Home |
Response #2 to Pastor Al
By Merle Hertzler
Here is a the next comment posted to me by Pastor Alfredo Martinez Jr. at my blog.
|
I have read all those evolutionists theories and assumptions and I suppose you read the counter arguments. If not I can refer you to websites that debunks all your arguments or look up creationist viewpoints in the internet. We are writing passed each other on that topic. |
Here is my response:
Pastor Al,
I would like to respond to your comments:
I have read all those evolutionists theories and assumptions and I suppose you read the counter arguments. If not I can refer you to websites that debunks all your arguments or look up creationist viewpoints in the internet.
Okay, so you don't choose to defend the statements you made about evolution? You have no defence for your statement that mutations are always harmful or that new species never evolve? I have shown you the scientific evidence. Do you remember how you had previously written, "Let's discuss evolution." Now you decide you don't want to discuss it after all?
You refer to anti-evolution websites. Surely you must be aware that simply putting a webpage on the web does not make it true. For instance, the Flat Earth Society publishes an essay on the web called Why a Flat Earth? There it is on the Internet, a whole list of scientific sounding arguments that the earth is flat. Okay, have they proven that the earth is flat? After all, they published an essay on the Internet with scientific sounding arguments. Are you impressed? No? Okay, so posting a page that looks like science on the Internet does not make something become science. Could the same thing be true about the anti-evolution pages you see on the web? Are they really science? I contend that they are not.
We are writing passed [sic] each other on that topic.
I am writing past you on this subject? That's odd. I copied your comments, and specifically addressed them. How were my arguments talking past you?
And your response? You refer to anti-evolution websites. Now it appears to me that those websites do exactly what you condemn, they talk right past those who would debate with them. Mainstream scientists submit their findings to journals, where they are subject to peer review. The websites you mention publish their claims on the Internet instead. Why do they not submit their claims to peer review? For that matter why are creationist writers not willing to debate their claims on an open forum on the web? I have tried in the past to bring them into the debate. They don't seem to be interested. Why do they sit back and fire web-based shots right past the opposition? Why not engage in direct dialogue?
The highest discernment is knowing how to obey God on this earth.
Do you know a reliable way of knowing what God wants us to do? I can think of no such method. In the absence of any clear way of knowing what God wants, how can we obey him?
Merle, as beautiful as our minds can be it will still make bad decisions. Don't tell me that just because you read a hundred books that you are now incapable of making bad decisions. You are still human and becoming weaker because of the law of entropy.
Yes, of course, I agree. I sometimes make bad decisions. And your point is?
We are placed on this earth for a moment of time not to do evil in the eyes of God but to do good. To love and help our neighbors. This will bring the Spirit of God into our lives and remove the spirit of hate, anger, bitterness, and frustration.
Oh, so loving and helping our neighbors brings the Spirit of God into our lives? Fine, then I must have the Spirit of God, for I help my neighbors.
Do helpful acts remove the hatred, anger and frustration from a person as you claim? Well, such acts can certainly help if done with the right motives, but to claim that helping neighbors removes those harmful emotions seems quite simplistic to me. The problems of human emotions are too complex to be cured simply by helping neighbors.
You encourage your readers to make the most of the moment. How exactly do you do that? To live without seeking God is vanity. The moment is not important. Moments will pass into days, into years. In a hundred years from now, What is important? In a thousand years? In a billion years? In a time when all stars burned up there energy. What is important? A selfish moment? Without God, you only have moments but they will pass by. You have no hope and you give your readers no hope.
How do we live in the moment when we know those moments won't last forever? Easy! One can enjoy sking downhill, even though he knows he will eventually come to the bottom. One can enjoy a night with friends while knowing that he will eventually go home and sleep. And one can enjoy the thrill of life, even though he knows he will eventually go to sleep, never to wake again.
And no, I am not encouraging selfish moments. I am encouraging moments of enjoying the shared thrill of life together.
Here is a thought to set your mind free. What if you are wrong regarding eternity? Would that be the greatest mistake in your life? - to live eternally separated from God just because you could not conquer your pride.
And here is another thought that might set minds free: What if you are wrong about Catholicism? Should you become a Catholic, just in case? What if you are wrong about the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons? Should you join those groups also, just in case? Or is it acceptable to bypass those sects, at the risk of spending eternity in hell if they happen to be right? I contend it is better to just move past the fears.
Can you give me a list of all religions and sects that you think I should join, just in case they might be right? Can you kindly tell me how you decided which groups to include on the list and which to exclude?
Your religion sounds like a religion of fear. I find no evidence of a hell to fear.
You will never find God with your mind, you will find God with a humble heart. God is not in the world of reason. You are too much in the mind. God is in another dimension which is of faith and he declares that it is impossible to please him without faith (Heb.11).
And so, though your God is not in the world of reason, and we cannot find your God with our minds, yet you take it by faith that there is a hell, and that we must avoid this hell? Do you not agree that your faith is fallible, and might be wrong?
Due to the advancement of technology, 1 out 4 people who are resucitated tell, with incredible detail, their out of body experience. It is not a psychological thing, because they are able to quote and describe what people said or did while they were clinicly dead. Dr. Maurice has documented many of these and wrote many books of the subject such as, "Life after Life." Due to his encounters with people who had NDE, he eventually accepted Jesus Christ into his heart.
Now you turn to near-death experiences as evidence? But these experiences are very similar to experiences induced by drugs. The memories that people have of the experiences could have been obtained through their senses. See near-death experience.
Read my book and use your mind to discern God's ways. You are incredibly intelligent. Use it to learn how to obey God and thereby lead your readers to eternity. At the moment, you are not helping your readers. "Walking on Water" by Alfredo Martinez Jr. toll free(877)421-7323 '
You will tell me how to discern God's ways? What are God's ways? Christians can't agree. Does God's way mean abstinence? Does it allow alcohol? Does it mean pacifism or fighting? Does it allow gay relationships or not? And does it allow you to have telephone service in your home? Christians take both sides on each of these issues. If you have the one sure method for determining God's will, why don't all Christians use your method, and why don't all agree with you about morality?
For years Christians have argued about what God wants. And you have the answer to all of their arguments in your book? And what is that method?
Regarding the questions you had on the bible not being accurate. Re-study that.
But I have re-studyed the Bible. The more I read the Bible, the more I realize that something is wrong with that book. I am curious: Have you ever read the Bible form cover to cover?
For example, there is a difference between the Old and New testament. The old testament was God dealing specifically with Israel. All those rules and regulations was for Israel only. So you could ask a rabbi or a Jewish person how they keep from wearing wool mixed with linen.
Oh, so the people in the Old Testament were mistaken when they said the law would last forever?
And are you saying that Jesus was mistaken when he said that whoever breaks the least of those laws will be least in the kingdom? Is that one point where you and Jesus disagree?
I am not asking you how people keep from wearing wool mixed with linen. I am asking why a righteous God would consider it important to declare that it is wrong to mix wool and linen, but would not declare slavery wrong. For the books of Moses condemn mixing fabrics, but not slavery.
Or in a couple of years you can ask God why he did what he did. (Hint: he'll probably say, because I am God).
Okay, so you believe that God said not to mix wool and linen because he is God, and he doesn't need to give a reason? You just follow whatever is written in the book, regardless of whether it makes sense to you? What if the Bible commanded you to kill innocent people? You seem to be saying that you would do it. And what about the Biblical command to give to everyone that asks of you (Luke 6:30)? Do you give to everyone that asks? (If you say, "yes", I might ask you for a million dollars to see if you mean what you say.) Or do you sometimes use your common sense, and not do what is written in the Bible? Do you sometimes not give to people that ask of you, even though the Bible says to give to everyone that asks? Could it be that your common sense is a better source of moral judgment on that issue than the Bible is?
The new testament is for those who accept Jesus Christ. The Old was a shadow of things to come. The old pointed to Jesus Christ and the old taught us about the character of God. The new testament declares that it is no longer a circumcision of the flesh but of the heart (Rom. 2:28-29)
Interesting. So for centuries the Jews had a book that was the shadow of things to come. Nowhere does this book say it is a shadow. Nowhere does it predict these laws will be obsolete by Christianity. Why not? Why didn't the Old Testament let Jews know that it was only a shadow?
And if Jews followed the Old Testament for years, thinking the laws were eternal, and yet the laws are now invalid, could the same be true about the New Testament? If your God moved beyond the laws of the Old Testament without telling people he was going to do it, could he have moved beyond the New Testament without forewarning? Could you have missed the latest update?
You mention that the bible contradicts how Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus died. In Mat. 27:5 it says he hanged himself and in acts 1:18 he threw himself and his bowels gushed out. If I show you that it does not contradict itself, will you have the maturity or character to remove it from your website as a discreptancy? Better yet, will you give your life back to the service of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?
Exactly how is it that explaining away an apparent discrepancy in a book leads to the conclusion that one should serve the person in the book? If somebody clears up a discrepancy in the Quran, will you serve Allah? If somebody clears up a discrepancy in the New York Times, will you serve the editor? No? I can not see how clearing up a discrepancy leads to a life of servitude.
The expression of "hang" has different meaning in time periods and cultures. At that time and in that culture "hang" meant basically what it means today. If I told you to hang a picture, how would you hang it? You drive a nail in the wall and hang it. That is what the meaning hang is given in Mat 27:5 and Acts 1:18. Judas drove a stake in the ground, sharpened it and fell on it. He hanged himself on a stake and his bowels gushed out. Here is more proof. Was Jesus Crucified or hanged? Using our previous example, Jesus was both because both mean the same thing. They drove stakes through him and hanged him on the cross. "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus who you slew and hanged on a tree." Acts 5:30
If I told you to hang a picture, and you put a sharpened stake in the ground, and then slammed the picture down over the stake, you would not call that "hanging a picture", would you? Then why do you say that a man falling on a sharpened stake was hanged?
Are you seriously trying to tell me, that when I read that a person was hung and killed, the author may mean that the person fell on a sharp stake, and not a traditional hanging? I think not. I think that falling on a sharp stake is quite different from hanging.
But your problem goes deeper. Acts 1:18 says Judas fell headlong. Okay, did he plant a stake in the ground, then go up on a high rock and dive headfirst toward the stake, with the stake piercing his abdomen? And Acts says all of his intestines gushed out. This is not typical of a puncture wound. So are we to believe that, when Judas dived on the stake, the stake slashed his gut rather than impaled it, so his intestines gushed out? What a bizzare suicide this would have been!
If this is the way that Judas died, then both Matthew and Acts have an odd way of describing it. Matthew says he hung himself, but that is a very odd way of describing this head-first dive unto a sharp stake. Acts says he fell headlong, but makes no mention of the stake that killed him. It would have been so easy for either writer to tell us simply and concisely that Judas fell on a sharp stake. If that is what happened, then Matthew and Acts appear to have incompetent authors, who had a very poor choice of words to describe this swandive unto a sharp stake.
Merle, train your mind to focus on what is the point or the spirit in which the word of God is written. For example: is it really important how Judas Iscariot killed himself? Aren't you missing the point why he killed himself?
But if the books are wrong about how Judas died, could they be wrong about other issues? And if Acts conflicts with Matthew, then either or both books are mistaken.
Aren't you missing the point of the story? That Jesus Christ was betrayed, died on the cross for our sins and rose on the third day victorious and triumphant! God's wisdom and power blows our mind and many can't handle it.
Jesus died for our sins? Why did he need to die to forgive our sins? Why, if he wanted to forgive, didn't he just forgive?
I look forward to reading your response. You can reply at the blog, or send me an email to post here on my site.
Merle
|
|
Home |
Links |
 |