So as not to sidetrack the presidential thread, but picking up on a particular subject (plus, since he is not MY president my input to that thread should be minimal).
I have a few opinions on various aspects of the subject.
First of all - the claims of climate change are based on the world's science.
This is the same "science" that tells us that over millions of years there have been several (at least two is what I remember being taught) ice ages, all of which occurred (according to their science) before man came upon the scene.
The question then must be asked: what caused these climate change events?
And a second question: If such climate events happened before man, then how can they attribute this so called event to man's influence?
Remember that I am talking in terms of their own science. Their own science indicates that such change happens without men, so they have no reason to assume that men have caused this one.
Secondly, their science is based only on a short period of accurate measurements.
Santorio Santorio (1561-1636) invented the first "accurate" thermometer.
Prior to this time there was no accurate temperature recordings, and in fact it was the 1700's (I think 1714) before a standard scale for temp was invented.
This means we only have 300years (approx) of recorded temperatures.
Remember that all other temps are worked our by scientists making certain assumptions that cannot be fully verified.
So we have three hundred years of temperature measurements with constantly improving accuracy.
But how can they possibly know from 300 years that this is a globally historic event?
Could this not be a normal temperature cycle that happens say every 600 years and has nothing to do with anything man has done?
There is no real way of knowing because only actually know with certainty that the temperatures have changed over the last 300 years.
And there are other reasonable explanations for those recorded changes.
Now, HAVING SAID ALL OF THAT, man was given the task of looking after the Earth in Genesis 2 and 3, and we should be doing our utmost not to mistreat the planet that God has supplied for us.
This should be the underlying motivation for any "environmentalism" and if it is, that will of course be tempered with the other commands of God, so it will not get out of hand.
We should look after this place because God told us to.
Just thought I would ask in the general sense - I know the standard IBF run down on the issue, and I don't particularly want a whole big argument going on, but maybe people could give their understanding of who has the authority to start a new church.
This is almost, if you will, a survey of PEOPLE's thoughts on the matter.
If you want to include some scripture to support that would be fine, but I am really looking for people's understanding, so even a general reference to the "the Bible says..." without a direct quote would be acceptable in this instance.
So the Question:
"Who has the authority to start a Biblical church?"
"what would be a short description of the process of starting a Biblical church".
Answer either or both, and anyone is welcome.
Anderson isn't only hated by the world, but he is hated by the brethren. Why? IMO even if one disagrees with his stance on Israel or the rapture, you would have to see his love for the lost. What is the true measure of love? FWBC is winning like 100 per week, why would any christian want him to go away?
I have developed a free, open source Offline King James Bible Search application.
No charge. No ads. Just KJV.
Once downloaded, it provides full functionality, even when no internet connection is available.
By selecting 'Add to home screen' on your Android or iOS device, the application mimics a native application.
There are two versions:
* Android/Windows/Linux; any platform with the latest version of Google Chrome (or Mozilla Firefox).
* iOS 10+ (iPhone/iPad).
I welcome your comments and suggestions...
Who's Online 1 Member, 2 Anonymous, 61 Guests (See full list)