarify what you mean by outside himself, because I'm pretty sure well-being would count there too, but saying that morality is part of God's nature is just a creative attempt to get out of Euthyphro's dilemma.
I can then just ask "Is God's nature one of honesty for example, because honesty is moral, or is honesty moral, just because that is what God's nature happens to be?"

"I have a duty to tell the truth because God has established this."
Why should God saying you should do something mean you ought to do it? If you value doing what God wants, then it does, but if I don't care, then there is no reason to, and why would I care what God wants?

"However, your understanding of well-being may be different than another's, thus what is right or wrong differs from person to person, situation to situation."
Well obviously what is moral depends on the situation. Killing someone is generally horribly immoral, but if you do it in self-defence, it is not.
Again though, you are getting confused between the subjective fact that chocolate is tasty, and the objective fact that I find chocolate tasty. An act doesn't have to be be moral when done to anybody to be objectively moral. For example, giving a drink to a regular person is not immoral, but giving a drink to a troubled alcoholic is.

"What I meant by an objective truth does not change is that it does not change from person to person. Thus you cannot say that it is both objectively true that stealing is wrong and stealing is right. but this would happen depending on what "you felt" was the most well-being thing to do."
Not at all. It is objectively true that me stealing your car would make you unhappy. It is objectively true that if I broke into your house and stole your possessions, people would feel unsafe and uncomfortable knowing there are criminals in the neighbourhood. These are objective effects.

"You subjectively select that choice that you "think" or "feel" to provide well-being."
and you do acts that you "think" or "feel" reflect God's nature... People can be wrong about objective facts. Some people might think that the Sun orbits the Earth, and they would be objectively wrong, just as someone who thinks that murdering someone increases well-being is objectively wrong, just as someone who thinks that murdering is in God's nature is objectively wrong (assuming that it isn't part of God's nature).
Add a comment...

Mark McGee
owner

Apologetics Events  - 
 
For those of you in or near Houston, Texas - 

unApologetic Conference
Mar. 06, 2015 - Mar. 07, 2015

Mark Mittelberg
Mike Licona

LOCATION:
Tallowood Baptist Church
555 Tallowood Rd.
Houston, Texas 77024
2
Add a comment...

Mark McGee
owner

Apologetics Events  - 
 
For those of you who live on or near the west coast of Canada -

Apologetics Canada Conference 2015 
with Nancy Pearcey, Sean McDowell, & Louis Markos
Abbotsford, B.C., Canada

March 6-7, 2015
Time: Friday 6:00 pm
Saturday 9:00 am
Location: Northview Community Church
32949 Downes Road
Abbotsford, BC
1
Add a comment...

Nelson de Leon

Introductions / Hello!  - 
 
Hello. I know it's late but still, allow me to introduce myself. I'm from the Philippines and a member of GCF North evangelical church. I began my life as a Christian at the same church only last 2010. I was a former Roman Catholic. So please bear with me if I will ask some silly questions especially my recent posts. I reckoned that I should get the answers from the right persons whom I share the same faith. 
5
Add a comment...

Yi Yao

Apologetics Content  - 
 
 
What is a Christian? A Simple Question With a Deep Answer
The average Christian might say it is someone that follows Christ.  Maybe they would define a Christian as someone who believes a certain way, or who lives a certain way.  The best answer to this question is found in the knowledge of what man is, and what God is trying to do with him.
1.      What man is:  Man is a physical body, a living soul, and a dead spirit.  When Adam fell he lost the life of God.  He was still alive, but not spiritually alive. He no longer had the ability to do what he was designed to do: to look like God.  He was created in God’s image, so that the invisible God could receive glory when visible man reflected His moral image.  From within Adam’s spirit, God enabled Adam to live holy and blameless.  So long as Adam followed, God led him.  When Adam fell, God departed from within Him, and he no longer reflected the image of God.  Though now he retains the marred image of God, man is a far cry from innocent Adam, living purely in the Garden and doing all things as God required.  At that time man showed off God.  Now man shows off himself.  In Adam all died.  We are all born without the life of God.  We have all sinned, and come short of giving God glory.  Instead we give ourselves glory.  We have ceased to be a reflection of God’s holiness, and become a billboard for our own depravity.  Our bodies, designed to show off God’s moral beauty, now display man’s total moral ruin.  We do not reflect God.  We do not have him in our hearts, and as lost people, we do something even worse.  We were designed to show what God looks like, yet when we display ourselves instead we are still saying, “This is God!  Worship Him!”  Horror, we are not reflecting the living God; we are saying that about ourselves!  What can God do for man so He once again can get the glory of seeing His refection in us?
2.      What God is trying to do:  get God back in the man.  God’s intent in dying for you is to return God to the man so that from within He can empower men to look like Him.  Not until then will man again be a reflection of Jesus, God from heaven.  When you get saved by placing all your trust in Jesus Christ, who died for your sins, you receive the Spirit of God.  Why do you receive Him?  Primarily so God can return you to a state of normality.  It is abnormal for men, who are created to be reflectors of God, to not have God in him.  How else can he show the world what God looks like?  Certainly he ought not to be so vain as to think he can be like God without God!  So, Christ comes into our hearts.  God returns to the man.  What can we do now with God back in our hearts?  We can do whatever He wants to do.  We can do all things through Christ which strengthens us.  Our job now is to die to ourselves and get out of His way.  If we would understand our role as reflectors, as bodies, as temples of the living God, we would see that a Christian is someone who has God in him.  He is someone who has become normal.  He is someone who has been completed by Christ.  He is a body to see God with, a soul to surrender to God with, and a Spirit to house God in.  Wonderful it is if you and I would just get out of Jesus’ way and let Him live the Christian life.  People try so hard to live the Christian life.  God knows some of you are struggling so hard to please Him.  Look now at this Bible picture of a Christian, “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Galatians 2:20.  Stop trying so hard and just die, surrender, yield.  Rest and say, “Thank you.  Just get out of God’s way by dying to yourself.  Let Jesus live the Christian life through you.  Donate your body as a living sacrifice, and He will make it holy and acceptable.  A Christian is someone who tells the world, “This is what God looks like.”  He is not lying, he is dying, and Christ is living through him.  Yet he is not dead, for he’s never been more alive.  He’s never been more normal.  He’s never been more at rest then when he yields himself up to God, as an instrument of righteousness, and puts God on display.  When God looks down and sees a reflection of His dear Son He says, “Now that’s a Christian!”
 
Pastor Troy Dukes
Grace Baptist Church
West Palm Beach, FL
 
Please share this liberating message with Christians who might need it.
5 comments on original post
2
Add a comment...

Saints Sceptics

Apologetics Content  - 
 
Dawkins, Myers and the McAtheists
2
1
Heidi Schabziger's profile photoRichard Hodges's profile photo
 
This article brings up several good tools for use when talking with atheists.
Add a comment...
 
Maybe here you'll explain
 
+Derek Bowen

New found mysticism?, really?.... Why is it mystic?. I believe that either you failed to understand or you lack "objectivity".
I believe that we know, because of experience and reason, that which is needed for our specie to thrive, thus, we don't require a god to tell us, you seem to think otherwise, would you mind explaining?
5 comments on original post
1
Luis Alberto Rodriguez Goff's profile photoBillie Goodson's profile photo
19 comments
 
So in a society where they have constructed laws where the predominant determination of intrinsic worth is based upon  an individual's desirability, you would find that law to be moral since the society determined it?
Add a comment...

Clay Smith

Apologetics Content  - 
 
As Islamists continue to kill innocents, they provide more fuel for the oft-made atheist claim that religion is evil. Atheist Richard Dawkins condemned the recent attacks in France by tweeting, "No, all religions are NOT equally violent. Some have never been violent; some gave it up centuries ago. One religion conspicuously didn't."

Dawkins is right that some religions and religious people have consistently perpetrated evil. Atheists often use this fact to support atheism. However, the existence of evil turns out to be a bigger problem for atheists to explain than for theists. The kind of evil Dawkins and the rest of the civilized world abhor doesn't disprove God—it disproves atheism.

While it's commonly thought that only theists have to explain the existence of evil, the truth is every worldview does. Eastern pantheistic religions try to get around the problem by denying that evil even exists. Evil is an illusion, they say (and according to them, so are you!). Theists say evil is real and try to explain how evil and God can coexist. Atheists tend to be caught in the middle. In one breath they are claiming there is no good, evil, or justice because only material things exist—we are just material molecular machines "dancing to the music" of our DNA (as Dawkins himself put it). In the next breath they are outraged at the great injustices and evil done by religious people in the name of God.

Well, atheists can't have it both ways. Either evil exists or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, then atheists should stop complaining about the "evil" religious people have done because they haven't really done any. They've just been "dancing to the music" of their DNA. If atheism is true, all behaviors are merely a matter of preference anyway. On the other hand, if evil actually does exist, then atheists have an even bigger problem. The existence of evil actually establishes the existence of God.

To explain why, we need to go back to Augustine who puzzled over the following argument:

God created all things.
Evil is a thing.
Therefore, God created evil.
How could a good God create evil? If those first two premises are true, He did, and this is a God problem. So, God must not be good after all. But then Augustine realized that the second premise is not true. While evil is real, it's not a "thing." Evil doesn't exist on its own. It only exists as a lack or a deficiency in a good thing.

Evil is like rust in a car: If you take all of the rust out of a car, you have a better car; if you take the car out of the rust, you have nothing. Or you could say that evil is like a cut in your finger: If you take the cut out of your finger, you have a better finger; if you take the finger out of your cut, you have nothing. In other words, evil only makes sense against the backdrop of good. That's why we often describe evil as negations of good things. We say someone is immoral, unjust, unfair, dishonest, etc.

We could put it this way: The shadows prove the sunshine. There can be sunshine without shadows, but there can't be shadows without sunshine. In other words, there can be good without evil, but there can't be evil without good.

So evil can't exist unless good exists. But good can't exist unless God exists. In other words, there can be no objective evil unless there is objective good, and there can be no objective good unless God exists. If evil is real—as the recent headlines from France plainly reveal—then God exists. The best evil can do is show there's a devil out there, but it can't disprove God. The very existence of evil boomerangs back to show that God exists.

C. S. Lewis was once an atheist who thought evil disproved God. He later realized he was stealing from God in order to argue against Him. He wrote, "[As an atheist] my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?"

Stealing from God is what atheists tend to do when they complain about evil done in God's name. Richard Dawkins is correct that religious people have done evil things, but his atheism affords him no objective standard by which to judge anything as good or evil. So he steals goodness from God while claiming He doesn't exist. Dawkins has to sit in God's lap to slap His face.

Just who is this God? Allah isn't a candidate because according to Islamic doctrine Allah is arbitrary, and thus can't be the unchanging standard of good. The true God is the God of the Bible who is revealed as the unchanging ground of all goodness.

Source: http://goo.gl/RaAm6v
8
1
Travis Wakeman's profile photoMarcos Guaico's profile photoMark Hanson's profile photo
9 comments
 
That's called being uptight Lol. 
Add a comment...

TheServantofiam

Apologetics Content  - 
 
Three Moral Subjectivists Dilemma 

One believes it is immoral to eat on Monday and Wednesday, another believes it is immoral to eat on Tuesday and Thursday, and the other believes it is immoral to eat on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. If Subjective morals apply to others then we need only wait about 40 days to arrive at what happens to moral people when such an idea is practiced in reality. 
4
1
Derek Bowen's profile photoTheServantofiam's profile photoLuis Alberto Rodriguez Goff's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Derek Bowen 100% correct
Add a comment...

About this community

Welcome to the Christian Apologetics Alliance! ***PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES. This group is actively moderated to protect and support unique, high-quality conversations.*** This community focuses on the topic of apologetics. “Apologetics” is giving a thoughtful, reasonable explanation for the truth of Christianity. Our goal is to help one another learn more about apologetics so we can have proper confidence in our beliefs and become more effective in evangelism. Posts on theology, politics, sermons, and devotionals—while valuable—are off-topic for this community. If you spam, post memes, religious or political propaganda, or other off-topic items, promote non-apologetic websites, insult other members, or engage in other negative behaviors, you will be removed. Please note that you can be removed from this group for both content and tone: both truth and love are required. Please click "read more" to see the rest of the guidelines. There are many different definitions of what it means to be a "Christian." For this particular group, participation is limited to those in agreement with the CAA Statement of Faith, as well as the denial of universalism. This group is intended to have an "evangelical" spirit to it, whether participants are Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant. When posting, please carefully select the proper tab for your post: JUST JOINED? Tell us who you are in the "Introductions/Hello" section. FIND A GREAT APOLOGETICS RESOURCE? Share it in the "Apologetics Content" section. The APOLOGETICS CONTENT section is for apologists to share about the ministry of apologetics. Posts and comments questioning Christian apologists about the Christian worldview should be shared in the CAA-SEEKER discussion section. APOLOGETICS VIDEOs or AUDIOs shared with the CAA community must be less than 15-minutes in length UNLESS it's from very well-known Christian apologists (e.g. Craig, Zacharias, etc). The "BLOGGING IDEAS" tab is for discussing how to run blogs well. The "MODERATOR UPDATES" tab will have occasional posts from the community’s leaders. "APOLOGETICS EVENTS" is for sharing upcoming conferences, debates, special courses, and online presentations. The "CAA-SEEKER DISCUSSION" group is for respectful, open discussion about the Christian worldview. This is also the one section where non-Christians who are sincere in their desire to learn about Christianity are invited to post and comment. We encourage you to INVITE YOUR FRIENDS to join the group (Use the "Invite People" button at the top right of the community page). Thank you for making this a valuable group for sharing great apologetics content, exchanging ideas, and having friendly conversation about these very important questions. This group is officially affiliated with the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Find us online at http://www.christianapologeticsalliance.com/ Thank you for joining! We look forward to many great discussions on apologetics!

Ronald King

Apologetics Content  - 
 
Sometimes they just need to be reminded that they aren't wrong. They are actually right where Christ wants them, broken, in pain, sick, lost loved ones, scared of the truth. Some will progress unto salvation, appointed to be overcomers. But also some will be appointed condemnation being blotted out of the Book of Life. Which proves that they were always their until their choices changed the eternity their father had planned out for them... We still need to tell them how easy it is to fix it. Believe on Him, Worship Him in faith and truth, and be Saved!

Luk 7:37-39, 48-50 KJV
37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,
38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.
48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?
50 And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.






3
Mark McGee's profile photoRonald King's profile photo
6 comments
 
+Mark McGee Interesting that you believe you can assist my in Apologetics better than the message of Salvation. Maybe I posted this just to clarify our true calling. Any and all Apologetic discussions is what my context is, because they all should be geared toward evangelizing. These discussions usually involve at least one person who is considered "wrong". That is who I am referring to when I said "they". "They" need to be approached as if they are exactly the same sinner we were before we accepted Salvation, dead in their sins, but self justified and hard hearted. Any more questions? I hope that helped you, it really didnt help me much but thanks for trying.
Add a comment...

Finley David Daniel

Apologetics Content  - 
 
 
R.C. Sproul's series on the authority of Scripture is free to stream.

"It is more crucial than ever that believers understand what the Bible is and why they can trust it wholeheartedly." —R.C. Sproul

#scripture #bible #inerrancy #reformed #reformedtheology #inerrancysummit #shepcon
R.C. Sproul uses "The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy" to explain the authority of Scripture. ;Loaded with helpful information on the implications of this core teaching, ;Thus Says the Lord ;can help believers understand ...
View original post
5
Add a comment...

Robert J. Simpson

Introductions / Hello!  - 
 
Hi, I'm Rob, a 42 year old Christian who is married to a very lovely woman with whom we are are raising our two very awesome young sons.

Just joined because of my interest in learning and applying apologetics as well as having it applied on my behalf in answering some pressing questions That have been niggling away at me for many years in some cases.

I am a retired physician currently taking part-time studies in philosophy.

One of my principle interests is to assist in the dissemination of the abundant wealth of empirical evidence that really has sealed the death of neoDarwinism and (macro)evolution more generally. 
11
Robert J. Simpson's profile photo
7 comments
 
It's funny Chang, that book is what got me thinking. Roughly 17 years ago, the contract instructors at the first university I was attending went on strike (for hirer wages) and the salaried professors joined in solidarity. The strike lasted 58 days, and during that time I read two books: the NT beginning at Mathew right through Revelation and Darwin's Black Box (DBB).

Prior to this I was a Christian who believed in evolution, though not an enthusiastic evolutionist - I didn't see why I ought to be happy about having more primitive primate ancestors. After reading DBB, I was shocked that not one serious counterargument such as Paley's argument from design, or the idea of what Behe refers to as irreducible complexity, both concepts had been around prior to Behe's re-formulation. Why??!!

This lead to further study and God has now given us irrefutable evidence through molecular biology in particular of the vapidity of macroevolution. Though I contribute to study molecular genetics and philosophy, I am slowly integrating informal study of geology whose secular proponents claim that our Earth is billions of years old - I trust nothing in historical science that supports evolution because these scientists work off of the assumption that macroevolution is fact, and therefore "deep time" must be fact.

I will say this: macroevolution, such as birds purportedly evolving from dinosaurs, is completely incompatible with biblical truth (unless the
exegete twists a proper
interpretation of the plain meaning of scripture); though I haven't thoroughly investigated the theological implications of a 10 billion year old universe, I feel very confident that it too is altogether incompatible with the bible - tracing genealogical times argues strongly for a recent young Earth. It is amazing how accurate the bible demonstrates itself when subjected to rigorous investigation on those matters that lend themselves to empirical verification (take archaeology as another example).

Final though: the human mind has been engineered to spot design as an instinctual sentiment, so......when something appears designed, it actually is designed!!!!
Add a comment...

Mark McGee
owner

Apologetics Events  - 
 
For those of you who live on or near the southeast coast of the U.S. - 

Are There Contradictions in the Gospels? - Dr. Mike Licona
Mar. 05, 2015
Clemson, South Carolina

TIME:
7pm - 9pm (doors open at 6:45)
LOCATION:
Brackett Hall Auditorium
Clemson University
321 Calhoun Dr.
Clemson, South Carolina 29632
1
Lance G's profile photo
Lance G
 
Love Lacona. Thanks
Add a comment...

David Smith

Apologetics Content  - 
 
"Do not conform to this world, for you are not of this world"

"-whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never had forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin. "

Saddened by this marquis as I believe it sets aside proper doctrine, and reverence for the Trinity, to speak to popular cultural thinking. Pray this church recognizes this and repents as to not lead any astray.
13
Tony M.'s profile photoRobert J. Simpson's profile photo
26 comments
 
The sign is ostensibly directed at non-believers of which their are two groups: those who attend this church and those who do not.

The sign trivializes the holiness that inheres in God, and creates confusion regarding the Trinitarian doctrine.

For unbelievers who, by happenstance, glance at the sign, its content can only affirm the viewer's conception, assuming she has it, that the church (being an instantiation of the public outworking of Christian faith) is inexorably trending to a doctrine of total inclusivity or universalism even if this requires subordinating the primacy of biblical authority to a position under the priority of whatever happens to be the prevailing cultural norms of Western societies.

While this is offensive to legitimate believers and to older folk who value traditional social institutions, it might have little effect on individuals who are entirely uninterested in searching for and submitting to the one true God of the universe and beyond. The potential spiritual harm is most acute for the unbelievers who attend this particular church and other similarly misguided churches. Unfortunately, the principle battleground requiring the deployment of apologists is within these church communities for in many cases the unregenerate are preponderant to the true Christian.

So what can done? If we agree that the issues at stake include:

Public statements or utterances that dishonour God, are doctrinally inaccurate, affirm non-believers' conceptions of Christiandom's devaluation of biblical authority relative to prevailing worldly cultural norms, and that those most vulnerable to potential spiritual harm are the unbelievers in the pews, then

we ought to to initiate the fight for His honour and glory, as well as for the eternal destination of those who are most likely to submit to Christ Jesus' lordship using the fundamental armaments of prayer, ceaseless repentance on our part, fasting, and finally with yet more earnest prayer.

A search for scriptural support, properly exegeted guided by proper hermeneutical precepts. We pray that the spirit fully exploits any and all talent we might possess for this purpose. With love and respect, the leadership of this church ought to be approached with our concerns and the scriptural support. Perhaps someone living in the general area could visit the church as described. The Spirit will guide the conversation making obvious as to the most appropriate articulation of our concerns and the timing of these. Unexpected R elationships often develop in these sorts of unusual circumstances. Tactics, rhetorical technics, and the like are not necessarily things upon which much deliberation is required. Prayer, love, respect, scripture, and reliance on the Spirit's prompting, however it manifests, are keys.

In the absence of this minimal action, the alternative is to to shrug our collective shoulders and sigh once more that the enemy, Satan, has chalked up another victory however slight it might be. Hey, I know of only one successful method for eating an elephant: swallowing one forkful at a time. 
Add a comment...

Nelson de Leon

CAA-Seeker Discussion  - 
 
Again, I would like to seek your views about what a friend told me in a discussion. Here is what he said:

In the bible, the Son had a beginning, because he was begotten by the Father.  Begotten means to be born of, or to be brought forth.  That's why the bible says:
 
7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalms 2:7)
 
Who is speaking and who is being spoken to?  It's the Father speaking to the Son, as quoted and explained by other verses as follows:
 
33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.  (Acts 13:33)
 
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? (Heb. 1:5)
 
The Father is eternal, because He had no beginning. But the Son had a beginning, therefore the Son is not eternal. Therefore, if one is eternal and the other is not, then they are not co-equal.
 
The Father has always been and will always be greater than the Son. As a proof, in the future, after the end times, Christ, who no longer has human form, will still be below the Father and not co-equal to Him: 
 
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (1 Cor. 15:28)

Can somebody confirm this statement? I find it a bit intriguing but it's biblical though I'm not sure if his findings clash with other facts from the Bible. 
2
Nelson de Leon's profile photoTony M.'s profile photo
21 comments
Tony M.
+
2
3
2
 
+Nelson de Leon
"John 1
2 He was with God in the beginning.

Was it the beginning of our world?"

No....for it goes on to say "all things were created by Him"
Which can only mean before our world!
Add a comment...

mary barnes

Apologetics Content  - 
 
Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

What do you think this passage in the parable is talking about? 
1
Steve Firneno's profile photocraig walker's profile photo
3 comments
 
To overcome the dark potential of mortal man/mind.
Add a comment...

Derek Bowen

Blogging Ideas  - 
 
Public Service Announcement:  (Luis Alberto Rodriguez Golf)
Be aware that this gentleman will comment and tag you in a post on a site called Atheist Vs Theists.  In order to answer back, you must join the group.  Not sure if anyone has encountered this tactic.. thought you should know.
1
TheServantofiam's profile photoJ. Thee Anomaly's profile photo
3 comments
 
I think because he wants to bring the topic to a place were they're are more atheist to be on his side.
Add a comment...