panelarrow

Should Evangelists “Close the Deal”? Part 2

| 55 Comments

You’re out on the street witnessing and have  just finished sharing the 10 Commandments with an unbeliever. The person now understands that because he has violated God’s Moral Law by lying, stealing, blaspheming, murdering—that’s what the Bible calls it when one hates or gets angry—and committing adultery—even looking with lust condemns you, according to Jesus—he will be found guilty before a Holy God on Judgment Day; when he dies he will end up in Hell. He clearly understands this horribly bad news because you’ve taken the time to share—in love—that he is condemned already because of his sin.

Now what do you do? What’s the next step? Should you automatically share the Good News that Jesus died for him? How do you “close the deal”? Should you “close the deal”? (Read Part 1 of this series by clicking here.)

Before you launch into the good news ask this next question of the unbeliever : “Does that concern you?”

If he is not concerned that he is going to Hell, if he is a mocker or scoffer or a foolish time-consuming atheist who is just razzing you in your good faith effort to bring some light into his life, you are under no obligation to share Christ with him. If he isn’t concerned that he is soon to be facing the wrath of God, he won’t care about your Savior, and he will trample your pearls of the Gospel underfoot.

But if you sense that the person is truly concerned about his eternal damnation, then simply ask: “Do you know what God did for you so you wouldn’t have to go to Hell?”

Now is the time to give him the Gospel. Magnify God’s love and mercy and kindness. Plead with him to repent and trust in the Savior.

Say something like this: “God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ; he was fully God and fully man. He suffered and died on a cross for all your sins. He was buried and on the third day rose again. If you repent—turn away from your sins—and trust in Jesus, he will forgive you of every sin you’ve ever committed. It’s a free gift!”

Use as much Scripture as possible. For example:

John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

John 3:3: I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.  Explain what being born again means.

2 Peter 3:9: The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Romans 5:8: But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

1 John 1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Luke 13:3:  But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Plead with him to repent. Warn what will happen if he waits and dies in his sins. Remind him that tomorrow is not guaranteed.

If you think this person is ready to take a step of faith and turn his life over to the Lord then ask:  “Would you like to repent right now and trust in Jesus?”

If he says “yes,” explain what he is repenting from; go over the 10 Commandments again, then restate the Good News.

Now, how do you go about “CLOSING THE DEAL”?

DON’T  lead him in a “Sinner’s Prayer”! There is no such thing!

DON’T  have him ask Jesus into his heart! (See Todd Friel’s article: “10 Reasons NOT to ask Jesus into Your Heart)

Have him pray first if he wants to trust in Jesus. Don’t force a decision or you run the risk of making a false convert.

Let him confess his sins to God in front of you, out loud! (But it’s okay if he wants to do it quietly, too. Or later, at home.)

D. L. Moody wrote: “It is a good thing to get a man on his knees, but don’t get him there before he is ready. You may have to talk with him two hours before you can get him that far, but when you think he is about ready, say, ‘Shall we not ask God to give us light on this point?’ Ask him to pray for himself. If he doesn’t want to pray, let him use a bible prayer; get him to repeat it.

“Don’t send a man home to pray. Of course he should pray at home, but I would rather get his lips open at once. It is a good thing for a man to hear his own voice in prayer.

Urge an immediate decision, but never tell a man he is converted. Never tell him he is saved. Let the Holy Spirit reveal that to him.” From Experiencing Pleasure and Profit in Bible Study.

Then give him your information including church services, your email, etc., and get his phone number, email, etc., so you can contact him—if you want to. Remember, follow up isn’t that important because God saves to the uttermost. When one is truly saved, you can’t keep him away from fellowship and you can’t stop him from growing.

***Click here for Part 3, to read about the tragic event that led D. L. Moody to urge sinners to make an immediate decision for Christ.

*****

This lesson was taken from my 10 week class called “Sharing Your Faith…Made Easy! (Soon to be available online in a new, improved and revised format. Email me if you’d like a free copy when it’s finished at PastorSteveAtHope@Yahoo.com)

55 Comments

  1. Steve wrote:

    “If he is not concerned that he is going to Hell, if he is a mocker or scoffer or a foolish time-consuming atheist who is just razzing you in your good faith effort to bring some light into his life, you are under no obligation to share Christ with him.”

    I think the atheist agenda is to waste the Christian’s time so they will have less time to evangelize. That’s why I don’t waste time argueing with atheists. I would rather be doing something more productive with my time like cleaning the grout in my bathroom with a toothbush.

    • I try to reserve my comments toward the atheists when I post. That is a better use of my time. For the most part, I try to answer in them in about three sentences. If I can’t then I might post about it later.

      I do think it’s important to engage them seriously—on occasion.

      • I do think it’s important to engage them seriously—on occasion.

        By contrast, Steve, every one of the atheists who are regulars to this blog are trying to engage you seriously. All the time.

      • Whateverman, the only thing you and some other atheists are serious about doing is insulting Steve Sanchez. I have seen this on thread after thread.

        Steve is the man standing on the side of the road waving his flashlight and yelling for you all to stop because the bridge over the river has collapsed and you are headed for destruction.

        Doesn’t any atheist have any respect for what he is doing?

      • @ Tone

        If his worldview was based on evidence than people would respect what he’s doing. The fact that there’s no evidence that is testable and verifiable puts the claim into question, relegating it to the same bin as every other religion that currently or has currently existed in human culture. To continue the analogy Steve is the guy waving a flashlight and yelling that the bridge is out but offers no evidence for this claim that proves the bridge is actually out… worse… Steve is a random guy, there’s an engineering specialist, a construction worker, a chemist, and a slew of other experts out there that say the bridge is sound. By comparison, the crazy ranting man just sounds foolish.

      • And, Tone, we ask, “where’s this collapsed bridge that you’re talking about, and where’s this river? I’m sitting on a park bench, reading a book, and so I’m confused why you’re yelling at me about a bridge over a river”.

        When people can demonstrate that there’s a river, a bridge, and that the bridge has collapsed (or that there’s a bus, or that there’s a plane… whatever analogy you wish to use), then we’ll respect it.

        Having said that, as long as Steve’s not doing “jerky evangelism”, I have no problem with him evangelizing. In fact, I’d fight for his right to do so.

      • Doesn’t any atheist have any respect for what he is doing?
        I can’t speak for what an atheist may or may not feel. Speaking for myself, though, I tell you that I COULD have respect for what Steve is trying to do if he did it differently. I don’t agree with the evangelical world view, but I recognize that they believe they’re right, and if they evangelize in a respectful honest way, they get my respect.

        Steve is neither respectful nor honest (when he evangelizes). He isn’t deserving of my respect.

      • Tone Brown some of us are here trying to tell Steve to cut out his lying, stop the worship of his own ego [that will not let him ever admit he has been wrong] and deal with his personal problems and obsessions.

        Those very same problems that drove him to become an addict.

        Until he does that he will remain just like a dry drunk. In other words all he’s done is ignore his problems and switch obsessions – from drugs to death.

        And many of his followers here on his blog cheer him on and do NOTHING to help him face his problems.

        Why is that?

      • Because they have eyes to see and ears to hear?

      • Because they have eyes to see and ears to hear?

        Translation: Lalalala! I don’t care what you say!

      • Those very same problems that drove him to become an addict.

        I’m calling Failed Mind Reading.

      • I agree, Perdita; none of us here (except for Steve) know why Steve became an addict in the first place.

      • (And Steve himself might not even know the answer.)

      • Actually, I do: I liked the drugs and how they made me feel.

      • Perdita & Nohm allow me to reply to your charge of failed mind reading.

        1) I have no idea what Steve thinks now or thought back then, or will think in the future.

        2) Addicts are usually addictive personalities which can be generally described. They usually have low self-esteem & personal problems [hence their reluctance to face reality without their addiction].

        Now I have no idea what those personal problems are but odds are…
        Finally addicts tend to see their addiction as an answer to their problem. For example an alcoholic like my father had an incredibly low self-esteem. Alcohol made him feel like a big man. He would have agreed with Steve. Steve took drugs because they made him feel good & my father drank alcohol for the same reason.

        But that never changed all the other stuff that was going on in his life. Get the idea?

        All this is from personal experience through organisations such as Alanon, AA & NA as well as meeting many alcoholics, addicts, etc.

        I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I was engaging in mind reading but I am not. It’s based on bitter experience.

      • @ Perdita & Nohm

        Before I forget please look up the entry on “Addictive Personality” in Wikipedia

        And before I forget the NY Times reported

        “In bringing together much of the existing knowledge on the personality’s role in addictions, with an emphasis on drugs and alcohol, a new study prepared for the National Academy of Sciences concludes that there is no single set of psychological characteristics that embrace all addictions. But the study does see common elements from addiction to addiction.

        The report finds that there are several ”significant personality factors” that can contribute to addiction:

        – Impulsive behavior, difficulty in delaying gratification, an antisocial personality and a disposition toward sensation seeking.

        – A high value on nonconformity combined with a weak commitment to the goals for achievement valued by the society.

        – A sense of social alienation and a general tolerance for deviance.

        – A sense of heightened stress. This may help explain why adolescence and other stressful transition periods are often associated with the most severe drug and alcohol problems.

        The author of the study, Alan R. Lang, a psychology professor at Florida State University, believes that the continuing search for the personality traits that play a part in the development of addictions is an essential part of the broader fight against addiction, an opinion shared by others familiar with the field. ”If we can better identify the personality factors,” he said in an interview, ”they can help us devise better treatment and can open up new strategies to intervene and break the patterns of addiction.”

      • @Chris

        Not cool.

    • Schmader, I can promise you that if my goal was “to waste the Christian’s time so they will have less time to evangelize”, I could think of a hundred more efficient ways to accomplish this goal.

      You have exhibited failed mind-reading. Maybe you should ask people what their “agenda” is, instead making silly assumptions.

      For example, my “agenda” is to talk with people who think very differently than me, because I find that fascinating, and I find fascinating things to be enjoyable.

    • The only agenda this atheist has is to try and educate people about what atheists really are and are not. To help free some people, those with a capacity for reason, from the bonds of religion, and when possible counter some theist propaganda.

      It is not my interest to waste anyones time or whatever. I simply am an optimist and have hope that anyone, no matter how hopelessly indoctrinated they seem to be, can learn and grow beyond their religion. I am often wrong but those times I have succeded are worth it.

      I do not agree with Tone that I have been insulting Steve. Oh I admit I have thrown a few asubtle jabs in response to his mockery but for the most part I think I have kept the kid gloves on. Steve is far from the worst example of Christian I have seen, I find his lack of curiosity and self awareness a little disturbing but he is OK. I do not however respect what he is doing, your analogy is flawed. Rather than being on a road as you say, he is a man in a room where there is no road, no bridge and no flashlight and yelling to stop because the bridge is out. An entirely different thing.

    • One reason I like tracts is because it takes just a couple of seconds to give someone a tract. If the person doesn’t want it they will either throw it away or put it down somewhere where someone else might find it. No time wasted.

      • carl I agree with you about the tracts, very little wasted time or effort. That is good for you as you don’t have to work at the evangelism stuff and me because it only tajes a few seconds to tear the thing up and toss it in the dumpster. Best of all i can simply refuse to take it if i am not near a trash can. definitely stick with that.

    • Steve wrote “Because they have eyes to see and ears to hear?”

      Just the sort of answer to expect from an unreformed addict. No attempt to face your personal problems, no attempt to admit errors and no attempt to abandon the worship of your ego.

      To your followers who are unfamiliar with addicts and alcoholics allow me to point out a few things.

      Addicts and alcoholics generally [not always]:
      1) Have a very big ego [they expect the entire world to revolve around themselves – remember Steve’s post about holding up a parade because HE wanted to evangelize?]

      2) Have low self-esteem. They generally beat themselves up continuously.

      3) Are very immature. [For example Steve just making fun of serious questions by those who disagree with him].

      4) Tend to be abusive [They tend to turn all that low-self esteem outward onto others. That’s how they cope with it. For example Steve’s continually running down atheists.]

      5) Tend to run away from their personal problems rather than face them. Consequentially their problems just get bigger & bigger.

      If any of you want to find out more try reading a pamphlet called “The Misery go round” or “An open letter to my family”.

      Both of those will explain addictive personalities better than I ever could.

  2. “Do you know what God did for you so you wouldn’t have to go to Hell?”

    Well, since you actually don’t, how could I?

    I mean, let’s go to the record, shall we? I mean, wasn’t it you who said we’re living in the New Testament now? Well, let’s own it, right? This is the Word of God. Nothing in it can be wrong!

    Except… well, the apostles had fully accepted Jesus Christ as the earthly form of the Son of God, right? He’s the single most important person in the world. Surely His followers, as eyewitnesses, would be committing the details to memory.

    But compare the stories in Matthew (27:46-50), Mark (15:21-41), Luke (23:38-46) and John (19:25-30). It seems like their descriptions don’t really match, do they?

    And his death came as no surprise. He suffered in prison, was dragged out to the cross, and died over the course of either three or six hours.

    So at least His last words would be important, right? Seems like a detail that most people would be paying attention to. But did He say the traditional “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34 and Matt 27:46), “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46), or simply “It is finished” (John 19:30)?

    Most people seem to feel that a man’s last words are important. Apparently, when it’s the only begotten Son of God, not so much.

    Oh, and while three quarters of the Gospels mention some variation of the temple veil being torn in half, only Matthew (a big fan of special effects) seemed to remember an earthquake taking place when Jesus “gave up the ghost.”

    Having sold out the Savior (or assisted Him in fulfilling His destiny, depending on who you ask), Judas either threw his thirty pieces of silver down in the temple and hanged himself (Matt. 27:5), or kept the money, bought a field, tripped on a stump, and burst open like a well-fed tick (Acts 1:18).

    (You know, there’s a warning I don’t recall having heard a mother give: “Johnny! Don’t run around like that! You might fall down, burst asunder and all your bowels will gush out!”)

    And that resurrection bit? The whole tomb opening? Well, we do have a basic story that they agree on (the framework I mentioned earlier), where some women go to see the tomb, there’s angels involved, the tomb is empty, the womenfolk (just being helpless females, after all) go to tell the big strong male disciples, Jesus comes to see them, and everybody’s happy.

    But then, none of our writers can even agree whether it was sunrise or still dark when the women approached. Nor can they figure out who the women were: although they all agree on Mary Magdalene, three of them include “Mary, mother of James;” Mark adds Salome (a woman disciple that the Catholic church doesn’t like to talk about), and Luke decided that there weren’t nearly enough women, and threw in “Joanna… and the others with them.” (Luke loved a good party.)

    Once they got there, most of the writers have the rock already rolled aside, although Matthew once again wanted some Michael Bay-like special effects, so he had the angel coming down to roll the rock away, and the guards pissing themselves. John has Mary seeing an empty tomb and scampering off to bring back one of the menfolk. Depending on who you ask, there were either one or two angels involved (sometimes simply described as “men”) and Jesus either did or didn’t meet the women as they went back down the mountain.

    (Interestingly, none of the accounts mention finding anything that sounds like the Shroud of Turin, although John specifically mentions seeing burial cloths – several strips of linen and a cloth that had been wrapped around his head, lying in the tomb [John 20:6-7]. But that’s entirely secondary. Let’s move on.)

    Then, depending on who you ask, Jesus alternately appeared to either a bunch of people at once, or just one or two at a time, over a period possibly as long as 40 days, and he possibly caused other miracles (including a huge catch of fish – John 21:5-11 – because nobody ever catches a lot of fish without a miracle).

    But remember, this is all the inerrant word of God. Every bit is perfect and correct in every detail. Right?

    So, what part isn’t? Who got what detail wrong? And why should we accept that your answer is correct, when your Book is so obviously flawed?

    • ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

    • Nameless,

      The answer I usually get to those questions is that “all of that happened”.

      For example, regarding the last words of Jesus on the cross, I’ve been told that all of the versions you listed are correct; he said all of them.

      • Yep. From different perspectives.

        You heard this: If 4 people saw a car accident, there would be 4 different perspectives. Not troublesome at all.

      • Quite troublesome when it’s supposedly communication from an almighty God giving us absolute instructions for how to live our lives.

        My cat can communicate ideas better…

      • If you’re trying to establish truth, different and contradicting perspectives are very problematic. It’s troublesome because those different perspectives can range from wildly inaccurate to marginally off and we would still need a way to judge those perspectives for truth and accuracy.

      • Steve, it’s troublesome because of this:

        If you have the 4 different perspectives, what methodology do you use to determine what actually happened?

        Serious question. Please consider it.

      • Piece it together and by faith, believe!

        Simple. (For me.)

      • Steve wrote “Yep. From different perspectives.

        You heard this: If 4 people saw a car accident, there would be 4 different perspectives. Not troublesome at all.”

        Problem is there is only one reality. So if four people are reporting an accident four different ways at least three got it wrong.

        Logic isn’t your strong suit is it Steve?

        Now more importantly when are you going to give up your obsessions, abandon your ego worship and face your personal problems?

      • @Chris

        I think it is kind of sad that you are going there.

    • Shouldn’t the only perspective for the stories be from the perspective of God, since he apparently told the writers what to write in the first place since many of the stories in the Bible couldn’t have possibly been from eye witness accounts… unless one of the apostles was in the garden with Jesus at the time with an inkwell, quill, and parchment?

  3. Steve wrote:
    “Piece it together and by faith, believe!

    Simple. (For me.)”

    Oh wow. I mean, really, wow.

    I’ve never been capable of such a haphazard approach to anything, let alone something as central to my life as religon is to Steve. It’s a completely alien approach to me. It’s like asking another sentient species how they derive the principles of logic, and being told they look into Yellow on the 7th divided by pi.

    My approach to such contradictions would be analysis: learn about the authors, their situations, their cultures, opinions and biases. Maybe Mark and Matt were doubtful at the death of their messiah, so they remembered and recorded “why hast thou forsaken me”, while Luke remained devout and remembered only Jesus’ unwavering faith. Or maybe some of the “last words” are simply the result of chinese whispers, added to enhance the telling of the story. None of the gospels were written until many years after Jesus’ death, after all.

    And after gathering all the information, from biblical and extrabiblical sources, then I would say “this is the most likely” and believe, tentatively, in that.

    The idea that someone can read 4 different eyewitness accounts and then “piece it together and by faith, believe!” is strange to me. Surely such an approach would result in many wrong conclusions in your life? If I was just “piecing it together” I would assume that the world is flat, that the sun orbits it, that matter is destroyed when you burn it with fire, that there was no lower limit to temperature, and so on.

    I’m sorry, I just don’t get it. Could you explain to me how it works?

    • Quasar:
      Steve’s answer is 100% accurate!
      “Piece it together and by faith, believe! Simple. (For me.)”

      Look at it this way; Having four distinct and yet equally accurate accounts of Christ, creates different aspects of His person and ministry. As one commentator wrote:
      “Each account becomes like a different-colored thread in a tapestry woven together to form a more complete picture of our Lord who is beyond description.”
      We will never fully understand everything about Jesus Christ (John 20:30), although through the four Gospels we can know enough of Him to appreciate who He is and what He has done for us so that we may have life through FAITH in Him.

      Heb: 11:6 ESV
      And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
      John Gill writes:
      “Or do things well pleasing in his sight; or any of the duties of religion, in an acceptable way.”

      Also see (2 Peter 1:21)

      • Steve L wrote:
        “Look at it this way; Having four distinct and yet equally accurate accounts of Christ, creates different aspects of His person and ministry.”

        This is what I don’t understand. How can they be ‘equally’ accurate? Only one of those statements could be Jesus’ actual last sentence before his death, and if he said all three, why did all four authors fail to record it?

        I suppose, hypothetically, some miracle could have been going on that meant every member of the crowd heard a different last sentence, tailored to what God wanted them to hear at that point in their lives. But if so, they’ve done a terrible job at recording it, which just goes to show once again the need to read the bible in the understanding that whether or not it describes true, divine events, it’s still a series of books written by fallible men.

        This is the sort of thing that happens when I believe in something: I pull at every thread, until I understand as much about it as I can. If I can’t explain something, I come up with possibilities and then test them until I find the most likely. It’s just the way my mind approaches anything I believe.

        It’s part of the reason I’m so fond of science: it stands up to such pulling, with an explanation under every thread, all the way down to the last thread where we find “we don’t know yet, but we’re working on it”.

        Like I said, the idea of approaching belief in a different manner to this is alien to me. Even if I could just “by faith, believe”, my mind would immediately start pulling at the threads. I’d be all like “but how did He fuse the hydrogen atoms in water into the carbon rings in wine without the resulting nuclear energy release blowing up the entire city?”

        So I turn that thread over and get “it was a miracle, deal with it”. Over time I’d find myself with more and more unanswered questions, and before you know it I’d be an atheist again.

      • Hey Quasar:
        Thanks for your thoughtful reply! Let me try to shed some light on a few of your questions.

        “This is what I don’t understand. How can they be ‘equally’ accurate? Only one of those statements could be Jesus’ actual last sentence before his death, and if he said all three, why did all four authors fail to record it?”

        Simply stated, all four gospel writers saw the acts of the Lord from a different “angle” or perspective or even a varied time differential (Luke 1:2). We could get four people together to take a picture of a ’57 Chevy and after the pictures were developed we could all agree that what we had were pictures of the same car even though they came from different cameras (and even a few days apart). That is a somewhat simplistic analogy but I hope it makes sense. Within the four gospels are the facts that God wanted written; written at a certain time, in a certain order and presented in a way that is understandable.
        (Side bar) You and I could write volumes on these topics and questions but hopefully simple explanations will suffice! If not we’ll keep it going.

        “but how did He fuse the hydrogen atoms in water into the carbon rings in wine without the resulting nuclear energy release blowing up the entire city?”

        Wow, good question! I don’t even understand it (the ?) but I will say there are many things for which there are no definitive answers. For example; why is the moon larger when close to the horizon than when it’s high in the sky? Simple stuff right? Well, there are theories (The moon illusion) but nothing concrete and that’s the way it is with so many questions that man has. May I say that after all the evidence has been presented in scripture, the final step is to accept it through faith.

        There is so much more to be said, but please excuse me as I must prepare for bible study that starts at 7:00. I’ll respond to your reply tomorrow. Have a good evening!

      • Steve L wrote:
        “Within the four gospels are the facts that God wanted written; written at a certain time, in a certain order and presented in a way that is understandable.”

        Oh okay, I think I understand. Correct me if I’m misrepresenting you at all, but from your perspective, it’s not relevant which statement Jesus actually said just before he died, but rather the fact that all three statements are something we should regard with that level of importance. Sort of like, any one of those statements is something Jesus could have said at that moment, and we shouldn’t give any of them importance over the other two?

        I admit, it’s a bit tricky for me to comprehend. My literal mind wants to know what the Son of God actually said, not what God via the gospel authors wants us to read.

        Steve L wrote:
        “Wow, good question! I don’t even understand it (the ?) but I will say there are many things for which there are no definitive answers.”

        Heh, the question was actually kind of jokey. I was referring to the water-to-wine miracle, and the sub-atomic physics involved. In order to create heavier elements (like the carbon in wine), out of lighter elements (like hydrogen in water), the lighter elements need to undergo fusion, the same process that powers the sun, or a modern H-bomb. This should make a giant explosion. But when Jesus did it, no explosion. Which was probably lucky for the disciples. 🙂

        Steve L wrote:
        “For example; why is the moon larger when close to the horizon than when it’s high in the sky? Simple stuff right? Well, there are theories (The moon illusion) but nothing concrete and that’s the way it is with so many questions that man has.”

        Ooh, bad example. We actually understand this illusion quite well, and it’s because we unconsiously think of the sky as a flat roof. Think of clouds: generally, a cloud on the horison is really far away and small, while the same cloud above us will be quite large, because it’s closer when it’s above us. But our eyes aren’t far enough apart to get a gauge on the distance of stuff in the sky, so our subconsious mind doesn’t know it’s closer. So if our subconsious mind doesn’t know the distant cloud is further away than the one above us, how is it that we can intuitively say that it is?

        It’s because our subconsious mind compensates by applying the laws of perspective to it, which basically tells us that anything on the horison is further away and bigger than we think it is.

        Of course, this is a simplified example, and there are other effects in play, some of which haven’t been fully studied, but the sky-plane illusion is responsible for the majority of the apparent size increase.

        And that’s why I dispute it when you say “there are many things for which there are no definitive answers”. Just because we don’t have definative answers, doesn’t mean there are none. In my experience, the lack of answers is often a sign of something we, as individuals or as a race, just don’t know yet. And science has been doing a really good job at answering them in recent years. These days, the things we don’t know (at least, conceptually) are mostly extremes, taking place at the galactic or subatomic levels, and yet science is somehow still demanding answers and still getting them. And using them to make smaller and smaller phones, apparently. It’s astonishing.

        The answer getting that is, not the phones. Though I suppose they’re astonishing too. 😀

  4. @ Steve
    Here’s a quote from NA describing how an addict feels:

    “One of the major symptoms of the disease of addiction is denial. Many of us were convinced that we were right and the world was wrong, and we used this belief to justify our destructive behavior. We developed a point of view which enabled us to pursue our addiction without concern about our own well-being, or anyone else’s. Our point of view becomes focused on the negative aspects of all things. Of course, we realized that our record had not been good, but we blamed circumstances around us, saying that we must be in the wrong places at the wrong times. We accused other people of causing us to use, and we thought that fate was against us. It took a long time for us to realize that our “bad luck” was a direct result of our drug use.”

    Does that sound like you Steve?
    Read the rest here:
    http://carrythemessage.com/history/literature/BasicText/santa-monica-draft.htm

    • Christopher :
      Romans 9:22 reads:
      “In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction.”

      You, my friend, are the one invested in destructive habits and will be consumed by God’s wrath unless you repent! This is the Word of the Lord!!

    • @Chris

      I’m shaking my head dude. That is just straight up mean.

  5. Hi Chris,

    Why are you obsessed with Steve’s life prior to when he got saved? I think the only reason you bring up Steve’s drug use, from a couple decades ago, is that you are purposely trying to cut him down. It doesn’t appear that Steve cares what you are doing and I am glad. Nonetheless I think you are a callous person.

    • Honestly I also think bringing up Steves addiction is really unimportant, I know others who have overcome addiction and it is a non issue. I do think Chris is making more of a point than just trying to cut Steve down. It seems Chris is saying that Steve, rather than having overcome addiction, has just become a “dry drunk” still having all of the addiction issues, just not using. There may be something to this, but I see no value in bringing it up

    • I’m sorry, but I seem to notice that you don’t speak up when Steve blanket-terms all atheists as “lying, hateful, murderous, thieves” and so on.

      I’m neutral on Chris’ mention on Steve’s life, in the sense that Steve hasn’t exactly made the situation private. However, it only seems you care about cheap shots when it only hurts your team.

      • theB1ackSwan says:

        I’m sorry, but I seem to notice that you don’t speak up when Steve blanket-terms all atheists as “lying, hateful, murderous, thieves” and so on.

        We are Team Sanchez. United in supporting Steve’s mission to wrestle atheist souls away from the grip of Satan. So far Steve has a long history of telling the truth. Atheists have a long history of deception. That is how we see it.

      • Wow good little puppets you are. I would like some examples of atheist lies that you are talking about. Not that atheists don’t lie, I am sure many do, but you talk as if there are some examples that you have, as far as public atheists go I am not aware of any lies. Public Christians like Ray Comfort for example do lie. Examples have been posted here, repeatedly in just the short time I have been reading.

      • Hello Posse, have we met before? My you look rather black today.

Leave a Reply

Required fields are marked *.