B. McCausland wrote: Friend, there have been a variety of responses. Without any intent to insult, may it be stated that platitutes, and 'long prayers' formed part of the Pharisees practice. (Mar 12:38-40) May it be stated also, that while posting here there is not personal identification with any individual per se, but on the grounds of truth exalting.
Will post more later if God wills but I definitely would not agree that the individual is not important.
G'day Dave, I'm glad to see someone blessing SC and Sister B, both of whom stand up for God and righteousness, and because of whom I am currently disappointed with myself and seeking revival of heart, that I might seek the Lord and gain his ultimate blessing, the powerful anointing and life-changing power of the Holy Ghost, filling me to overflowing, such an overflowing that I might like Jesus declare and be true to the words, "Zeal for thine house hath eaten me up."
I have no desire whatever to be a lethargic Christian, of no use to the assembly; rather a revivalist like John Baptist.
I may even be changing my position from Moderationist to Abstentionist. Maybe that big debate is bearing fruit, as although I am an abstainer and have a hatred for all things alcohol, I put forth a Moderationist position, as I believed that was the biblical stance on the matter.
Anyway, God bless YOU Dave, or you'll be so running out of blessings for others, you'll be running on empty, mate. And we can't have that, can we?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: John UK, my apologies that I offended you with my reply. I am not trying to be "flippant" about our Lord's invitation. Not sure where you are coming from, are you saying that those who use leisure time, preach the Word, or study to be students of the Word have no desire for heaven or things above? You might look at Mark 6:31, I Corinthians 9:16 and II Timothy 2:15.
US, thank you, I was not offended but shocked. It just came across as very flippant, but if you say otherwise I will accept that.
I'll address your question along with Lurker's statement if I may.
If you look back at my post, you will find I described the passage of scripture as a heart check, to see where our priorities lay. Thusly, if folks checked out their heart and found it not wanting (as Bro Lurker said of his heart), then that is fine and good. I think we ought to check out our own hearts regularly, to see if we are still in the narrow way which leads to life, or if we have backslidden and ended up in Doubting Castle with Giant Despair at our throats.
Now being less than the least of all the saints, I am more likely to fail the test than anyone here, so perhaps I wrote it just for me. But I have much more to say.
s c from Oh...learn to spell if you're going to try to steal my identity. And I would have never said anything that you said though I do feel bad for the women and children that are stuck with men who watch junk. I guess that being equally yoked is a good idea before people consider marriage otherwise they have to put up with the world's ways in their own household.
John UK wrote: Heart-check for any who want to try it: Luke 14:16-20 KJV I cannot come, the Superbowl is just about to start. Is my heart's desire in heaven? Or is it on the earth? That is the question.
I speak for myself but I'm ready any time my Maker decides to call me to my long home. But in the mean time, Jesus said to "occupy till I come".
Life happens, John. Not everything we do in this life glorifies God but neither do these things, by necessity, dishonor God. To insist it must be A and if not A it's B is a false dichotomy. I was able to watch the super bowl game while at the same time believe in Jesus Christ and love the brethren as He commanded. Keeping His commandments is how we honor and glorify God.
Eccl 12:13 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
1 John 3:23-24 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
In this modern age its sometimes called multi-tasking.
Mike wrote: Paul did not disapprove that which he entertained as method to teach
Please, you might be shifting the focus here. The activity, say the sport per se, provides a valid pictorial â€˜lessonâ€™. Say it teaches the concept of endurance or stickability in view of a prize; yet the setting or the details attached to it have no relevance because they are oblivious to the center point.
No one here is intrinsically speaking against sport per se, but against the innuendo expressed by the body language displayed, or by the poor connotations attached to a particular public sport entertainment. The reasons that might make such events unwelcome might relate to degenerate patterns of conduct, amoral outfits, associated drink issues, self-bolstering, vanity, time waste, or pernicious spirit of competitiveness.
It is known that first & second century Christians condemned theater attendance due to vain/pernicious plot content. Also because of the 'swearing' by the gods or idol sacrifices attached to sports events, - very prominent in the gladiator contests, out of conscience many found the setting unadvisable. Yet, from a distance, one can still borrow the valid concept of lawful competition, endurance and resilience for a didactic purpose.
B. McCausland wrote: --- _______ Mike: The idea about the races Paul borrowed in Scripture serves to convey the jest of the activity, not the fashion in which such activities stood. Normally such events included among other ills, Caesar worship, the honouring of the Roman gods by idol sacrifices, debauchery, bribes, semi nudity and correlating orgies, which things we know are not exemplary, commendable, or to be imitated. Yes, lust comes from within, and what is inside comes out manifested by the externals we practice, entertain or approve.
Thanks for the input, B. But the issue remains this: Paul did not disapprove that which he entertained as method to teach, for indeed he entertained it, not as a fault of his, but a demonstration that there was no inherent fault in the example. *******
JayJay, it wasn't just the moniker, but the style and grammar. sc needn't be blamed for what some knucklehead did.