Article VII of The Constitution states "The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same. Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness thereof, we have hereunto subscribed our names." By using the words "year of our Lord" the writers and ratifiers of the Constitution not only acknowledged God, but recognized Jesus as Lord.

No man is an Ireland entire to himself, well unless your on a dammed good pension which I got, so I'm free free and able to be objective, most people are not.

That is my start as a fixed term of reference but I didn't describe it very well, it really begins with the child wanting to communicate after an immediate recognition, so an association then usually comes about based on trust from the child and decision by the adult.

Then as the child grows it becomes decisions decisions decisions on both counts whoever in the relationship can provide protection against nature expects servility from the other party as a consequence of hierarchy to preserve the correct social order.

However an individual cannot be bound by an agreement that is based on voluntary surrender to coercion, the individual has to be Pure Chastity from their personal perspective, so agreement with others about evolution has to be beyond reproach.

Not withstanding this problematic component of personality in general an individual can only be specialist in a few things, everything else has to be the accepting of other people's opinions by agreement, which is the fundamental foundation stone of loyalty or faith.

Alas ! individuals hardly ever reform on anything.

That's mechanistic because collective endeavor could only be Pure and free of wrong ideas in a Utopianism environment, that probably is a pristine condition or being on a good pension, anything less would prohibit collective endeavor except by coercion.

So accepting evolution or not accepting evolution becomes a condition of social life to an individual almost untouchable because of the instinct of loyalty that caused their society by personal commitment.

So it's not really about science it's more to do with Theological understandings being defined, now, ! fortunately as I was telling KiraSeer this morning because I know, for sure, how God came about and passed on the same process to the lucky ones among us, who hope listed in Heaven, I've got a great advantage in that defining.

Hi acknowledgeurma,

I would think so too. Not in the name of any man or men, not in the name of any organization, but in the name of the One before whom every knee will ultimately bow; understanding Who the Bible says He is, and that our salvation is complete in faith in Him.

There is no further sacrifice for those who are in Christ Jesus, for as He told us from the Cross of Calvary, "It is finished."

We could not know that without Scripture.

We would be worshipping another Jesus, one kept perpetually upon the cross, or ever the baby in His mother's arms, rather than our resurrected Savior, our mediator with God, the Father, Who is seated by His side in Paradise.

The more profoundly unique and absolute a phenomena is, the easier it is to regard it as accepted without consideration, because of the relationship between significant and insignificant.

Commitment is the equivalent of loyalty and commitment is significantly insignificant depending on how you regard it, at the time, it can't be one size fits all, with "agreement-being" the only real absolute in a battle to survive against nature elusive for the individual let alone two of them.(Confucius)

None of the theories you just espoused are relevant to the point I made. Maybe if I called your ideas 'conspiracy theories' instead of just theories you would find it easier to reject and dismiss your own nonsense. You've got to be brain-dead to think mindless slow evolution brought about the thousands of varieties of aerodynamic perfection each atuned to the lifestyle of each of the bugs and birds that they are. Obviously, it had to all come about once by a supernatural super intelligent entity. Doesn't the (imaginary) site of those 'only halfway' developed useless appendages being furiously flapped in an attempt to get off the ground by those poor missing link creatures make you LOL ???

Where is the One True Church of Christianity?


"For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Corinthians 3:11).

The only foundation of Biblical Christianity is Jesus Christ. He is not merely a part of Christianity. He IS Christianity.

Many people now seem to believe that Christianity is merely a code of morality that says, "Do this" and "Don’t do that." Many have tried to hold to these codes without the reality of knowing and bowing before Jesus the Christ. But this will not work.

The eternal indivisible unity of the true church is assured by Scripture to all who have been united by the indwelling Holy Spirit. This includes every believer who has come to the foot of the cross in repentance, and in faith that through the completed work of Jesus Christ our debt, our deserved death sentence for sin, has been eternally paid in full.

Some churches have been built upon a great hierarchy of traditions. Others have been built upon an elaborate code of conduct. Still others attempt to build on sentimental love or an intense emotional experience. But Jesus is the only solid foundation of the church. A church built upon any other foundation is not a church of the God who created the universe, and then formed man from the dust and woman from man, breathing the breath of life into both of them.

In Holy Scripture using "which church came first" as a basis to determine the "true" church is unknown, i.e., never mentioned, never a qualifier. Rather, God's Word teaches one is to use Scripture as the plumb line, the rule of measure in determining which church is preaching the truth of the gospel, God's only plan for our salvation, and is thus, true to the first church of the first century.

Comparing Scripture with a any contemporary church's actual teaching on the core issues of:

1) the full deity and humanity of Christ,
2) the only atonement for sin through His blood on Calvary,
3) mankind's salvation from sin by grace through faith, and
4) the infallibility of the Scriptures,

is the only proof of whether that specific church is true to the “first church,” the “one true church” that is historically described as our example, our guide, in the New Testament. That New Testament church is the model, the only example that all other Christian churches are to faithfully follow and emulate through the ages.

Successfully tracing one's contemporary church back to that Biblical very “first church” through "apostolic succession" is a claim used by several different churches today, each insisting their church is the “one true church.” The Roman Catholic Church makes this claim. The Greek Orthodox Church also makes this claim. In addition, some Protestant denominations make this claim. There are other denominations, as well as well known cults, “Christian” and otherwise, that also make this same claim.

The first church, its growth, doctrine, and practices, were recorded for all future generations in the New Testament. Jesus, as well as His apostles, foretold and warned that false teachers would arise, and it is recorded in various New Testament epistles that these apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century were already fighting against false teachers as the New Testament was being completed. The claim to possess an elaborate, although falsified, line of descent to the true church is never touted, discussed or in any way approved.

The only command is repeated requests for comparisons between what false teachers teach and what the first church taught, as recorded in Scripture. Whether or not a church is faithfully following that "true church" is determined by comparing its teachings and practices with that New Testament church as it is recorded in Scripture.

In Acts 20:17-38, the Apostle Paul talks one last time to the church leaders in the metropolis of Ephesus, face to face. It is recorded in vv. 29-30 that He warns them not only will false teachers come in among them but, some will arise FROM among them. Paul does not instruct them that they must follow the "first" organized church as a safeguard for the truth. He commits them to the safekeeping of "God and to the Word of His grace" (v. 32). Thus, all necessary truth could be received by depending upon God and "the word of His grace," i.e., Scripture (John 10:35).

This demand for dependence upon the Word of God, rather than following certain individual "founders" is written again in Galatians 1:8-9, in which Paul states, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed (eternally condemned). As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." Thus, the basis by which we determine truth from error, is not based upon Who is teaching it, thoug it be “we or an angel from heaven,” but whether it is still the same gospel that they had already received – the gospel as it is recorded in Scripture.

In 2nd Peter another example exists of this dependence upon the Word of God. The Apostle Peter is fighting against false teachers, and in doing so, Peter declares that we have a "more sure word" on which we can depend than even expecting to hear the voice of God from heaven as they did at Jesus' transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-21). This “more sure word” is the written Word of God. Peter again reminds them to be true to "the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets (Old Testament) and the commandments of his and the other apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2 Peter 3:2) inspired by the Holy Spirit. Both are recorded in Scripture for our constant reference, the words of the holy prophets and the commandments for His church which Jesus gave to His apostles.

To determine whether or not a church is teaching correct doctrine, the only infallible standard that Scripture ever teaches us that we have is the Bible (Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 2:25; Galatians 1:6-9). Any "tradition" that is a part of a church must be compared to God's Word, lest it war against what is true (Mark 7:1-13). It is true that the cults and even orthodox churches sometimes present a twisted interpretation of Scripture to support their own practices; nonetheless, it is Scripture alone, when taken in context and faithfully, prayerfully studied, which is able to guide sincere seekers to the truth found only in Christ and His gospel.

The “first church” is the church that is specifically recorded in the New Testament, in the Book of Acts and the Epistles of Paul. The New Testament church is the “original church” and the “one true church.” For our benefit, Scripture describes it in great detail. The church, as recorded in the New Testament, is God’s pattern and foundation for His church. On this basis alone, examine the Roman Catholic claim that it is the “first church.” Nowhere in the New Testament will you find the “one true church” doing any of these core elements of the Roman Catholic faith which follow:

1) praying to Mary,
2) praying to the saints,
3) venerating Mary,
4) submitting to a pope,
5) having a select priesthood,
6) baptizing an infant,
7) observing the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments, or
8) passing apostolic authority on to any successors of the apostles.

If none of these vital core elements of the Roman Catholic Church were ever practiced by the New Testament Church, which is (the first church and the one true church), how then can the Roman Catholic Church be the first church? A serious personal study of the New Testament will clearly reveal to anyone that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as the one true church that the New Testament so accurately describes.

The New Testament records the history of the church from ca 30 A.D. through ca 90A.D.. Sadly, in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries. historians record several encroaching Roman Catholic doctrines and practices that were introduced among the Christians who followed after the Apostles were gone. These Christians in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries were not the earliest Christians. Again, the New Testament records the doctrine and practice of the earliest Christians… and, the New Testament does not teach Roman Catholicism. Yet, as Paul, Peter and Jude had clearly warned, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century church began to exhibit heretical signs of Roman Catholicism.

For the most part, the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th century church members of the rapidly growing, although persecuted church, and many of those that followed them, lacked access to adequate copies of the completed New Testament. These Holy Scriptures were hand written, and accordingly, were slow to produce, and personal copies were prohibitively expensive. Individual congregations had portions of the New Testament, but the New Testament and the full Bible were not yet commonly available until after the invention of the printing press in 1440 A.D..

The early church did its best in passing on the teachings of the apostles through oral teaching and preaching, and through extremely limited availability to God's Word in written form. False doctrines crept into the church, although there were always small groups of Christian believers who clung only to the Scriptures they had obtained or heard and resisted new teachings they had not known. The Protestant Reformation came about, in large part because of the timely invention of the printing press, which, after the translation of the Bible into the prevalent common languages, made it available to the public.

As soon as people could obtain the Bible, and study it for themselves, it became obvious to them how very far the doctrines and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church had departed from the first church, the one true church, that is described by the eye witnesses in the New Testament.

We therefore can testify that none of these, loudly proclaiming themselves to be the priceless first church of Holy Scripture is not. Not the modern Roman Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church, or the barely recognizable liberal denominations, or the claimed-to-be-Christian cults, for none can truthfully identify with or meet the requirements to be the Biblically described first church, which is the New Testament church, the one true church founded by Jesus Christ, who is it's Foundation Stone (1st Peter 2:6).

There are, however, even in the most apostate church, the tares and the wheat - who are those sincere believers whose faith is in Jesus, not in their church, who will be numbered among the saints.

"The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather up the tares?

"But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn."
(Matthew 13: 28-30)


References: "A Woman Rides the Beast," by Dave Hunt
"The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God," by James McCarthy

Why don't you show me where the Bible says the world is only 6,000 years old. I know where it talks about the car, radio, an atomic blast and has even predicted the Jews history with complete accuracy. Matter of fact there is no other book that has predicted the future as the Bible has and the chances of that as numerous as the grains of sand. But as far as giving any dates on the world is 6,000 years old you'll have to fill me in. I must of missed that part. I guess those behemoth (Dinosaurs) it talks about died off last week.

His post was in response to mine, in which desparado assigned me to "a special place in hell," and of course I understood that; however, I chose to overlook it, chiding him instead for his misuse of English.

May I suggest you extend that same magnanimous kindness to teach our mutual friend English.

These weren't typos. A typo, according to my dictionary, is "a mistake in printed matter resulting from mechanical failures of some kind."

One was a misspelling, through the addition of an extra consonant, the other the insertion of an apostrophe creating the contraction of two words instead of the one intended, i.e., "'won't' is a contraction of 'will not'"; "'o'clock' is a contraction of 'of the clock, and he'll is a contraction of he will.'

There is a built-in misspelling advisory on OPP in red, intended to warn the writer of a misspelling, which calls for an online spell check.

Thank you again for your extreme kindness, however you are lacking insight in comprehending the dynamics of the verbal exchange you chose to critique.

I was not criticizing you for your input nor was I insinuating this was a private two way conversation or that I felt you were "butting" in. I accept your statements about the Alabama Judiciary relieving Judge Moore of his position on the Alabama Suoreme Court however I do not accept the ruling against the 10 Commandments or same sex marriage. To me, the 10 Commandments are the fabric of this country and marriage is between a man and a woman. I know these aren't popular beliefs and is far from being politically correct but those are my beliefs based on my Christian upbringing.
I hope you have a great day! 😃
SGM B out.