[LOOKAYANNER]

Yeah I guess there are multiple definitions for what the meaning of is, is, too. I will address what I have bolded at the end of this post. But I am all done arguing with you about whether Christianity is a cult, much less whether Christianity has a scintilla of commonality with Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism.

Other than that which has been set forth in God's Word, God's work among his people and the life and earthly ministry of Christ here on this earth, is laced through the secular writings of every major civilization since the days of King Nebuchadnezzar. Especially those of the Roman Empire, which you contend to have been the perfect storm which gave impetus to a religion which otherwise would have withered on the vine. And perhaps THE most documented historical fact (and the reason Christians have the surety of eternal life) from among all those writings is that of His resurrection from the tomb. Which fact is about to be celebrated over the coming Easter Season this April BTW. And did you know that the peoples of the nations of modern Europe and the United States all descend from Rome?

Our system of dating is a two tier concept, all of time preceding and up to the death of Christ on the cross, BC, and everything after Christ's death on the cross, AD. Our system of law here in this country is based on God's Word. BTW, ever heard of the Book of Romans in the New Testament? And thanks to the statements of Romans, I am not worried that I need to in any way belabor a defense about the validity of God in the minds of men---
Romans 1:16-20 (KJV)
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

God has revealed Himself to you, me, everybody. And He has done that through His creation, that is, all that exists around us. Unbelievers, including some scientists, deny that. Preferring, instead of accepting that there is a Creator, to ascribe the existence of the universe as a standing testament unto itself. And that even though the world's most notable scientist on the subject, Stephen Hawkings, within the past week has admitted that prior to time and matter, nothing existed. Again I would ask, WHERE did the exploding space rock whereby the universe supposedly made itself, come from? The answer is everything came from The Rock of Ages.

But Evolution has no more been proven than has the Big Bang. Though I will admit that there are impressive, if only for their sheer complexity, support scaffoldings which have been established by the so-called scientific community. The problem with these ever mutating bodies of evidence being offered up in validation of the theories of evolution and the Big Bang, is as follows. Both are notions which first popped up out of thin air, and the layers of retro-engineered overburden which passes for the underlying scientific justifications, are just baggage loosely pasted on like the layers of a piñata. A piñata can morph from a basketball to a Volkswagen to an elephant. All one has to do is keep layering on the paper-mâché. Exactly the same process was used in giving scientific plausibility to Evolution and the Big Bang.

In the cases of the theories in question, they just walked up to the target and pushed the bullet into the center of the bullseye. And they've been walking it back to a plausible and convenient origin ever since. If you want to call that 100% surety go for it.


Foolish thinking, or the wisdom of man--

[B]1 Corinthians 2:12-14 (KJV)[/B]
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

There is no natural barrier or partition between spiritual truths and physical or scientific truths. There is however, an impasse of understanding (his own unbelief) through which a man may not pass until and if he becomes a believer in That which is. God as Creator. If something is true it is reality, if it is not true it is a fabrication, a lie if you like. Men have always used unbelief to wall themselves off from the reality of their origin, as well as the reality of their destination. There is no separation between Church and State. Neither is there any wall of separation between Church and science. There is however a wall between man and his Creator which is self imposed, that being unbelief. The unfortunate and eternal ramification of which being the coming of certain judgment.

Men cannot see until darkness is illuminated by light.

"I am the Light of the World." ---Jesus

I’m through discussing this too. But I want to clarify something you said that I stated. You said you was “tired of arguing with me that Christianity was a cult.”
I never said Christianity was a cult. I said it started out as a cult, same as all religions. It outgrew it’s cult status rather quickly though. Christianity is not a cult and hasn’t been for a LONG time. Just like Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and other mainstream religions outgrew their cult status many hundreds of years ago. Every religion has to start somewhere and at some time. None of the big religions we see today were always big religions. At one time in their history they were only small gatherings that grew into much bigger followings and spread geographically.
What determines the numbers to change description from cult to religion status is hazy though. Usually the judgement is made as to what is an accepted mainstream religion that’s large enough and widespread enough to be called a religion.