Should there be harmony between science and religion?

[2ndpillar]

We first need to identify the tares, and when they sprang up. Do you agree?
Peter mentioned when, in the book of Acts (Acts 20:29, 30), and Paul mentioned when in 2 Thessalonians 2.
Recall Paul also said...
1 Timothy 4:
1 . . .the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons,
3, For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.
4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.
...and Peter had more to say on it. 2 Peter 2:1

Remember that during that time, there were false teachers (Sadducee, Pharisees, Scribes), but these were not viewed as the tares. So Jesus had a period in the future in mind.

When do you think that might have been?
Or do you believe it started before Jesus arrived on earth? Surely it couldn't have been then.

The "Pharisees", such as Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, were referred as the source of leaven, hypocrisy. An example being Romans 7:25. As for 2 Peter, it was supposedly written by some unknown author after the death of Peter. As for the "falling away", look to Matthew 26:31, which refers to Zechariah 13:7, which links the "falling away" to the time when Peter denied him 3 times. The "scribes"/writers, such as Paul, have made a lie out of the law (Jeremiah 8:8). The "tares" are linked with "lawlessness"/wickedness (Matthew 13:23 & Matthew 13:41)

New American Standard Bible
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.

 

[j1i]

The opposite is even worse. When people are no longer considered sacred but just molecular machines executing the laws of physics there is no restraint or implications in immoral behavior. This is why we have so many wars and weapons of mass destruction because science has taught us religion has no value.

Science is used more to kill and hurt people than it has helped them.

Nice

In my opinion as a believer in the Creator
When a person gets the new science, it is a struggle, either to thank God or to disbelieve
Much is moving towards the denial of God and self-esteem and arrogance

 

[nPeace]

You don’t “replicate” the theory.

Thank you.

Where in the hell did you get that?

Where in the what? I haven't been to hell, but someone said this to me, and I wanted him to realize that what he said, may have been said a bit arbitrarily.
After he tried to dodge me by using what seems to me, a misleading tactic, I decided to press the issue - for his sake, of course.

You would “test” the theory or hypothesis.

The “tests” would -

either (A) verify the hypothesis or theory,

or (B) “refute” or “debunk” the hypothesis.​

You need to remember science is about testing the hypothesis, and testing means that you are trying refute or find faults with the hypothesis, are just important as trying verifying.

Another word for “falsifiability” or “falsification”, other than “testability”, is “REFUTABILITY”.

While scientists are formulating their respective hypotheses, the only way to be objective is to to find out if the hypothesis is falsifiable (testable or refutable), before they actually perform the tests.

If, for example, the “potential” or “proposed” hypothesis cannot be tested, then it isn’t falsifiable or refutable. If so, then his or her work isn’t even a “hypothesis”.

Being a falsifiable hypothesis doesn’t mean the hypothesis is true...not yet. The hypothesis hasn’t been tested yet.

The hypothesis is never true or false by default. Only the tests or evidences can determine if the hypothesis is true or false.

But if the hypothesis is falsifiable, then the scientist must figure out how he or she could possibly test the hypothesis; and must document in the hypothesis just HOW the hypothesis will be tested. The tests or experiments must be rigorous enough, that there is a big chance that his or her hypothesis will fail.

If the hypothesis is able to withstand 100 or 1000 experiments, then the hypothesis has high probability of being true. But if hypothesis failed in most or all of the 100 or 1000 experiments, then it is high probability that the hypothesis has been refuted.

If the hypothesis failed in their experiments, repeatedly, the scientist can do one of two things:

1. He or she can give it up and put refuted hypothesis in the trash can or put it through shredder.
2. Or the scientist can put the hypothesis through a different or alternative type of experiment.

If the hypothesis continued to fail repeatedly in the second set of test, then hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked the scientist should definitely throw away the refuted hypothesis.

Michael Behe, a biochemist who have joined Discovery Institute (DI) and followed Intelligent Design (ID), wrote his proposition that support the Designer, called the Irreducible Complexity (IC).

The Irreducible Complexity failed to be falsifiable, because there are no way to test the Designer, therefore it isn’t even a hypothesis. And if the Designer cannot even be tested, it cannot be a scientific theory.

Irreducible Complexity is pseudoscience garbage, and should have long ago being discarded. But Behe refused to ditch his unfalsifiable and untestable model. And the Discovery Institute also refused to give up on Behe’s unfalsifiable paper, so they continued to pour money, not on science, but promoting IC in dishonest propaganda campaign.

Michael Behe is an example of a biased and dishonest scientist. And he isn’t the only dishonest scientist.

So is Stephen C. Meyer (a geophysicist), one of the front man for Intelligent Design. Meyer together with the theologian Phillip E. Johnson (no science qualifications whatsoever) were responsible for creating Intelligent Design. They were responsible for recruiting Behe into their rank, and Behe was supposed to be their big gun, during the civil court case in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005).

Behe bringing up IC with Intelligent Design, only made matters worse for Behe himself, since it demonstrated his IC was just as pseudoscience as ID was pseudoscience.

No need for a lecture. What I don't know, I research myself.
I think it is common for persons to assume that someone is ignorant, just because they put an argument in question form. So I don't blame you for trying to be helpful.

I don't think Behe is dishonest, just because he put forth an argument for intelligent design.
In that case, would you say that one of the giants of science - Aristotle - was dishonest? He promoted a similar argument.
The thing is, if a bias exists, then sometimes the opposition uses a closed minded approach, where convenient.

For example, scientists do not have a problem invoking ETs. Yet, what are the limits placed on the ETs? That they can't do what seems impossible to us?
Why is it impossible... because humans can't do it?
This seems a problem imo.

If ETs were discovered that could emit fire from their hands, would scientist be willing to accept other possibilities beyond that, or would the argument still be - it can't be falsified?
How are aliens supposed to look? Like big head googly eyed midgets?

What Behe, and his group were doing, it seems to me, was the same thing others did. The arguments presented seems to me, no different to hypothesis presented in science today.
One very simple one is this: What is responsible for the ordered universe - natural causes, or intelligence?
If there is room for the hypothesis of alien life forms, then can't the above be falsified?

 

[nPeace]

The "Pharisees", such as Paul, the Pharisee of Pharisees, were referred as the source of leaven, hypocrisy. An example being Romans 7:25. As for 2 Peter, it was supposedly written by some unknown author after the death of Peter. As for the "falling away", look to Matthew 26:31, which refers to Zechariah 13:7, which links the "falling away" to the time when Peter denied him 3 times. The "scribes"/writers, such as Paul, have made a lie out of the law (Jeremiah 8:8). The "tares" are linked with "lawlessness"/wickedness (Matthew 13:23 & Matthew 13:41)

New American Standard Bible
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.

Read Jerusalem 23.
How far back do these tares go?
We don't seem to agree, on what Jesus was referring to.
You haven't given me an answer on when the tares sprang up.

 

[2ndpillar]

Read Jerusalem 23.
How far back do these tares go?
We don't seem to agree, on what Jesus was referring to.
You haven't given me an answer on when the tares sprang up.

What in the world is "Jerusalem23"?

The tare seed goes back to the message of lawlessness (Matthew 13:41 & Matthew 7:23) spread by the "enemy" (Matthew 13:25). The tares are simply the fruit of the tare plant which sprang from the tare seed, which is a message of lawlessness, which came from the false prophet Paul (Romans 7:6). We are now at the "end of the age" when the tares will be gathered and "burned" (Matthew 13:30). The original tares were given protection from being bothered (Matthew 13:29-30).

 

[gnostic]

Where in the what? I haven't been to hell, but someone said this to me, and I wanted him to realize that what he said, may have been said a bit arbitrarily.
After he tried to dodge me by using what seems to me, a misleading tactic, I decided to press the issue - for his sake, of course.

Let me rephrase that for you.

Where did you get the idea that you would “replicate theory”?​

Is that better?

I don't think Behe is dishonest, just because he put forth an argument for intelligent design.

What is dishonest of Behe, is that when he his proposition on Irreducible Complexity (IC), it never met the requirements of being “falsifiable”, hence it was never a “Scientific Hypothesis”. And since it was never falsifiable, it never met the requirements of Scientific Method, meaning it has never been rigorously tested, therefore it was never a “Scientific Theory”.

Behe still treat his work (ie IC) as hypothesis and theory.

If you understand the basic of science, you would know that no hypothesis is ever true “by default”, until the hypothesis have been -

1. either (A) thoroughly tested in the lab (hence experimentations),
2. or (B) finding enough empirical evidences.

Ideally, it would be both scenarios.

Both are two possible ways of getting evidences. And only through testing the hypothesis, are you able to determine if the hypothesis is true or false, verified/validated or debunked.

Irreducible Complexity have not reached the stage of testing in the Scientific Method.

Behe has only implied that Designer is true, only with the assumption that nature is too complex, so it would required to be designed, and what is designed would required a “designer”. That is merely assumptions and speculations.

Both assumptions and speculation are never true, until it can be tested, and Behe’s Irreducible Complexity has never been tested.

The major obstacle to Irreducible Complexity, and to Intelligent Design in general, is the Designer itself. The Designer, whether it be some sorts of gods or advanced alien civilization, is the hinge to Irreducible Complexity and to Intelligent Design, therefore should be evidences for the Designer’s existence.

• You cannot test, observe/detect or measure the Designer.
• The Designer itself is merely speculation, and worse, just wishful thinking.

Behe is dishonest because he treated his assumptions in Irreducible Complexity as if it was a hypothesis or a theory, but he never did prove nor “tested” his assumptions.

Even in the university he worked, his whole department has disavowed of ever agreeing with Behe’s IC, nor taking part in IC. Even his department and colleagues at the university think that he isn’t honest person.

Do you know how many times, Behe has to backtracked what he said as the “expert witness” for the Intelligent Design in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District?

He was forced to admit in following statement made by the cross examiner:

"there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred?"

Behe answered “That is correct, yes.”

So, ID has never been tested, never been peer-reviewed. Which make his IC and his book titled Darwin’s Black Box, nothing more than pseudoscience.

When Behe was asked if Darwin’s Black Box manuscript was ever peer-reviewed by one Professor Atchison, he said yes, but Behe retracted later, when a letter by Professor Atchison was presented that clearly indicated he never read Behe’s manuscript before publication.

That’s not good for Behe’s integrity to make such admissions.

 

[gnostic]

In that case, would you say that one of the giants of science - Aristotle - was dishonest? He promoted a similar argument.

Sorry, but Aristotle was a philosopher, not a scientist. And many of Aristotle’s views have been disproven and debunked.

Plus, you cannot compare Aristotle’s time to that of Behe’s, since none of Behe’s works relating to the Intelligent Design was ever tested in the lab or in the fields.

All Behe have done with both IC and with his published books were just making numbered of speculations and assumptions regarding to the Designer, were nothing more than wishful thinking, with no presentable solid evidences, with no reviewable and verifiable data.

 

[nPeace]

What in the world is "Jerusalem23"?

The tare seed goes back to the message of lawlessness (Matthew 13:41 & Matthew 7:23) spread by the "enemy" (Matthew 13:25). The tares are simply the fruit of the tare plant which sprang from the tare seed, which is a message of lawlessness, which came from the false prophet Paul (Romans 7:6). We are now at the "end of the age" when the tares will be gathered and "burned" (Matthew 13:30). The original tares were given protection from being bothered (Matthew 13:29-30).

Did I say Jerusalem 23? Sorry. I meant Jeremiah 23.
Okay, so you believe the tares started sprouting from Paul, but why from Paul? The Pharisees existed long before Paul even knew how to say, 'Da Da'.

 

[Shad]

I voted no. My primary reasons are harmony can be manufactured and/or forced, localized, by those in power. Government or religious leaders can abuse their power forcing conformity on their followers or a society. An obvious example would be banning evolution or creationism. However I am sure there are other views which are not a topic of popular discussion. Health and any relation one believes in from a religious view; diet. YEC vs OEC. Schism. Harmony can become a goal thus a guiding principle and prone to zealotry becoming a horrible filter for both science and religion. Instead of merely disagreement there is oppression of views as we had in the past due to "special" truths. If there is any harmony to be had it is at an individual level regardless if I think one is right or not.

Religions die all the time so harmony isn't a major global issue just a personal one. If a religion is wrong, let it die. If an idea from science is wrong, let it die. Harmony can by used as a crutch for bad ideas.

Do not get me wrong on this. It is not that I do not think the idea is malicious. I just think the flaws can be very dangerous beyond the individual. Toss in I think any minority view would be the first on the chopping block

 

[nPeace]

Sorry, but Aristotle was a philosopher, not a scientist. And many of Aristotle’s views have been disproven and debunked.

Plus, you cannot compare Aristotle’s time to that of Behe’s, since none of Behe’s works relating to the Intelligent Design was ever tested in the lab or in the fields.

All Behe have done with both IC and with his published books were just making numbered of speculations and assumptions regarding to the Designer, were nothing more than wishful thinking, with no presentable solid evidences, with no reviewable and verifiable data.

I guess you wouldn't admit to it unless I showed you.
Aristotle (384–322 BC) was an ancient Greek philosopher and scientist...
His writings cover many subjects – including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theatre, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics and government – and constitute the first comprehensive system of Western philosophy.

I was not making reference to IC. It's not the same as ID.
Also, I noticed you didn't address my section on ETs, and falsifying the hypothesis concerning ID. Any reason why not?

 

[gnostic]

For example, scientists do not have a problem invoking ETs. Yet, what are the limits placed on the ETs? That they can't do what seems impossible to us?
Why is it impossible... because humans can't do it?
This seems a problem imo.

If ETs were discovered that could emit fire from their hands, would scientist be willing to accept other possibilities beyond that, or would the argument still be - it can't be falsified?
How are aliens supposed to look? Like big head googly eyed midgets?

Are you really going down road?

Yes, science has been searching for other signs of life, but they have never presented any evidence of it.

Much of what you are talking about come from sci-fi novels and movies or tv, or from tabloid media, which are not science.

The only evidences that have been presented, is that life on Earth could have possibly started from started from space, not as aliens coming from spaceships, but as macromolecules that survived space.

The Murchison meteorite that crashed near small town in Victoria, Australia, have shown that amino acids were found on the meteorite. Over 100 types of amino acid on meteorite, of which 19 types of amino acid do occur naturally in life on Earth.

Amino acids are one of the building block, that make up proteins. Without amino acids, then there are no proteins. If there no proteins, then there are no catalyst for metabolic reaction, and no DNA replication.

The other possibility of amino acids being naturally on Earth itself, eg the puddle model or the oceans’ sea vent model.

 

[nPeace]

Are you really going down road?

Yes, science has been searching for other signs of life, but they have never presented any evidence of it.

Much of what you are talking about come from sci-fi novels and movies or tv, or from tabloid media, which are not science.

The only evidences that have been presented, is that life on Earth could have possibly started from started from space, not as aliens coming from spaceships, but as macromolecules that survived space.

The Murchison meteorite that crashed near small town in Victoria, Australia, have shown that amino acids were found on the meteorite. Over 100 types of amino acid on meteorite, of which 19 types of amino acid do occur naturally in life on Earth.

Amino acids are one of the building block, that make up proteins. Without amino acids, then there are no proteins. If there no proteins, then there are no catalyst for metabolic reaction, and no DNA replication.

The other possibility of amino acids being naturally on Earth itself, eg the puddle model or the oceans’ sea vent model.

Extraterrestrial hypothesis - Wikipedia
Apparently others have not been taken seriously.

 

[2ndpillar]

Read Jerusalem 23.
How far back do these tares go?
We don't seem to agree, on what Jesus was referring to.
You haven't given me an answer on when the tares sprang up.

What in the world is "Jerusalem23"?

The tare seed goes back to the message of lawlessness (Matthew 13:41 & Matthew 7:23) spread by the "enemy" (Matthew 13:25). The tares are simply the fruit of the tare plant which sprang from the tare seed, which is a message of lawlessness, which came from the false prophet Paul (Romans 7:6). We are now at the "end of the age" when the tares will be gathered and "burned" (Matthew 13:30). The original tares were given protection from being bothered (Matthew 13:29-30).

Did I say Jerusalem 23? Sorry. I meant Jeremiah 23.
Okay, so you believe the tares started sprouting from Paul, but why from Paul? The Pharisees existed long before Paul even knew how to say, 'Da Da'.

Paul's message of hypocrisy/leaven (Romans 7:25) was anti Law (Romans 7:6) & Matthew 13:41, whereas the normal Pharisee simply emphasized their traditions over the meatier parts of the Law. (Matthew 23:23).

Jeremiah 23:3 & 5 is with respect to "the remnant of my flock" who will be brought back to their pasture" with a branch of David will rule them (Ezekiel 36:24 & 37:24-25) & (Jeremiah 23:5), when Judah/Jews will be saved and Israel will dwell securely. David's branch will rule both Judah and the house of Israel (Ezekiel 37:15-28) at the "end of the age", and the "house of Israel" remains "scattered among the nations (Ezekiel 36:24).

 

[nPeace]

Paul's message of hypocrisy/leaven (Romans 7:25) was anti Law (Romans 7:6) & Matthew 13:41, whereas the normal Pharisee simply emphasized their traditions over the meatier parts of the Law. (Matthew 23:23).

Jeremiah 23:3 & 5 is with respect to "the remnant of my flock" who will be brought back to their pasture" with a branch of David will rule them (Ezekiel 36:24 & 37:24-25) & (Jeremiah 23:5), when Judah/Jews will be saved and Israel will dwell securely. David's branch will rule both Judah and the house of Israel (Ezekiel 37:15-28) at the "end of the age", and the "house of Israel" remains "scattered among the nations (Ezekiel 36:24).

You seem not to like Paul.
The way I see it, Jesus gave the illustration and explained it, so no one is in a better position than Jesus, to help us get it in the right perspective.

He said (Matthew 13:36-43)
a) The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man - Jesus
b) The field is the world
c) The fine seed are the sons of the Kingdom
d) The weeds are the sons of the wicked one, and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil

a) The sowing of the fine seed started with Jesus ministry.
b) Since the field where the seed is sown, is the world, that means the sowing does not end when Jesus returned to heaven, because he did not reach the world in the three years he preached on earth.
Therefore, he continues to sow seed from heaven. How? Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20 (by means of his faithful followers)
These started from when Jesus sent them forth (Luke 8:1; 9:1; 10:1), continued after his death and resurrection (Acts 1:8; 5:41, 42; Colossians 1:23), and continues today (Revelation 14:6).
Notice that Paul took place i sowing fine seed.
c) All those who embraced Jesus' teachings - repented, and converted, and got baptized in water, and received the Holy Spirit, become sons of the kingdom - including Paul.
d) So who are the wicked ones, and when did Satan start to sow them?
Acts 20:29; 2 Corinthians 11:12-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:3, 4; 2 Peter 2:1-3
Again, please note, the Devil started to sow the tares/weeds after the Christian congregation got established, by which time Paul was a pillar in support of the truth.
The Devil continued sowing even into the time of the end.
Eventually the entire field became overrun with weeds. It was quite difficult to identify the wheat - until the harvest time arrived, and the reapers started to gather and separate them.
The wheat was gathered into barns, and the weeds are awaiting their fiery destruction.

That would be the end of false religion.

 

[2ndpillar]

You seem not to like Paul.
The way I see it, Jesus gave the illustration and explained it, so no one is in a better position than Jesus, to help us get it in the right perspective.

He said (Matthew 13:36-43)
a) The sower of the fine seed is the Son of man - Jesus
b) The field is the world
c) The fine seed are the sons of the Kingdom
d) The weeds are the sons of the wicked one, and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil

a) The sowing of the fine seed started with Jesus ministry.
b) Since the field where the seed is sown, is the world, that means the sowing does not end when Jesus returned to heaven, because he did not reach the world in the three years he preached on earth.
Therefore, he continues to sow seed from heaven. How? Matthew 24:14; 28:19, 20 (by means of his faithful followers)
These started from when Jesus sent them forth (Luke 8:1; 9:1; 10:1), continued after his death and resurrection (Acts 1:8; 5:41, 42; Colossians 1:23), and continues today (Revelation 14:6).
Notice that Paul took place i sowing fine seed.
c) All those who embraced Jesus' teachings - repented, and converted, and got baptized in water, and received the Holy Spirit, become sons of the kingdom - including Paul.
d) So who are the wicked ones, and when did Satan start to sow them?
Acts 20:29; 2 Corinthians 11:12-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-9; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Timothy 4:3, 4; 2 Peter 2:1-3
Again, please note, the Devil started to sow the tares/weeds after the Christian congregation got established, by which time Paul was a pillar in support of the truth.
The Devil continued sowing even into the time of the end.
Eventually the entire field became overrun with weeds. It was quite difficult to identify the wheat - until the harvest time arrived, and the reapers started to gather and separate them.
The wheat was gathered into barns, and the weeds are awaiting their fiery destruction.

That would be the end of false religion.

You are speaking out of both sides of you mouth. You say the good seed, the word of the kingdom, is from "Jesus" and then you quote the false prophet Paul, the "enemy" (Matthew 13:25), the son of the "devil" (Matthew 13:39) in defense of your position, along with a quote from the guy posing as the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17. As for the "good seed", the "word of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:19), "the devil comes and snatches what has .sown in his heart", with regard to the example of the seed "sown besides the road". The one who bears fruit is the "man who hears the word and understands it" (Matthew 13:23). The "good seed", the "word of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:19), and the "tare seed" has already been cast, in the same field, and both scribed into the NT, and the tares walk among us. When the wheat, the sons of the kingdom, are ready for harvest, then "first" the tares will be gathered and burned (Matthew 13:30).

Paul's gospel of grace/cross/lawlessness (Romans 7:6) is the tare seed. His position is that the lawless, the sinners are saved by believing Paul's message of lawlessness/wickedness/who do iniquity (Psalms 6:8 & Matthew 7:23). Per Matthew 13:41, the lawless/the tares, those who do iniquity/sinners/sons of the devil (Psalms 6:8) & (1 John 3:4), will be gathered out and "cast into the furnace of fire. Paul's message is the same as the serpent per Genesis 3:4, that you "surely shall not die" if you break God's commandment, and eat from the tree of right and wrong, but that if you believe the message of Paul, you will turned from perishable to imperishable in the twinkling of an eye. Which is to say, "you surely shall not die" (Genesis 3:4). Paul's message is the antithesis of Yeshua's message of the kingdom of heaven.

As for Revelation 14:6, that is with respect to Revelation 14:7, which is "fear God" and occurs when "the hour of his judgment has come".

Some helpful information: A tare plant, a weed, looks just like a wheat plant, except it doesn't bear "good fruit".

 

[nPeace]

You are speaking out of both sides of you mouth. You say the good seed, the word of the kingdom, is from "Jesus" and then you quote the false prophet Paul, the "enemy" (Matthew 13:25), the son of the "devil" (Matthew 13:39) in defense of your position, along with a quote from the guy posing as the "worthless shepherd" of Zechariah 11:17. As for the "good seed", the "word of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:19), "the devil comes and snatches what has .sown in his heart", with regard to the example of the seed "sown besides the road". The one who bears fruit is the "man who hears the word and understands it" (Matthew 13:23). The "good seed", the "word of the kingdom" (Matthew 13:19), and the "tare seed" has already been cast, in the same field, and both scribed into the NT, and the tares walk among us. When the wheat, the sons of the kingdom, are ready for harvest, then "first" the tares will be gathered and burned (Matthew 13:30).

Paul's gospel of grace/cross/lawlessness (Romans 7:6) is the tare seed. His position is that the lawless, the sinners are saved by believing Paul's message of lawlessness/wickedness/who do iniquity (Psalms 6:8 & Matthew 7:23). Per Matthew 13:41, the lawless/the tares, those who do iniquity/sinners/sons of the devil (Psalms 6:8) & (1 John 3:4), will be gathered out and "cast into the furnace of fire. Paul's message is the same as the serpent per Genesis 3:4, that you "surely shall not die" if you break God's commandment, and eat from the tree of right and wrong, but that if you believe the message of Paul, you will turned from perishable to imperishable in the twinkling of an eye. Which is to say, "you surely shall not die" (Genesis 3:4). Paul's message is the antithesis of Yeshua's message of the kingdom of heaven.

As for Revelation 14:6, that is with respect to Revelation 14:7, which is "fear God" and occurs when "the hour of his judgment has come".

Some helpful information: A tare plant, a weed, looks just like a wheat plant, except it doesn't bear "good fruit".

How can I be speaking out of both sides of my mouth, when I am only using the Bible... whereas you are misinterpreting it?
For example, you identify Paul in a manner the Bible does not.
Yet you cannot show me one scripture that does not show Paul to be a son of the kingdom. I can show you plenty.

So why not start there and prove your claims. Show me one scripture that says Paul is not a son of the kingdom, who will reign with Christ in the heavenly kingdom.

 

[Looncall]

How can I be speaking out of both sides of my mouth, when I am only using the Bible... whereas you are misinterpreting it?
For example, you identify Paul in a manner the Bible does not.
Yet you cannot show me one scripture that does not show Paul to be a son of the kingdom. I can show you plenty.

So why not start there and prove your claims. Show me one scripture that says Paul is not a son of the kingdom, who will reign with Christ in the heavenly kingdom.

I find it quite bizarre that religionists are so enamored of monarchy.. Why do they hate democracy so?

 

[2ndpillar]

How can I be speaking out of both sides of my mouth, when I am only using the Bible... whereas you are misinterpreting it?
For example, you identify Paul in a manner the Bible does not.
Yet you cannot show me one scripture that does not show Paul to be a son of the kingdom. I can show you plenty.

So why not start there and prove your claims. Show me one scripture that says Paul is not a son of the kingdom, who will reign with Christ in the heavenly kingdom.

Your "scripture" showing Paul as a son of the kingdom would come from Paul, his associates, and some unknown writer posing as Peter, the "worthless shepherd" (Zechariah11:17), in 2 Peter. As for what Yeshua says about Paul, Paul means little, who will be called "least" by those in the kingdom, because he tries to annul the least letter o the Law (Matthew 5:19). Remember that Paul is the foremost in all things, including the "foremost" sinner. The foremost of little is least. Paul also fits in with the "false prophets" of Matthew 7:15-20. Paul fits the "ravenous wolf" description per Genesis 49:27. He fits the rotten tree description from examining his fruit (Matthew 7:20). With respect to the Law and the prophets, Paul is described in Zechariah 11:7-10, a "staff" taken to "pasture" the "flock doomed to slaughter".

 

[nPeace]

Your "scripture" showing Paul as a son of the kingdom would come from Paul, his associates, and some unknown writer posing as Peter, the "worthless shepherd" (Zechariah11:17), in 2 Peter. As for what Yeshua says about Paul, Paul means little, who will be called "least" by those in the kingdom, because he tries to annul the least letter o the Law (Matthew 5:19). Remember that Paul is the foremost in all things, including the "foremost" sinner. The foremost of little is least. Paul also fits in with the "false prophets" of Matthew 7:15-20. Paul fits the "ravenous wolf" description per Genesis 49:27. He fits the rotten tree description from examining his fruit (Matthew 7:20). With respect to the Law and the prophets, Paul is described in Zechariah 11:7-10, a "staff" taken to "pasture" the "flock doomed to slaughter".

I though so. So you don't believe the Bible. Okay. Got it.

I find it quite bizarre that religionists are so enamored of monarchy.. Why do they hate democracy so?

Pardon me?

 

[2ndpillar]

I though so. So you don't believe the Bible. Okay. Got it.

You New Testament, a compilation of one of the harlot daughters of Babylon (Revelation 17:5), the church of Rome, contains both the "good seed" and the "tare seed", planted in the same field. The "tare" seed is shown to encompass "lawlessness" and "stumbling blocks", which would include Peter (Matthew 16:23), and Paul (Romans 7:6). The "good seed" would be the "word" of the "kingdom". (Matthew 13:19).