Just Accidental?

[Shad]

Straw man, actually.

No it isn't as you are claiming those that believe in evolution are not honouring God

It's not my doctrine; its Jesus' doctrine.

Wrong, you have nothing written by Jesus but by followers decades removed from him.

What I wrote...am I wrong?

Yes since you repeat the same schismatic rhetoric Christians have used for centuries when one does not agree with a specific doctrine. It is divisive and all bluster based on human authorities claim to know what God wants

I know you have no interest.

My interest is historical and academic.

But, for followers of Christ, who cares what Jesus said, right?

You mean who cares what hearsay you accept says?

Sad, really.

Says the Christian that denounces other Christians for accept evolution. Hilarious.

 

[Deeje]

Yes since you repeat the same schismatic rhetoric Christians have used for centuries when one does not agree with a specific doctrine. It is divisive and all bluster based on human authorities claim to know what God wants

As if the scientists don't repeat the same rhetoric with more bluster than any of us know how to....
What is your bluster based on? "Human authorities who claim to know" things that no human was there to observe.

My interest is historical and academic.

"Historical"? You know the meaning of the word? "History" is something recorded. Pre-historic is something science wants to redefine along with their definition of a "theory". There was no one to record a single thing, so "reading" of the "evidence" requires interpretation of the fossils who have no real voice.....so science uses them as a ventriloquist might use a dummy....putting words in their mouths. The story they tell is nonsense masquerading as science. Without their interpretation, what are the fossils really saying? "We existed once"...that's all.

"Academic"? Academia is highly overrated IMO. Jesus thought so too. It is so full of its own importance that it has to talk down its nose to anyone who disagrees with it, accusing them of being anti-science and anti-academic, as though it "knows" things it is only making "guesses" about.

 

[Shad]

"Historical"? You know the meaning of the word? "History" is something recorded.

I guess you have no education in history nor the conflicts between rival Christian denominations... The comment I replied to is merely an echo of this time. IE This modern Christian has not moved beyond the petty squabbles of what should be a bygone era.

Pre-historic is something science wants to redefine along with their definition of a "theory". There was no one to record a single thing, so "reading" of the "evidence" requires interpretation of the fossils who have no real voice.....so science uses them as a ventriloquist might use a dummy....putting words in their mouths. The story they tell is nonsense masquerading as science. Without their interpretation, what are the fossils really saying? "We existed once"...that's all.

Your opinion has no merit nor standing within academia. No one is required to be present in order to study events and objects in order to create conclusions. You just do not like it as it's findings go against your doctrine. Hence why you create a term that does not exist within academia as if this divide is a clean line between one and the other. It isn't. It is merely a term you picked up from AIG and parrot here. More so you undermine basic forensics which has done far more to establish a reliable methods of investigation such as the justice system. You do not realize these implications as your only parrot what you read rather than think about it.

"Academic"? Academia is highly overrated IMO.

Your opinion. Considering how poorly educated you are on the subjects your bring up it is an uninformed opinion.

Jesus thought so too. It is so full of its own importance that it has to talk down its nose to anyone who disagrees with it, accusing them of being anti-science and anti-academic, as though it "knows" things it is only making "guesses" about.

You provided evidence via your own comments to establish you are anti-science and anti-academic. If you do not like these conclusion made you can easily get an education on the topics you bring up. You wont as challenging your biases is beyond you. You want to rant while displaying your vast ignorance. At least I know now to avoid diagrams as you are incapable of reading one.

 

[Shad]

New fossil find makes whale evolution even more unlikely

Now those people were definitely not wearing their evolutionary lens's so we can definitely throw all their talk away as irrelevant gibberish right?

Your source is a blog from someone with no background in the subject.... Hilarious. Can your reasoning be more fallacious than it already is?

 

[Deeje]

I guess you have no education in history nor the conflicts between rival Christian denominations... The comment I replied to is merely an echo of this time. IE This modern Christian has not moved beyond the petty squabbles of what should be a bygone era.

I couldn't agree more. The ones squabbling however are not the ones mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:10.
True Christians, like those in the first century, stand out from that rabble as being very different.

United and in full agreement about everything they believe.

Your opinion has no merit nor standing within academia. No one is required to be present in order to study events and objects in order to create conclusions. You just do not like it as it's findings go against your doctrine.

I could say the same about you.... Your position has no standing with the one who created the intelligence that academia is so proud of....the one who gave man the intellect to study what he has created. Trouble is, he got so carried away by his own brilliance, that some wanted to eliminate all mention of their Creator, whilst others want to blend religion and science in a way that makes them sound more educated and therefore more acceptable. Sad really.

Your opinion. Considering how poorly educated you are on the subjects your bring up it is an uninformed opinion.

Here we go....those of us who are poorly indoctrinated....sorry, I mean poorly educated, can't possibly have a clear view of what creation entails. "God did it" is clearly unscientific! "Natural Selection did it" is so much more convincing..... NOT.

You provided evidence via your own comments to establish you are anti-science and anti-academic. If you do not like these conclusion made you can easily get an education on the topics you bring up. You wont as challenging your biases is beyond you.

I am neither "anti-science" nor "anti-academic"....I am just anti-evolution....do you not know the difference?

You want to rant while displaying your vast ignorance. At least I know now to avoid diagrams as you are incapable of reading one.

Was I ranting? I thought I was just expressing a view.

They say ignorance is bliss....and in this case, I agree. Who wants to be so smart that they have to rely on the guesswork of other smart people to form their opinions? Those who have to rely on diagrams to tell a story that is more fictitious and far fetched than anything we could think up? The fossils are not talking at all....science is putting words in their mouths.

Hellloooo

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Indeed

Deeje their first premise can't be flawed... remember nothing makes sense without looking thru the evolutionary lens.....

New fossil find makes whale evolution even more unlikely
Whale evolution is supposed to be one of the best documented cases of gradualism in the fossil record. No doubt, when you stack the fossils up next to each other, you can see what appears to be a morphological transition from a terrestrial mammal to an aquatic whale.
Since evolution occurs at the biochemical level, however, to determine whether or not this series of fossils represent an actual evolution of mammals into whales, or if they are morphologically similar but distinct species, we must determine whether the 10 million years that separates the first whale from its mammalian ancestor is enough time to re-engineer a mammal into a whale. Consider the extent of the required changes:

1. “Whales require an intra-abdominal counter current heat exchange system (the testis are inside the body right next to the muscles that generate heat during swimming)
2. They need to possess a ball vertebra because the tail has to move up and down instead of side-to-side
3. They require a re-organization of kidney tissue to facilitate the intake of salt water
4. They require a re-orientation of the fetus for giving birth under water
5. They require a modification of the mammary glands for the nursing of young under water
6. The forelimbs have to be transformed into flippers
7. The hindlimbs need to be substantially reduced
8. They require a special lung surfactant (the lung has to re-expand very rapidly upon coming up to the surface), etc.”[1]

The task of turning a mammal into a sea creature is comparable to the engineering task required to turn a car into a submarine. These are not minor changes, but a perfectly coordinated overhaul of virtually every aspect of mammalian features. To demonstrate that this series of fossils represents an actual evolution of the whale from non-whale ancestors requires more than pointing out the morphological similarities. Biologists must be able to identify the biochemical pathways required to produce such changes, and demonstrate that such pathways could reasonably be traversed given the amount of time available.

Keep in mind that when it comes to evolvability, time is the least important factor to consider. The rate of evolution is determined primarily by population size, reproduction rates, and mutation rates. The larger the population, the smaller the generation times, and the faster the mutation rates, the faster the rate of evolution. Conversely, the smaller the population, the larger the generation times, and the slower the mutation rates, the slower the rate of evolution. If you have a small population, long generation times, and an average mutation rate, it will take a long time for mutations to create enough raw materials on which natural selection can act. To see how this works, contrast whales and mice. Because of the small population size and long generation times of whales, it takes whales 200 million years to accumulate the same number of mutations mice can accumulate in 1500 years. If mice haven’t changed in 1500 years, then why should we expect mammals to have evolved into whales over a period of 200 million years, yet alone the 10 million years in which it is claimed the process took place in?
Given a population size of 100,000 whales per generation, and generation times of five years, Richard Sternberg has calculated that it would take 43.3 million years for just two specific coordinated mutations to become fixed in the species. If it would take 43 million years for two specific coordinated mutations to become fixed in the species, and the re-engineering of mammals into whales would require thousands of such changes, then it is not feasible to believe that mammals could evolve into whales in 3 billion years, yet alone 10 million years. While the morphological similarities between Pakicetids, Ambulocetids, Rodhocetus, and Basilosaurids are very interesting and might suggest an evolutionary relationship at first glance, the biochemical data demonstrates that it is not reasonable to believe they share an evolutionary relationship. They cannot be causally connected to each other because there simply was not enough time for such an evolution to occur.

The whale evolution story has been further complicated by the recent discovery in Antarctica of a jawbone of the oldest, fully aquatic whale (announced October 2011). It dates to 49 million years ago. This is nine million years older than Basilosaurids—an organism previously thought to be the oldest fully aquatic whale—and only 3 million years younger than what is purported to be the ancestor to whales, Pakicetus: a fully terrestrial creature. In fact, this new find dates to the same age as what used to be thought of as the first proto-whale, Ambulocetus: a semi-aquatic creature that lived in the waters of South Asia. It’s difficult to maintain that these fossils represent an evolution of the whale when the first fully aquatic whale appears on the scene at the same time as its supposed oldest semi-aquatic ancestor. That’s like saying you were born at the same time as your great great great great grandfather.
New fossil find makes whale evolution even more unlikely

Now those people were definitely not wearing their evolutionary lens's so we can definitely throw all their talk away as irrelevant gibberish right?

Excellent material!
But you know their reply......they'll use 'special pleading' and say, "That's 'punctuated equilibrium' at its finest!"

Lol.

I guess you have no education in history nor the conflicts between rival Christian denominations... The comment I replied to is merely an echo of this time. IE This modern Christian has not moved beyond the petty squabbles of what should be a bygone era.



Your opinion has no merit nor standing within academia. No one is required to be present in order to study events and objects in order to create conclusions. You just do not like it as it's findings go against your doctrine. Hence why you create a term that does not exist within academia as if this divide is a clean line between one and the other. It isn't. It is merely a term you picked up from AIG and parrot here. More so you undermine basic forensics which has done far more to establish a reliable methods of investigation such as the justice system. You do not realize these implications as your only parrot what you read rather than think about it.



Your opinion. Considering how poorly educated you are on the subjects your bring up it is an uninformed opinion.



You provided evidence via your own comments to establish you are anti-science and anti-academic. If you do not like these conclusion made you can easily get an education on the topics you bring up. You wont as challenging your biases is beyond you. You want to rant while displaying your vast ignorance. At least I know now to avoid diagrams as you are incapable of reading one.

Shad, could you please stop cramming ad hominems into your replies?
They lend no legitimacy to your intellect, and make your arguments much less substantive.

 

[Shad]

I couldn't agree more. The ones squabbling however are not the ones mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:10.
True Christians, like those in the first century, stand out from that rabble as being very different.

United and in full agreement about everything they believe.

You are claiming that you are part of this group centuries removed from these people. Anyone can make this claim none can be validated.

I could say the same about you.... Your position has no standing with the one who created the intelligence that academia is so proud of....the one who gave man the intellect to study what he has created.

Academia is objectively real while your creator is not. You are stating your presupposition as if it is a fact, it isn't.

[Trouble is, he got so carried away by his own brilliance, that some wanted to eliminate all mention of their Creator, whilst others want to blend religion and science in a way that makes them sound more educated and therefore more acceptable. Sad really.

Not my problem that your scripture and interruption of it has fundamental flaws. This is your problem.

Here we go....those of us who are poorly indoctrinated....sorry, I mean poorly educated, can't possibly have a clear view of what creation entails. "God did it" is clearly unscientific! "Natural Selection did it" is so much more convincing..... NOT.

When you can read a diagram let me know.

I am neither "anti-science" nor "anti-academic"....I am just anti-evolution....do you not know the difference?

Since you deny evolution and the methods which developed the theory you are anti-science. Since you rely on people outside academia for your view you are anti-academia. This is easy to confirm as most of your posts are sourced from blog and AIG. The rest are distortions based on your inability to comprehend what you read.

Have you figured out how to read a diagram yet?

Was I ranting? I thought I was just expressing a view.

Yes since you are the most "vocal" opponenet to evolution in this thread combined with your inability to understand what you read.

Have you figured out how to read a diagram yet?

They say ignorance is bliss....and in this case, I agree.

Of course you do as post demonstrate how deeply you are within this bliss.

Who wants to be so smart that they have to rely on the guesswork of other smart people to form their opinions?

You didn't form your own opinion you are parroting blog and AIG.

Those who have to rely on diagrams to tell a story that is more fictitious and far fetched than anything we could think up?

Your opinion only, an uninformed opinion based on parroting AIG and blogs.

The fossils are not talking at all....science is putting words in their mouths.

This is painfully stupid if you expect fossils to talk... Yet you take a position that the Bible is from God yet it was written by humans thus you are the one putting words in God's mouth based on no justification.

 

[Shad]

Shad, could you please stop cramming ad hominems into your replies?

I make conclusions regarding people after refuting their silly views and pointing out their mistakes. Such as not being able to read a diagram. This is not a personal attack to render a conclusion invalid but a proper point that based on an inability to read a diagram led to a false conclusion.

Let me know when you figure out what an ad hominems is...

Also I would point out you got your fallacies wrong. The source you are talking about is an argument from authority as the blog author has zero expertise in the subject they are blogging about

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I make conclusions regarding people after refuting their silly views and pointing out their mistakes. Such as not being able to read a diagram. This is not a personal attack but evidence when the person makes silly claims based on their lack of education.

Let me know when you figure out what an ad hominems is...

First, you have to refute these 'silly claims'. You haven't. You've mostly resorted to belittling statements.

 

[Shad]

First, you have to refute these 'silly claims'. You haven't. You've mostly resorted to belittling statements.

Actually I did as per the diagram comment. The post claims that whales and hippos have direct line of decent while the diagram contradicts said claim. So either the person never read the source or can not read the diagram. Willful ignorance or ignorance are not the best of conclusions.

My retorts merely hammer home how ignorant the comments are after my point was established. If you do not like people's post reflecting badly upon others perhaps you should take steps to correct ignorant posts from your choir members.

 

[Deeje]

You are claiming that you are part of this group centuries removed from these people. Anyone can make this claim none can be validated.

Absolutely true!

Yet science is part of a group claiming knowledge, millions (even billions) of years removed from the the living things they study and no one was around to document a single thing. Who can validate your arguments except perhaps other evolutionists....does that count?

At least I have something historically documented....dictated by the Creator himself. That is my claim and you have nothing more than I have in the way of real evidence.

Academia is objectively real while your creator is not. You are stating your presupposition as if it is a fact, it isn't.

You are really stating that evolution is a fact, when you have no real objective evidence and lots of presupposition yourselves....how does that give you any advantage?

Not my problem that your scripture and interruption of it has fundamental flaws. This is your problem.

Not my problem either. I am not the judge. I am just a messenger.

When you can read a diagram let me know.

Seriously...this is the best you can do? I can read a diagram as well as anyone....I just don't accept diagrams as a replacement for scientific facts. Without diagrams and artist's impressions, what would science have?

Since you deny evolution and the methods which developed the theory you are anti-science. Since you rely on people outside academia for your view you are anti-academia. This is easy to confirm as most of your posts are sourced from blog and AIG. The rest are distortions based on your inability to comprehend what you read.

Have you figured out how to read a diagram yet?

Have you figured out how to defend your position yet?

Hint: insults just don't add credibility to anything you say.

Yes since you are the most "vocal" opponenet to evolution in this thread combined with your inability to understand what you read.

Have you figured out how to read a diagram yet?

Is there an echo in here?

Diagrams are not a substitute for real evidence.....I think we already established that though.
I am the most vocal here because its my thread.....

Of course you do as post demonstrate how deeply you are within this bliss.
You didn't form your own opinion you are parroting blog and AIG.
Your opinion only, an uninformed opinion based on parroting AIG and blogs.

There is that echo again.

What is AIG? Since I am supposed to be parroting it, I should at least know what it is.....

This is painfully stupid if you expect fossils to talk... Yet you take a position that the Bible is from God yet it was written by humans thus you are the one putting words in God's mouth based on no justification.

On the contrary, I am basing my conclusions on many years of study and personal experience. Until you have experienced God's hand in your life, I don't think you are in a position to deny anything about him.

 

[Deeje]

 

[ArtieE]

Ironic isn't it. Theists have the same Bible but can't agree on whether their god created everything in a few literal days, or spent millions of years, or even used evolution. Deeje says everybody are wrong except JW and those who believe the same as they do because she has spent many years studying. Answersingenesis and the ICR are YEC and say everybody are wrong except them and those who believe the same as they do, the people at biologos believe in evolutionary creationism, Catholic schools in the US teach theistic evolution and use the same curriculum as secular schools. All from just one book and Genesis. Wow.

 

[savagewind]

United and in full agreement about everything they believe.

I am disgusted that you are able to brag about the historical FACT that Jehovah's Witnesses believe the welfare of children with their families comes last whenever there has been a need to consider the righteous standing of a person accused of child abuse. Matthew 18:6 But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

.....but according to the belief of the Jehovah's Witnesses, if nobody saw the child being stumbled, then the man doing it may rise to advantage in the organization. I am not trolling. Is telling the truth trolling? Are you SURE?

 

[savagewind]

Deeje says everybody are wrong except JW and those who believe the same as they do because she has spent many years studying.

No, I don't think she says that everyone is wrong except the JWs. She knows it is true that the JWs are sometimes wrong. But, it seems that the JWs are being taught that they are the only ones who look to be corrected. The only way though is for correction to come through the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I couldn't agree more. The ones squabbling however are not the ones mentioned in 1 Corinthians 1:10.
True Christians, like those in the first century, stand out from that rabble as being very different.

United and in full agreement about everything they believe.



I could say the same about you.... Your position has no standing with the one who created the intelligence that academia is so proud of....the one who gave man the intellect to study what he has created. Trouble is, he got so carried away by his own brilliance, that some wanted to eliminate all mention of their Creator, whilst others want to blend religion and science in a way that makes them sound more educated and therefore more acceptable. Sad really.



Here we go....those of us who are poorly indoctrinated....sorry, I mean poorly educated, can't possibly have a clear view of what creation entails. "God did it" is clearly unscientific! "Natural Selection did it" is so much more convincing..... NOT.



I am neither "anti-science" nor "anti-academic"....I am just anti-evolution....do you not know the difference?

Was I ranting? I thought I was just expressing a view.

They say ignorance is bliss....and in this case, I agree. Who wants to be so smart that they have to rely on the guesswork of other smart people to form their opinions? Those who have to rely on diagrams to tell a story that is more fictitious and far fetched than anything we could think up? The fossils are not talking at all....science is putting words in their mouths.

Hellloooo

No, we rely on the diligent and rigorous work of people trained in scientific methodology to provide us with the best available facts. And it's a good thing for it too, or we wouldn't have progressed past the bronze age. You sit there arrogantly proud of your inability to distinguish the difference between fact and whatever it is you want to believe while others who actually care about what is true and what is not work on gleaning more knowledge for us to use in our advancement as a species. You use this knowledge that we have gained, just as much as anybody else, yet fail to recognize the methods by which is it obtained are far superior to reading one musty old book and thinking it contains all there is to know about the universe, despite the fact that it was written by people who barely knew a fraction of the things we know today.

Ignorance is not bliss. It's not something to boast about. And there's no excuse for it in this day and age.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Absolutely true!

Yet science is part of a group claiming knowledge, millions (even billions) of years removed from the the living things they study and no one was around to document a single thing. Who can validate your arguments except perhaps other evolutionists....does that count?

At least I have something historically documented....dictated by the Creator himself. That is my claim and you have nothing more than I have in the way of real evidence.



You are really stating that evolution is a fact, when you have no real objective evidence and lots of presupposition yourselves....how does that give you any advantage?



Not my problem either. I am not the judge. I am just a messenger.



Seriously...this is the best you can do? I can read a diagram as well as anyone....I just don't accept diagrams as a replacement for scientific facts. Without diagrams and artist's impressions, what would science have?



Have you figured out how to defend your position yet?

Hint: insults just don't add credibility to anything you say.



Is there an echo in here?

Diagrams are not a substitute for real evidence.....I think we already established that though.
I am the most vocal here because its my thread.....




There is that echo again.

What is AIG? Since I am supposed to be parroting it, I should at least know what it is.....



On the contrary, I am basing my conclusions on many years of study and personal experience. Until you have experienced God's hand in your life, I don't think you are in a position to deny anything about him.

Once you can demonstrate the existence of this god you believe, that will be the time to believe in Him, and not one minute before that. Believing things doesn't make them true.

Good thing science doesn't rely on personal experience.

 

[Deeje]

Ironic isn't it. Theists have the same Bible but can't agree on whether their god created everything in a few literal days, or spent millions of years, or even used evolution. Deeje says everybody are wrong except JW and those who believe the same as they do because she has spent many years studying. Answersingenesis and the ICR are YEC and say everybody are wrong except them and those who believe the same as they do, the people at biologos believe in evolutionary creationism, Catholic schools in the US teach theistic evolution and use the same curriculum as secular schools. All from just one book and Genesis. Wow.

YES! Truth is the thing that separates people. There is no room for compromise, yet that is what people want to do......"I think" replaces "God says". That never works.

Look back in Biblical history and see that Jehovah's people have always been in a minority compared to the population of the lands that they occupied. After the Jewish captivity in Babylon, not all the Jews returned to Jerusalem, only “a mere remnant” as Isaiah had foretold. (Isaiah 10:21, 22) This was hundreds of years before Christ was even born.

Many failed to return for their own reasons....some for health reasons or old age...others because of selfish concerns.

This means that as a people, many of the Jews remained scattered and came to be known as the Di·a·spo·raʹ, or “Dispersion.” In the fifth century B.C.E. communities of Jews were found throughout the 127 jurisdictional districts of the Persian Empire.

The great dispersion of Jews throughout the Roman Empire was a factor contributing to the rapid spread of Christianity. Jesus Christ limited his own preaching to the soil of Israel, but he commanded his followers to reach out and spread their ministry “to the most distant part of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

Jews from different parts of the Roman Empire were in Jerusalem attending the festival of Pentecost in 33 C.E., and they heard the spirit-begotten Christians preaching about Jesus in the languages of Parthia, Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, the district of Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya, Crete, Arabia, and Rome. Thousands, upon returning to their lands, took with them their newly found faith. (Acts 2:1-11)

It is God who sees to it that the conditions are right for his will to be done. If all the Jews had returned to their homeland, the stage would not have been set for the spread of Christianity to take place among the Jews in many parts of the inhabited earth. They formed a minority in all those locations but they remained religiously separate from their neighbors. Initially, Jewish Christians preached only to Jews. But when Gentiles were accepted into the Christian arrangement, then a complete separation from the Jewish system of worship was seen.

JW's too maintain a separation from those who claim to serve the Christian God but who, by their beliefs and practices, dishonor him. We do not accept Christendom's churches as "Christian" in any way. And I have first hand experience as to why, having been raised in that institution for the first third of my life. It was their hypocrisy that made me abandon them. Everything Christ commanded to be done, they failed to obey, and everything he told them not to do, they did, making excuses that they still offer to this day.

We are told to "get out of Babylon the great" (all false worship) and that is what we have done. (Revelation 18:4, 5) When Jesus comes as judge, which we believe will be very soon now, he will separate the "sheep from the goats" and he will show the religious hypocrites what he thinks of them. (Matthew 7:21-23)

Does this separation mean that we are somehow perfect or superior? Hardly! Since Jesus' own apostles were far from perfect, it stands to reason that we will all have our faults in this present system of things, (sin guarantees that) but we try to maintain a Christian standard as best we can in this wicked world. We are the only ones preaching about the kingdom as one united brotherhood in every nation on earth, just as Jesus said we should be doing as these last days draw to a close. (Matthew 24:14)

So, it isn't just about the words in the book...its about obedience to the Christ with all our heart. It's not about making excuses for what we are not doing.....and it's not about justifying what we are doing disobediently to accommodate personal preference or to save face.
Obedience is what God has required since he created us.
He has a people in this "time of the end" whom he is using to accomplish his will.....and we need to be among them if we want a secure future.

It was never going to be easy. (John 15:18-21; Matthew 7:13, 14) This is why "few" are on the road to life.
That is what I believe.

 

[metis]

We are told to "get out of Babylon the great" (all false worship) and that is what we have done. (Revelation 18:4, 5) .

"Babylon the Great" was a common cloaked reference to the Roman Empire, and "the lion's mouth" and "Babylon" (the Greek feminine version that's found in one of Peter's epistles) is a reference to the city of Rome.

 

[metis]

...its about obedience to the Christ with all our heart...

And don't you honestly think that there are people in probably all Christian denominations who actually do believe and teach as such? I hear the priests in my wife's Catholic church teaching that same basic message every Sunday. Or do they have to follow some sort of politically-correct theology well beyond having a strong faith in God and Jesus in order to please God, iyo?