Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again with the irony.It Blows my mind why people who reject God and mock him ---trash and bash Him and His name ---think they should have their prayers answered ---the is true arrogance------ in my view
I'm sorry, there ARE other gods now?The thing is they may not get answered by Him, but by the gods that still oversee mankind if it suits their will. The whole thing is about supporting the right god, the Creator of all other gods.
Always were. The elohim were created before us. They were part of the biblical Divine council. They were in Eden, they were in the world before Noah and some were given command of the nations at the time of Babel. Some corrupted mankind in the Garden, some corrupted mankind pre-Noah. Even the ones put in charge over the nationsuntil this day became corrupted and made themselves gods over us and expecting worship. Nothing new there.I'm sorry, there ARE other gods now?
Cherry-picking half a sentence to avoid the contradiction in your argument is a transparent tactic. My point was that you cannot label human diligence as pollution one moment and then call for a global movement, even one based on repentance, the next. Whether you call it an outside force or not, you are still proposing a collective human response within the very human systems you previously dismissed as an abomination.The proposed global movement is not one created of man but an outside force. Common word for the action of rejecting worldly ways focused upon gain at the expense of others for self is repentance.
I'm sorry, there ARE other gods now?
I thought we were dealing with one god, who is sorta 3 gods, but still one god. Now that god made more gods, but, like, sub-gods? Like the main god is name brand God and the rest are Temu knockoff gods?
How many gods are we dealing with now? Do we have an accurate inventory of these gods? Can I adopt one? Do they make good pets?
Cherry-picking half a sentence to avoid the contradiction in your argument is a transparent tactic. My point was that you cannot label human diligence as pollution one moment and then call for a global movement, even one based on repentance, the next. Whether you call it an outside force or not, you are still proposing a collective human response within the very human systems you previously dismissed as an abomination.
Claiming this is about rejecting worldly ways is a convenient pivot, but it does not change the fact that you have been caught in a logical dead end. You are now attempting to use the word repentance as a catch-all to excuse your inconsistent stance on human effort. This blatant misrepresentation of my words shows that you are a dishonest interlocutor. If you are going to call for a global movement, you should at least have the integrity to represent my arguments in full rather than hacking them up to suit your narrative.