Meet Luis he was born in Boston. Luis was onThe Way of the Master Radio Hour 2 on Tuesday. He recently moved to
Texas and said, "I can't stand it here because the party life is terrible."
When I asked him where a person goes after they die he responded,"I believe that when a person dies they go into the ground just like a dog."
My friend Gigi and I spoke with Luis for
almost an hour after the program and Luis had
a lot to say and so did we. So we preached the Gospel to him
and defended the faith as he threw different questions our way.
He enjoyed the gospel tracts. And I read him parts of Ephesians 5
and almost the entire chapter of Romans 1...
and he stood there completely still--listening intently.
And right before we left he said,
"You'll hear back from me...I'm gonna take you up
on your challenge and read the whole bible
but you might not hear back from me for a while."
"Why is that?" I asked.
"Because the bible is a big book isn't is and it
will take me a long time to get through." He said with a smile.
"It sure is...so I tell you what Luis...
Why don't you read the book of John
(you can read it in one night) and after you're done...
shoot me an email or comment on my blog..." I proposed.
"Sure thing...you have my word on it." He assured us.
Let's pray Luis reads the bible and recognizes his sinful
state before a holy and just God and that he will fling himself on God's
mercy by repenting and trusting in Christ to cleanse him from his sin.
To listen to the broadcast click here:
November 11, 2008 - Hour 2
It starts about 20 minutes in to the hour.
19 comments:
Be glad that he didn't ask you to test whether you were a believer or not by drinking poison as it says in Mark 16: 17-18
16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
I would have.
I notice that many believers have no problem with verse 17, but with verse 18....
I know that you people have no problems with "laying" of hands on the sick (though that never seems to work with physically obvious diseases or injuries), so why the problem with drinking poison? It'd make for an interesting YouTube video, provided it was real poison.
======
One other thing; just because a person says that a place doesn't have a good party scene doesn't necessarily mean that their main goal in life is to party.
It looks to me like you're trying to unfairly pin a label on this guy; probably to make your witless witnessing seem more impressive.
Be glad that he didn't ask you to test whether you were a believer or not by drinking poison as it says in Mark 16: 17-18
Perhaps you should read up on some New Testament scholarship and not embarrass yourself. Mark 16 ends at verse 8, and there is a legitimate debate as to whether or not those passages were latter additions.
I know that you people have no problems with "laying" of hands on the sick (though that never seems to work with physically obvious diseases or injuries), so why the problem with drinking poison? It'd make for an interesting YouTube video, provided it was real poison.
Perhaps you should hassle the irrational hyper Pentecostals and keep from attempting to engage some Reformed Southern Baptists. We're not high on our view of the charismatic gifts (although they are debatable). Also, as I said above, learn something about our position before attempting to engage Christians on it.
One other thing; just because a person says that a place doesn't have a good party scene doesn't necessarily mean that their main goal in life is to party.
Technically all men are wicked vile sinners who hate God and seek the pleasure of their sin. This means, you're also a hedonist. Hedonist.
It looks to me like you're trying to unfairly pin a label on this guy; probably to make your witless witnessing seem more impressive.
It looks to me like our children church ministry teaches more about Christian doctrine in one day than you have ever read about. Her witnessing is a simple presentation of the gospel, we're not aimed to persuade only aimed at presenting the Gospel offer for all men. As the man above, if you don't repent you will also perish.
Ah yes, I forgot to note the dictionary definition of what a Hedonist is:
"a person whose life is devoted to the
pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification."
There is precious little in that guy's statement that labels him as a person who's entire life is devoted to self-gratification. Athiests do have other things to think about you know. Like military service, serving the community in a dangerous job like fireman, etc.
Look at the sites Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers for instance.
Well, why don't you ask your god whether those verses should be in there or not, instead of relying on fallible human scholarship?
Why should I? I know they don't belong there. It seems you're the one who doesn't.
After all, aren't you people able to talk to your god or are the verses that imply that also later additions?
I talk to God all the time, he speaks to me through his scripture are you embarrasing yourself again by not understanding Christian doctrine as it pertains to God's revealed will, and how he speaks to His people today?
*Btw* read the rules you will be banned from this site if you do not capitalize God and Jesus*
Then, once the debate is settled, then you can see if I'm "embarrassing" myself. If there is a legitimate debate, you're standing on the same kind of shaky ground I am.
No need to see you've made it quite clear.
By the way, what about the legitimate debates as to the timing of the writing of the gospels, or their authorship?
They're legitimate. So what?
Do you accept that as a "legitimate" debate too, or is there only a legitimate debate about the part of the bible that one can actually test?
I reject the extra portion of Mark on the basis that it lacks manuscript evidence and scholars on both sides of the spectrum do also. See Dan Wallace and the 'venerable' Bart Erhman.
Is there a debate about the part of the bible where your "Lord" tells his disciples that if they believe, they'll be able to do all sorts of miracles like he could?
No, because I believe they did miracles.
Sure...just as soon as you people can get it straight as to just who the "real" christians" are!
I just hear a whiny skeptic who didn't know who he was dealing with and decided to over generalize.
I hear that Catholics aren't real christians, I hear that Protestants aren't. Now it sounds like it's the "irrational hyper Pentecostals" who aren't, and the "Reformed Southern Baptists" are. Tell me, which version of the Southern Baptists were the ones who defended slavery, by the way? Were they real christians as well?
Wow. You're all over the place. Apparently you have a minimal understanding of Protestantism and the distinctive doctrines in Protestant traditions as opposed to Roman Catholic doctrines. Also, what does affirming slavery have to do with the pitiful response you gave to Trish regarding her labeling of the admitted hedonist. Are you faulting a 21st century Baptist for the errors of a 20th century Baptist? Can I fault you for the errors of atheists? Communism? The Chinese government?
No, it doesn't. A hedonist is a person who loves to party. Not all people do. Nice attempt at dodging Trish's ad-hom attack against that guy though.
My, you're dense. You defined Hedonism in your post and then you contradict yourself:
Ah yes, I forgot to note the dictionary definition of what a Hedonist is:
"a person whose life is devoted to the
pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification."
It looks to me that you are ignorant about the "scholarship" of your own holy book and yet are willing to castigate others about it.
No, I'm aware of the opposing side which is why I pointed out that there was a debate regarding the last twelve verses. Mr. Dense.
Javier said...quoting me
Well, why don't you ask your god whether those verses should be in there or not, instead of relying on fallible human scholarship?
Why should I? I know they don't belong there. It seems you're the one who doesn't.
Maybe that's because I don't have this "pipeline" to the author like you do.
Guess what? Every Christian sect out there who has a different interpretation of the various verses in the bible would also say the same thing you just did! So, the problem stands. You believe your interpretation is right, so what?
After all, aren't you people able to talk to your god or are the verses that imply that also later additions?
I talk to God all the time, he speaks to me through his scripture are you embarrasing yourself again by not understanding Christian doctrine as it pertains to God's revealed will, and how he speaks to His people today?
Nope. Every christian I know claims that he speaks to them through the scriptures as you also claim, but there are still all those problems of different interpretations.
The problem stands. Deal with it.
As an aside: what's prayer for then, if not communing with this deity of yours?
*Btw* read the rules you will be banned from this site if you do not capitalize God and Jesus**
I used the phrase "your god" as a reference, not a proper name.
Then, once the debate is settled, then you can see if I'm "embarrassing" myself. If there is a legitimate debate, you're standing on the same kind of shaky ground I am.
No need to see you've made it quite clear.
Yes. If there's a debate still going on then that means that you don't have any real right to just assert that Mark 16 ends at verse 8.
Once the debate is settled, THEN you can say that.
By the way, what about the legitimate debates as to the timing of the writing of the gospels, or their authorship?
They're legitimate. So what?
That's debatable, but anyway, the point was that there are a lot of debates going on about this holy book of yours. Why is that the case if you people claim that that book is how it's author communicates with you?
Do you accept that as a "legitimate" debate too, or is there only a legitimate debate about the part of the bible that one can actually test?
I reject the extra portion of Mark on the basis that it lacks manuscript evidence and scholars on both sides of the spectrum do also. See Dan Wallace and the 'venerable' Bart Erhman.
And other people accept them...some have even pointed out that other parts of the bible are also missing from the oldest manuscripts.
There is also one part from Mark 16 that you've left out: 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover
Many denominations go for that "laying on of hands stuff" to "cure" diseases. What about your denomination?
I know that some Reformed Baptists are cessationists and believe that the miracles the apostles did aren't done anymore. If your particular group actually goes against that, then your position about the poison drinking is weakened.
If your group does believe that those type of NT miracles are not done anymore, then great. Let me know when the argument over Mark 16:9-18 is over ok?
Is there a debate about the part of the bible where your "Lord" tells his disciples that if they believe, they'll be able to do all sorts of miracles like he could?
No, because I believe they did miracles.
And why? You've just blindly said that you accept those miracles. What's the evidence that those miracles actually happened?
Besides, if "miracles" exist, what's one more miracle? You know, drinking poison for example?
Sure...just as soon as you people can get it straight as to just who the "real" christians" are!
I just hear a whiny skeptic who didn't know who he was dealing with and decided to over generalize.
Whiny? Huh? Whatever floats your boat. If you believers feel compelled by the "Holy Spirit" to make guesses about my personality, fine. I can give it right back.
Could you point out the actual "whine" though? I want to see if it means what you think it means.
By the way, why don't you tell us which denomination has the correct interpretation of "God's Word" then? I'm assuming that the true believers would have the proper interpretation.
I hear that Catholics aren't real christians, I hear that Protestants aren't. Now it sounds like it's the "irrational hyper Pentecostals" who aren't, and the "Reformed Southern Baptists" are. Tell me, which version of the Southern Baptists were the ones who defended slavery, by the way? Were they real christians as well?
Wow. You're all over the place. Apparently you have a minimal understanding of Protestantism and the distinctive doctrines in Protestant traditions as opposed to Roman Catholic doctrines. Also, what does affirming slavery have to do with the pitiful response you gave to Trish regarding her labeling of the admitted hedonist.
Man, you're slow. The point about slavery was in response to your talking about the different groups of christians out there who are basing their denominations on different interpretations of the bible. Remember your comment about the "irrational hyper Pentecostals"?
What makes you so sure that they're wrong and your group the Reformed Southern Baptists is right? In other words, which group has interpreted the word of your deity correctly?
My comment about slavery was a shot at you Baptists since I know that you people had a little schism about slavery a while back. Which group of Baptists back then had the proper interpretation of "the Word"?
Are you faulting a 21st century Baptist for the errors of a 20th century Baptist? Can I fault you for the errors of atheists? Communism? The Chinese government?
Only if you can find some "holy book" that all of us subscribe to, which has rules that we're all supposed to follow, but yet the different groups have interpreted those rules differently. You know, like with all your Christian denominations and the bible?
Try to keep up, please.
No, it doesn't. A hedonist is a person who loves to party. Not all people do. Nice attempt at dodging Trish's ad-hom attack against that guy though.
My, you're dense. You defined Hedonism in your post and then you contradict yourself:
Ah yes, I forgot to note the dictionary definition of what a Hedonist is:
"a person whose life is devoted to the
pursuit of pleasure and self-gratification."
Pot, kettle, black Sherlock. What I said was A hedonist is a person who loves to party. Not all people do. The dictionary definition just elaborated more.
Besides, it's by the dictionary definition that Trish's statement about the guy being a hedonist is wrong. He nowhere said that his life was devoted to it. He just said he liked to party. It's a difference in quantity here.
Try again, only be awake this time eh?
It looks to me that you are ignorant about the "scholarship" of your own holy book and yet are willing to castigate others about it.
No, I'm aware of the opposing side which is why I pointed out that there was a debate regarding the last twelve verses. Mr. Dense.
And I just pointed out, genius, that since there IS a debate about it, you don't really have a right to just arbitarily dismiss those verses until the debate is settled. Remember what you said just before you admitted that there's a debate about it? You said: Mark 16 ends at verse 8.
Here's a clue: That's something that one would say one the debate is over!
I pointed out some people's reasons for keeping those verses in the bible. You pointed out some people who think that those verses should go. Once the debates, over in your favour, then you'd be free to dismiss them.
Guess what? Every Christian sect out there who has a different interpretation of the various verses in the bible would also say the same thing you just did! So, the problem stands. You believe your interpretation is right, so what?
Of course I would believe my interpretation is right, or else why would I argue for it. Is there an argument here?
Nope. Every christian I know claims that he speaks to them through the scriptures as you also claim, but there are still all those problems of different interpretations.
Of course there are problems over interpretations, is there an argument here?
The problem stands. Deal with it.
Of course there is a problem, I didn't deny it. And its been dealt with many times, unless of course because its still a problem means I'm unable to make any conclusions. Which would then mean that if Mr. Dense is consistent he's not able to make any conclusions about the problem itself, and even the problem of the problem of interpretation is unable to be decided because we're debating it. And because we're debating the problem, means we cannot make any conclusions until its decided. Yet who decides the problem? Does Mr. Dense think that because there are still debates over issues in scripture , I cannot make conclusions from the scriptures themselves? Or perhaps Mr. Dense is unable to recognize that there is an incredible amount of evidence for the exclusion of the last twelve verses of Mark ?
As an aside: what's prayer for then, if not communing with this deity of yours?
As an aside answer: Prayer is a form of worship.
Yes. If there's a debate still going on then that means that you don't have any real right to just assert that Mark 16 ends at verse 8.
Apparently this gives you the advantage since now you can assert that I am bound to defend these verses even though I deny that they are scripture. Yet in asserting my defense you are defending them yourself. Have you decided that these verses are valid? How can you decide if the debate is 'still going on'?
Once the debate is settled, THEN you can say that.
Once the debate is settled you can argue against me on this one. Since its not settled we cannot argue about this debate.
That's debatable, but anyway, the point was that there are a lot of debates going on about this holy book of yours. Why is that the case if you people claim that that book is how it's author communicates with you?
The same reason there is a lot of a debate about everything else. People like to debate things, even if they're wrong. The Christian worldview accounts for the inability of men to accept the truth of God. They, like you do, suppress the truth in unrighteousness.
And other people accept them...some have even pointed out that other parts of the bible are also missing from the oldest manuscripts.
Yes, a passage in 1 John and The Gospel of John, as I said there is a scholarly debate on this point.
There is also one part from Mark 16 that you've left out: 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover
Many denominations go for that "laying on of hands stuff" to "cure" diseases. What about your denomination?
My denomination is historically cessationist, my Church, if you must know, is soft on this view but we do not practice this.
I know that some Reformed Baptists are cessationists and believe that the miracles the apostles did aren't done anymore. If your particular group actually goes against that, then your position about the poison drinking is weakened.
Incorrect. Baptists believe God can heal, but the basis is not that portion of scripture, and we are not Deists God is active in nature and time today. In fact God is the cause of your foolishness.
If your group does believe that those type of NT miracles are not done anymore, then great. Let me know when the argument over Mark 16:9-18 is over ok?
Thats right, but if that's the case why did you cite it to Trish? Didn't you know that the debate wasn't over in the first place? And if you did, you were being disingenuous. After all, we cannot make conclusions about the debate if its still taking place right? Yet you assumes it was settled when you threw it at Trish as if it was some argument.
And why? You've just blindly said that you accept those miracles. What's the evidence that those miracles actually happened?
The Bible is evidence that it happened.
Besides, if "miracles" exist, what's one more miracle? You know, drinking poison for example?
Should I answer this irrational question after we've gone over this more than once already?
Could you point out the actual "whine" though? I want to see if it means what you think it means.
Yes, go back to the initial blogpost to Trish.
By the way, why don't you tell us which denomination has the correct interpretation of "God's Word" then? I'm assuming that the true believers would have the proper interpretation.
I believe that God calls his elect in all forms of Christendom all others are going to hell.
My comment about slavery was a shot at you Baptists since I know that you people had a little schism about slavery a while back. Which group of Baptists back then had the proper interpretation of "the Word"?
The ones I'm defending, why would i defend any other?
Only if you can find some "holy book" that all of us subscribe to, which has rules that we're all supposed to follow, but yet the different groups have interpreted those rules differently. You know, like with all your Christian denominations and the bible?
Why should we limit these to rules from Holy books? Atheists have rules they follow, granted they are arbitrary and relativistic, communist Russia and China didn't agree on all things. How about peaceful atheists? You need not limit it to a Holy Book, thats nonsense.
Try to keep up, please.
Perhaps you should get a clue?
Pot, kettle, black Sherlock. What I said was A hedonist is a person who loves to party. Not all
people do. The dictionary definition just elaborated more.
My, you are dense. Perhaps you should note that Trish also defined the word herself.
And I just pointed out, genius, that since there IS a debate about it, you don't really have a right to just arbitarily dismiss those verses until the debate is settled. Remember what you said just before you admitted that there's a debate about it? You said: Mark 16 ends at verse 8.
Mr. Dense, since the debate is not over, then you are unable to cite these verses against Trish as well. In fact you cannot argue from any passage against Christianity since its all a point of debate. In fact since your position is a debate, you are unable to argue for or against Christianity. You are therefore either left in a position of skepticism or utter absurdity. Congratulations!
I have also published your responses on my blog. "FLOG A BLOG" if you'd like to read it there.
Trish,
I'm curious as to why two of Reynold's replies were removed. If he offended, he cannot amend unless he knows why.
Javier have constantly abused Reynold by calling him Mr. Dense, yet he remains unchastised. Where is the fairness?
Regards...
Dr. Mabuse...It was because of one of these three reasons:
1. Any comments we deem abusive or outside the boundaries of Christian civility will not be published.
2. Any comments that don't properly, and respectfully, capitalize the name "Jesus" and/or "God," or use these in a blasphemous manner, will not be published.
3. Any comments that include website links will not be published. (Since we are unable to fully explore every web site, the inclusion of a url may mean we choose not to publish your otherwise wonderful comment. If your web site is important to you, we suggest you include it in your personal profile).
With that said, Reynold is free to comment more...but please make sure he follows the 3 rules.
Thanks for commenting!
Condescending aren't you? Calling me "Mr. Dense" is within the realms of "christian civility" then? Your refusal to comment yourself when I reply to your post and getting someone else to do it for you is "christian civility"?
You people don't have civility. You have selective morality and self-righteousness.
Scratch that..."condescending" is the wrong word. "Hypocritical" is better.
trish wrote: "Dr. Mabuse...It was because of one of these three reasons:"
Yes, yes... But which of the three? Since Reynold has identified himself as Atheist, he may be uncertain of where the boundaries of Christian civility is drawn. If that indeed was the offence, then a gentle pointer to him about there the line actually is drawn will perhaps help him avoid stepping over the line next time..
If his offence was not capitalising the names "Jesus" and/or "God" as Javier harped about earlier, there may be an explanation to that too.
Let's consider this analogy:
I have a wife. I want everyone to show her proper respect by having you capitalising her name. That's easy to do because you know her name is Liselotte. But I wouldn't demand that you capitalise the reference to her as my wife. If you say: "how about your wife?" I do not demand you to capitalise "wife" because it's not a reference to her by name, but by function.
Likewise it wouldn't be grammatically correct to have Reynold capitalise God when he is referring to God as the function of deity. Indeed, if you can replace the word "god" with the word "deity" then he has not violated rule #2 since he wasn't using the name "God", but the referent to the function, or title of the position of being a deity.
As such, what I recall of the deleted posts, Reynold has shown much respect by going out of his way to use proper grammar. With one exception: where he exchanged one letter in the name "Jesus".
The reason for his choice to do so is unknown to me, but I guess we won't know without asking him.
I don't recall Reynold posting any links. Indeed, if there is any one link I would like you to follow, you can find it in my profile. It's a hang-out for skeptic friends.
Trish also wrote: "With that said, Reynold is free to comment more...but please make sure he follows the 3 rules.
"
I'm not Reynold's keeper, so I'm in no position to oversee what he's doing, and I have no ability whatsoever to enforce the rules on your behalf.
Hi, Trish!
Has Luis gotten back to you yet? (I haven't seen any posts under his name.)
Wow this was great, I had a similar challege and it helped change me praise God for his work through you guys..
Looks like Trish has abandoned this thread.
What's the point of throwing out the net to fish if you have no intention of collecting the catch?
Maybe she realised that atheist sharks has already shredded the net and it is useless to her now.
Hi Eliza,
Nope he never got back with me. So sad. But maybe he will one day. You just never know. I witnesses to one individual and it took them almost 6 months to finally email me. Thanks for caring.
Trish
Post a Comment