re: Anthropologists, at what point do you believe we became sentient?

quote:

---

Pascal's Wager is the opposite of faith and doesn't save someone's soul in any sense.

---

It could be a starting point. Would you rather me tell you to re read the Gospels? I recommend that too.

This is a reply to Salmon too.

quote:

---

What you don't understand is that one is either a Christian theist or an atheist, but again, I don't expect anyone to believe that, though it is true.

---

quote:

---

---

This is not a popular belief, but if you do not believe in the Christian God then you don't believe in any god.

I say this because the Christian God is the only God.
While an "a"gnostic literally claims to "not know" they are still an unbeliever. They do not believe in God, therefore they are an "a"theist.
There are of course levels of atheism. Even those that are open to belief...but "agnostic" should not even be a word when it comes to the existence of God. It's illogical. You either believe in him or you suppress the knowledge of him.

Oh OK. Similar in some respects to how Muslims believe that everyone is a Muslim. It's just that some people have not embraced Islam.

quote:

---

There are plenty of people who believe in the divine yet not necessarily the divinity of Jesus, thus theists.

---

That's fine that you believe that, but for me to be a consistent Christian I would have to say that those people are atheist, meaning that they deny the true God.

quote:

---

There are plenty of people who are open both the possibility of God and the impossibility of God, yet not informed enough to make a choice, thus Agnostics.

---

You can be open to the possibility that a stock might reach $100. You cannot be open to the possibility that God exists. It's not a natural thought. I'm getting into the Bible now. Again, when you know Christianity well you know the things I'm saying to be consistent with what Christianity actually is.

quote:

---

What an utter load of nonsense.

---

I'm essentially saying what AW Pink said when he wrote this:

"The "god" of this twentieth century no more resembles the Supreme Sovereign of Holy Writ than does the dim flickering of a candle the glory of the midday sun. The "god" who is now talked about in the average pulpit, spoken of in the ordinary Sunday School, mentioned in much of the religious literature of the day, and preached in most of the so-called Bible conferences is the figment of human imagination, an invention of maudlin sentimentality. The heathen outside of the pale of Christendom form "gods" out of wood and stone, while millions of heathen inside Christendom manufacture a "god" out of their own carnal mind. A "god" whose will is resisted, whose designs are frustrated, whose purpose is checkmated, possesses no title to Deity, and so far from being a fit object of worship, merits nought but contempt."

Ah yes. You are one of those Christians. The holiest of holies.

quote:

---

The holiest of holies.

---

Oh no. Far from it. Reading theology and listening to theological lectures tends to produce a better understanding of Christianity than the folks who never read theology or listen to theological lectures.

That should be fairly straightforward.

quote:

---

The holiest of holies.

---

I'm not a fundamentalist.

But it looks like we are done with the topic at hand.

I'll have any discussion or field any question you may have about Christianity.

This goes for anyone. bayoubengals1988@gmail.com

quote:

---

till next time

---

know the other side

What is crazy is about 95% of the responses didn't answer your question.

I'll go with approximately 40-65,000 years ago