Post has attachment
This retard Georgios The Greek is actually stupid enough to think the shroud of Turin is actually legit. And is to damn stupid to know it's been proven not be. And has been proven to be faked aka debunked.

Post has attachment
These pastor were charged with sex crimes against children what are they.
votes visible to Public
Poll option image

Sorry god is not the Creator many older religions have creation story just brahma of the Hindu faith.

Brahma is the Hindu Creator god. He is also known as the Grandfather and as a later equivalent of Prajapati, the primeval first god. In early Hindu sources such as the Mahabharata, Brahma is supreme in the triad of great Hindu gods which includes Shiva and Vishnu.

Brahma, due to his elevated status, is less involved in picturesque myths where gods take on human form and character, but is rather a generally abstract or metaphysical ideal of a great god. In later Puranas (Hindu epics) Brahma is no longer worshipped and other gods are assigned his myths, even if he always maintains his status as the Creator god. Brahma's epithet is ekahamsa, the One Swan. His vahanam ('vehicle') is a peacock, swan or goose. He is still honoured today with an annual ceremony at the pilgrimage site of Pushkar in Rajasthan, India and he remains a popular figure in South-east Asia, especially in Thailand and Bali.

In the beginning, Brahma sprang from the cosmic golden egg and he then created good & evil and light & dark from his own person. He also created the four types: gods, demons, ancestors, and men (the first being Manu). Brahma then made all living creatures upon the earth (although in some myths Brahma's son Daksa is responsible for this). In the process of creating, perhaps in a moment of distraction, the demons were born from Brahma's thigh and so he abandoned his own body which then became Night. After Brahma created good gods he abandoned his body once again, which then became Day, hence demons gain the ascendancy at night and gods, the forces of goodness, rule the day. Brahma then created ancestors and men, each time again abandoning his body so that they became Dusk and Dawn respectively. This process of creation repeats itself in every aeon. Brahma then appointed Shiva to rule over humanity although in later myths Brahma becomes a servant of Shiva.

Brahma had several wives, the most important being his daughter Sarasvati who, after the Creation, bore Brahma the four Vedas (Holy books of Hinduism), all branches of knowledge, the 36 Raginis and 6 Ragas of music, ideas such as Memory and Victory, yogas, religious acts, speech, Sanskrit, and the various units of measurement and time. Besides Daksa, Brahma had other notable sons including the Seven Sages (of whom Daksa was one), and the four famous Prajapatis (deities): Kardama, Pancasikha, Vodhu, and Narada, the latter being the messenger between gods and men.

Is baptism necessary for salvation?

While we should preach that all people are commanded to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38), adding any other requirement to salvation by grace becomes “works” in disguise.
Even though numerous Scriptures speak of the importance of water baptism, adding anything to the work of the cross demeans the sacrifice of the Savior. It implies that His finished work wasn't enough. But the Bible makes clear that we are saved by grace, and grace alone: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Baptism is simply a step of obedience to the Lord following our repentance and confession of sin. Any obedience such as baptism, evangelization, the Lord's Supper, etc., issues from our faith in Christ. Salvation is not what we do, but Who we have. "He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life." (1 John 5:12).

But what about Mark 16:16?

Mark 16:16 quotes Jesus as saying: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Does this mean that salvation is by baptism? In no way does this verse establish baptism as a condition for salvation; it is merely the declaration that those who believe and are baptized are saved. Any act of obedience to the Lord could be added after the expression 'whoever believes' and it would remain a true statement, because salvation is the result of faith in Christ.
If baptism was necessary for salvation, there are many significant verses which should be amended to read 'you are saved through faith and baptism.' It is clear that faith in Jesus Christ is what saves a person. (Acts 16:30-31; Ephesians 2:8-9).

Did God create evil?

I write this article after the humpteenth time I read that famous and wrong Einstein's phrase which says: "God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart."
God surely did create evil. If we know evil it is because God created it. There is nothing God has not created.
The man was punished by the knowledge of evil, which also involved the knowledge of good (Genesis 3:22). And yet continues to be punished by having that knowledge.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God, so even in the Bible, considering it, I quote literally: "a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
God left Einstein in error, as leaves in error the majority of people.

Post has attachment

Good articles summarazing OT and NT artifacts
What are your favourite articles showing artifacts, their descriptions, and the reasons they demonstrate the historical reliability of the Bible?

Is there a complete list that exists of the most incontestable historical proofs of the Bible's archeological accuracy throughout both testaments? I know I have somewhat seen some already.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Great verse to use if someone uses the classic "but God is love" excuse.

I see a great significance behind this verse. Mind you that this is God speaking to Isaiah, so this is direct information. God pretty much said that he created evil. That may sound like the opposite of what God would do, but think about it. If there is no darkness, then what is the point of light? If there is no evil, then what is the point of good?

So after a recent discussion about origin theories I realized the fatal flaw of the book The Blind Watchmaker. NOTHING in nature can be pointed to as evidence that design isn't necessary for its existence because the origin of nature itself is not and cannot be scientifically known as the past which predates our existence cannot be actually observed; all theories of that past requiring faith to believe.

"The origin of nature is not known. Look at that thing in nature; it wasn't designed. Nature wasn't designed." The conclusion is the premise when saying that some thing in nature was not designed.

This is an explanation I read which perfectly applies and explains the faulty reasoning:

"A New Logical Fallacy:

The Naturalistic Phenomenon Fallacy;

1. Asserting that a particular thing must be of a purely natural origin/cause without any supporting scientific based inferences or evidence. (Holding a purely naturalistic default position as "more likey" without any vaild inferences or any actual evidence of support.)

2. Claiming that something must have a natural cause or natural origin only because it seems, looks or acts natural, while not requiring further explanation such as, "by what actual natural means?" Asserting something is a natural phenomenon without an explanation of how this natural phenomenon came to be in a natural way.

3. Any hypothesis or theory that concludes something is of natural origin or naturally caused but this conclusion is solely supported or solely based on naturalistic presuppositions.

Wg Williams©"

Post has attachment
This guy's the best.
Wait while more posts are being loaded