IS THERE A TRUE CHURCH IN THE WORLD TODAY?

wquiambao.,Here's my problem with your conclusion:First, the manner of presentation of your argument was not prophetic. You didn't present each argument for each scripture with a "thus sayeth the Lord, prophetically, to us." I know, of course, that this claim comes later, when you introduce Ms Eddy. Are you saying that she said that God told her the interpretation she presents is true? Was the prophetic gifting lost, or do other SDE's talk as if they had just come out of a prayer-closet conversation with God?Second, when I asked God, prophetically, what was up with the church, He told me that "commandments" did not mean the ten commandments, per se. It meant the commandments that Yeshua gave His disciples, about 130 in the various gospels and other NT books. These include the "don't think I came to abolish ..." command, refering to the law and the prophets. As to Sabbath keeping, when I "hearkened to His voice" to deal with the Sabbath, He said to keep the Sabbaths He says to keep, prophetically, not to treat one day above another, unless I was a guest with someone whose faith led them that way.Third, He told me, confirming in 1 Corinth 1-4, that any church with a name was not the true church. The church may be called, "the church of Yeshua the messiah" in a given geographic location, but other naming was a sign of tares. The true church, in other words, retains a low profile, while bundled groups with sectarian names are all tares. At least, that's what He prophetically told me.In my first attempt to interview Him about the dates during which the remnant was hidden, I also get a "much earlier" figure.So, while I found much of what you wrote quite enlightening, and confirmed what God had been saying to me, I find myself at a different set of conclusions. To wit, the true church:Is a woman. "Jerusalem from above is the mother of us all." The feminine part of Jehovah is the Spirit of Wisdom, which is a major part of the church. People in the true church call elders when they are sick, look to the church for wisdom in health and diet and relationships.Operates in covenant love. Everyone knows where they are jointed, who their spiritual leaders are, and spends more time with those persons, both those that lead them and those they lead, then with anyone else. They are inseparabe, as members of a body are inseparable. The prophetic ability is tied to "neural" input, from the mouth of God, flowing through these joints.Keeps the commandments of Yeshua, decently and in order, starting with Repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand. Members are not perfect, but they readily repent when corrected. They are aware of the 130 command curriculum that is their growth agenda.Is self-consciously prophetic, including "The lord spoke to me and said ..." in many comments through the day. Lets prophesy be judged, does it by the rules. Claims to know God personally, not just knows about God.Meets in homes, does not "think beyond what is written."Has no name. Is called "the church of Yeshua the messiah" in whereever, but only Yeshua is capitalized as a name. The true church may also be called by other words, such as church of God at .... Very informal.Trains children at home. Communion at every meal.This is all relevant to the creation vs evolution argument as follows:The most valid way to decide this controversy is to ask Jehovah Himself what happened. He was there, He knows. To do this, one must get prophetic. To get prophetic, one must be or making every effort to be, a part of the one true church. Atheists and agnostics who make no serious effort to hear God's voice don't really want to know the truth of the matter, because, in the end, that's the best way to be sure.Stephen

M. If He is really a part of our ecosystem, the fact that someone is in doubt, or has decided that He is not out there, has no influence at all on that reality. He can respond to an agnostic or atheistic prayer, as He chooses. Your comment confirms the biblical/theological hypothesis that agnostics and atheists are harboring the wishful thinking delusion that they are god, and what they decide is real, is really real. That they can get rid of the possibility of God by believing that He doesn't "exist".S.

M.You assert, Think about why you think this, despite my repeated claims to the contrary, and demonstrations of successful efforts to do so. I'd am curious about how you reach such conclusions.S.

M. I claimed that prayer studies exist that obtained statistically significant results, and were done rigorously enough to be publishd in a refereed journal. This claim was supported. I have claimed that the Scriptures describe the true church as not having a name or building, and cited the verses that say so, supporting my claim. I claim that there exists a scientific method, rather widely accepted (many web-sites) that protects humans from the dogmatically opinionated, all-or-nothing view of data or evidence, but allows, through bayesian calculations, the incorporation of "weak" or messy data into the process of improving the plausibility of various subjectively confused ideas, such as demons. The support for both these claims has been vigorously discussed. It has not been accepted as support only by those who cannot give up the idea that "proving" something is the only way evidence can be used.The perserverance of Hinduism does reflect, in my appraisal of plausibility, the existence of some immortal spiritual beings or being, who cause people to believe that religion. True, in that sense. But, the hypothesis that this being is not the "one true God" remains to be tested further. It is my understanding that when persons coming on the scene with orthodox theology, their prayers drive out of the minds of Hindus the idea that this religion is the most useful. I've heard anecdotes to that effect, anyway. In fact, the "happiest" state in all of India, I understand, is 100% followers of Yeshua.But let the tests go on! H-D science will bring us to the truth!Stephen

M.This exchange with Mike, No, Mike's claim is exactly what I have been saying. He, Jehovah, confirmed the biblical claim that we can "prove" Him because, if we do certain things (tithe, prayer studies, simple praying for ourselves, seeking Him with all our might, etc.) He proves Himself to us, (opens the windows to heaven and drives away the devourer, answers miraculously our prayers, either for an experiment, or personally, revealing Himself to us, etc.) I agree with Mike. You're just not getting this point, at least not as well as you seem to be understanding how H-D science works. Probably because you have a demon in your brain. But, you can test that hypothesis with a simple experiment, a H-D experiment. If it is true, and you pray an agnostic prayer to Jehovah, in the name and by the blood of Yeshua, (in the case that they are all real), you will understand what we are trying to say. So, if you are a real scientist, do it. Not me! I choose Jehovah's version of reality over mine. And, I choose to become a love-slave to Yeshua, taking charge of my own life only in those areas that He assigns to me. I wanted to be free, you see, and He has promised to set me free in all the ways I can manage. While before, trying to be my own boss, the devil kept taking me captive with an long list of have tos, and got tos, compulsions, addictions, and other forms of bond slavery.Hope this makes it even easier for you to understand us.Stephen

M.You report, Now that you are a scientist, why not repeat the experiment scientifically? To see if wishing and praying have the same chance of success?Stephen

M.You argue, This isn't true, but even it were, it is irrelevant to the point, that I have found and presented evidence to support my claim. But, I've made several comments here about what to expect, or not to expect, given the hypothesis that I am discussing, that Jehovah is a real entity in our ecosystem, that He answers prayers properly prayed, that the rules for proper praying are in the bible. Actually, as I have reviewed the "successful" and "unsuccessful" prayer studies, I have found the patterns consistent with the Biblical guidelines for praying. For example, often when Yeshua prayed for someone to be healed, when the illness had a demonic component to it, the one prayed for got worse, even critical, before they got better. This is a proverb, in fact, in Charismatic church circles. "I prayed and it got worse!" Keep praying is the proper response, based on Yeshua's parable about the widow and the unjust judge, and the fellow asking for bread in the middle of the night. What is easy? Throwing out irrelevant distractions to hide the fact that you said something that is obviously not true? To claim something is written in Scripture, and to show in support of that claim where exactly it is written, proves that when I say something, I give support for it. Which you claimed was never true.By the way, the bible that I read never talks to me, never says anything. You believe in talking books? My baby daughters had one....But, of course, you are arguing with ghosts of creationists, who defend their positions on non-biblical matters by quoting scriptures. We agree that this in non-sense. What is written in the scriptures is evidence only of the points that Jehovah seems to be making, that He confirms in scripture. These can be a starting point to a scientific investigation, as in prayer, for example, in designing studies to test spiritual hypotheses. But, of course, are not evidence, or data that support or refute any given non-biblical hypothesis. What is telling is your grasping at straws, like even considering for a minute that my citing of number of websites as evidence of wide-spread interes in a subject, is the basis for my "definition of science." Especially when I have given several times in other threads the story of how I was trained, by H.L.Lucas and R. van der Vaart, in scientific philosophy, read widely in the subject, practised what I was taught, and generated very successful scientific discoveries, proving that a. I understood what my teacher and the philosophers were saying, and b. that what they were saying was correct. I know that you hope that's not true, and that the provincial view you have of science is all there is. But, hoping won't make it so, and pretending we're talking about something else won't make it go away.I have noticed, by the way, that we are off thread in this discussion. Which is, "What is the true church of Yeshua, and does it matter to the evolution/creation discussion?" My point is that there is a true church, it is defined by certain rules in scripture, and it exists so that individuals can have heart-to-heart conversations with the Creator. A sincere effort to get to the truth of the matter can therefore be made, by finding such a church, joining, and then getting an interview with Jehovah, to ask Him whether or not He created using evolution, evolition, miracles, or something different. But, it is written in Scripture that anyone who does not receive the love of the truth, is given a spirit of delusion by God, so that they believe some lie ("My religion is the true one." "Biologic diversity came about without God's creative design, but by chance and natural selection.") So, before you would be allowed to find the church, to get an interview with God, you would have to demonstrate that you really do want the truth, not just to be right. Funny, I read those sites, delighted to find my every statement confirmed. [qs]It also supports the plausibility of non-existence of some immortal spiritual being. It also supports the plausibility that the breast of Janet Jackson that we did not see is actually god.0/qsThis statement supports the idea that there is a true church in the world, and that only in that church can someone find protection from bizarre mental functioning that your comment displays. There's help out there if you want it. Been practising it. But, one would have to know what it is to know about that.Stephen

M.You say, Are you accusing the cold fusion scientists of making statements without support, or of making some experimental mistake that led to irreproducible evidence for cold fusion? I have never done that here, nor for about 30 years. The validity of biblical matters is supported by experimental evidence in the world of data, testing biblical claims. Or not. It turns out that some claims have evidence to support them, others don't. A closer examination of the bible shows that this is part of what it says will be true, and it gives directions for how it is to be interpreted, so that one knows which claims to expect to be validated. Thus, so far as I am familiar with the relevant data, the book is consistently validated. Claims where it is "speaking in parables" are not literally validated. Claims of a more foundational nature are validated. Tithers prosper and prayers prayed aright are answered. Those who seek god with all their might find him. And bad people, when they have a temporary out-of-body experience, go to Hell, temporarily. Several have claimed that what they say H-D science is is different from what I describe, but the only specific example comes from a clear case of projection, leading to misunderstanding. I was accused of doing what the accuser, but not me, was doing: being subjective in the intrepretation of data. The accuser was responding to some clear, published, even peer reviewed data, explaining it away under clear subjective influence, while accusing me of justifying such irresponsible behavior, while I was objecting strenuously to this practise! According to Yeshua, this is exactly the behavior expected from minds not protected by membership in the "true" church. ("Why do you complain about the speck in another's eye, when you have a log in your own?" You probably do. Seeing boobs has always been a form of idolatry, worshipping lesser gods. Look as Asgara's avatar. A form of idolatry that blinds one to understanding the search for truth, including H-D methodology. Pray for deliverance, and to find someone to teach you philosophy of science. Worked wonders for me.Stephen

M.You note, facetiously Not authoritatively. But, if Jehovah in the Bible lays out an experiment that can be done to "prove" or "test" Him and His Scriptures, then doing that experiment validates the claim that the Bible is true. How do you know whether a cookbook is a "good" cookbook? You prepare a sampling of the recipes. If they taste good, the cookbook is good. If not, it is a fraud. The way to test the idea that the cookbook is good is to try the recipes. You have to use the cookbook to prove that it is good. So, you have to use the recipes in the Bible to prove that it is good. I don't believe in compelling reasons, and even if I thought there were any, would not use them. God gave us free will, and left things so that it matters. Rationalization is "compelling reason." It's evil, takes away people's freedom. That's about it. But, it's better than you make it sound. I'd rather think that I am right than be president. Clearly, one of us is deluded. If it is me, I'm having a wonderful time, and it costs me nothing since when I die, it is simply all over. I'll never know that I was wrong. If it is you, you don't sound like you're having any more fun than I am. Careers, for example, are mostly tedious work, or were when I had one. And, when you die, if you're wrong, oh my, what a comedown that will be.Meanwhile, the fact that I am having a wonderful time rather balances the opinions you and some others have expressed. Those saying that I am deluded present no evidence to me of being trustworthy authorities, that I should trust. But thanks for caring.Stephen

M.You mis-paraphrase me by saying, The correct version is, I consider the idea that there is a Jehovah because the bible says that such a being is an important part of my ecosystem. The bible describes an experiment requiring data from outside the bible to confirm that this idea is true. I do the experiment, and find that the predicted pattern of data is found. The idea that this Jehovah person is really out there is increased. I've known many bad cooks who blamed the cookbook. It turned out that they never learned how to read and follow directions.This comment, baffles me. It is so far removed from how I have described how I arrive at plausible ideas, and how I have dealt with data on these threads, that I am at a loss to know how you arrived there.Here we agree: I have done the best I could to understand and apply sound scientific methodology, with great success professionally. As I understand science, it confirms everything I think is right. Some say that I don't understand science, but they also tell me to not trust authority, including theirs, I presume. They cannot demonstrate with evidence that I don't understand science, and the evidence I present, namely the success of the science that resulted from my understanding, is all my way. If you are wrong about Jehovah being the one true God, is what I meant. Then, if you meet Vishnu, he will immediately begin an eternity of torturing you, laughing at your protestations, or offer of bribes. I like being angry. Especially righteous anger. It's an emotion like any other, normal, and a pleasure to express correctly.Cheers,Stephen

M.You comment, Not by anyone I have any reason to trust as an authority, nor by any evidence, nor by any inspired or inspiring art, nor by any report of history. All I have is the opinions (apparently dogmatic) of persons who have nothing to say except unsupported (or missupported) claims. Who tell me not to trust authorities, such as themselves. They ignore what I say, and claim that I say things I deny. There are fools, looking for reasons to hide from the truth, and me, who will listen to these persons, but they are not me. I'll take my hundreds of citations for successful research every year, my many grandchildren, those who love me, my good health, my well-grounded hope of being someday recognized by thousands as a great scientist, over the silly opinions of persons who cannot adequately define science, much less do it. People with such opinions abound in the life of every truly great scientist. It's a dirty job, but I guess somebody has to do it. Thanks for volunteering for the job.Stephen

M.Is it fair to conclude that you have won an argument, when your opposition is reduced to insults and sarcasm?S.