Dorcas wrote: Thanks for your post brother Lurker. I have felt quite queasy with some of the posts lately of people wanting to micro-manage every aspect of a Christians walk before the Lord and the church. It is nothing but 21 century Phariseeism.
You're welcome dear sister.
I feel bad about the caustic language but the woman grates on me. Not the type I could ever have fellowship with.
Btw, congratulations on becoming great grandparents to you and your husband. My wife and are technically eligible but we pray a college diploma comes first, then marriage, then...... All things in their proper order.
Dave wrote: We must remember, in All things we're too give glory to God, without sounding like a party pooper but, we can be in the world and not of the world. Is professional sport glorifying God ? Lord bless guy's.
Does watching the super bowl football game dishonor God? Does commuting to work honor God? We honor and glorify God by keeping His commandments (1 John 3:23).
I watched the super bowl game. I'm not much for sports but football is one I enjoy when it gets to the playoffs. I have no favorite team...... certainly not fanatical about the sport as many are. I personally don't see how watching a football game dishonors God.
But apparently there are those who fear if they laid eyes on those muscular men in their tight uniforms, their hearts would be turned away from God in lust.
Indeed, anyone with such a weakness should abstain from watching but how dare such an one presume to impose their solution for their weakness on everyone else. How dare such an one assume everyone is tempted to lust by eye candy as they would be tempted.
Of course I'm speaking of one sc. But it was expected she'd bring it up. Christmas is over and Easter is several weeks away and besides those pet hobby horses, I'm not aware she stands for anything.
John UK wrote: It would be interesting to hear from a dispensationalist who has viewed the film Waiting for Armageddon as to whether or not it portrays their beliefs adequately.
I watched the movie last night and it seems it was put together by likeminded Dispensationalist and represents their view as I understand it.
A different perspective of the present evil days. There be many different Protestant denoms but the one thing they all seem to have in common is the belief their particular denom stands in God's favor and the rest are in error. From that perspective, it seems most demons look at the unregenerate heathens as the object of God wrath come judgment day. But what did Jesus teach when He separates the sheep from the goats? He casts away those who declared "Lord, Lord." He casts away those who blaspheme His name amongst the heathens along with the heathens.
Ezek 36:20 And when they entered unto the heathen, whither they went, they profaned my holy name, when they said to them, These are the people of the LORD, and are gone forth out of his land.
Too many are blind to the signs of the time because they believe Jesus is coming to save Jews who have rejected Him for 2,000 years while they wear the garments of righteousness.
pennelope wrote: Zionists love wores. they think it builds God's Kingdom. Trump wasn't stuck in dispy la la land and purely from a rationalist point of view saw that invading Iq had nothing to do with 9/11 and would cause more misery and was a foolish thing to do. sad when rationalists have more discernment than Christians, but this is the issue as long as they wear the hexagram as a good luck charm, they don't have to know the issues, pay attention to what is really going on.
Sister, You hit on something I mentioned several days ago but decided to not make it an issue of debate.
My concern with Cruz is what I believe is an unbiblical view of God's relationship with the nation/state Israel. No doubt he is a staunch Israel supporter and I can see the possibility that he could get us involved in a ME war that would spiral out of control, all the while believing he is defending God's people and doing the service of God. Trump, on the other hand, most likely sees Israel as a strong secular ally, which they are, but not important enough to get us involved in WWIII.
All speculation, of course, and when all is said and done, God's will shall prevail. Who knows, this falling away in the USA could go on for another 1,000 years before God says "enough"
Yes, I know you quoted me verbatim. It was your subsequent construct to which I objected and denied because it altered the meaning of what I wrote. "Is" confers the meaning of an absolute, a fact. There is no way I could say or imply that I know for a fact Ted Cruz "is" an instrument of God for our harm. The remainder of my sentence made that exceedingly clear: "...... nor do any of us know of a certainty God's will for this nation at this time."
I've been discussing on Christian forums for 13 years, most of that time right here on SA, and I know how quickly things can spin out of control for no more reason than a misunderstanding. Ask for clarification before accusing. As a rule, Christians don't lie.
No hard feelings.
edit: Brother Dave, I don't say it much but you are a beloved brother. Thanks for cheering from the sidelines that peace may prevail on this thread for the glory of God.
Christopher000 wrote: Thanks Lurker. I see that a couple are chalking the ongoing conversation up to pride because it wasn't just let go, if I'm interpreting them properly. I gave it a little bit of thought and I don't think I'd just let something go, allowing myself to be misunderstood either. I can't get myself to understand that as being prideful, just wanting to be represented and understood properly. The way I see it is that you would have left it be several times but Geff couldn't get it out of his head. That's fine too, but it seems that the explanations just weren't quite clicking.
I think the observation from "Huh" is on the mark for any and all who argue for the sake of argument...... myself included.
But I'd like to think my "discussion", to use the term loosely, with Geff was intended to get to the bottom of false accusations and set the record straight. If I'm going to be accused of something I'd at least like to know what it is so I can either defend myself or make it right. It's a serious accusation to call a Christian a liar and any who willfully do so should be fully prepared to make good on the accusation or retract with apology. We'll see.
Blessings to you, brother and fellow "Lurker groupy".
Christopher000 wrote: Yes, I see how that changes the meaning, Lurker. That's what this was all about? I followed the thread loosely because I got lost in it all.
Yes, that about sums it up, Chris. An awful lot of unchristian bickering and false allegations which could have been avoided if Geff had simply asked for clarification. Tells me he's a newbie in a forum setting where misunderstandings reign supreme.
We'll see how Geff responds to this. I could not care less if he apologizes to me but he could at least apologize to everyone else for turning this thread into a Christian disgrace.
Funny thing..... this whole affair brought to mind the Slick Willie, Bill Clinton impeachment hearings. He was ask a question which if he had answered honestly would have proven he had perjured himself. So instead of doing the right thing, he answered: "It depends on what the definition of is is". Apparently for Geff, "is" and "more than likely" are one and the same.
Geff wrote: I made it abundantly clear what the alleged lie was.
Not going to argue with you any longer, Geff. I'm going to re-state the facts for all who have been bewildered by this fiasco.
2/5/16 11:01 AM I wrote: "I see him as more than likely being an instrument of God for our hurt,"
I edited that to read: "I see him as more than likely being an instrument of God for our hurt, though that's not his intention"
This is the "sly" edit I made which brought about more accusations. The above is my opinion, I never denied it, I grant I could be wrong. This statement of opinion is what Geff wrongly assumed I denied bringing about the lie accusation. Contrary to his insistence, he never made it clear what he accused me of.
2/5/16 11:33 AM Geff wrote: "So Cruz, the God-fearing man is "an instrument of God for our hurt", but Donal Trump, the man who funds abortion and runs strip clubs isn't?"
Brothers and sisters, do you see that little word "is" in there which completely altered the meaning of what I wrote? That is what I denied ever saying or implying:
2/5/16 12:59 PM "I didn't say or imply Cruz "is"...... nor do any of us know of a certainty God's will for this nation at this time."
Geff wrote: Lurker, I am praying that you will repent of the lies you have publicaly posted on this thread. Lying is a dangerous game, and while my last comment was too harsh, lying will take you there if you let it control your life. One of the things God hates most is a lying tongue.
One final comment for the day.
I spent the whole afternoon playing cat and mouse with you in an attempt to straighten out what appears to have been a misunderstanding of YOUR making. Not one whit of cooperation from you....... none, nada, zip. Instead you saw fit to continue to accuse me of lying but never once made it clear what the alleged lie was. Only by accident did I finally figure out what all this nonsense has been about.
I'm not going to rehash the facts again. They're there in my post to 2 Tim 3:16 2/6/16 2:30 PM. What you do with them is up to you.
TMC wrote: @ Lurker "There is the mindset of some on this forum, and I'd guess multitudes in this nation, that Cruz is a good Christian man and if he becomes POTUS then it follows that God has it in His heart to do good for this nation and His blessings will flow again." Would you be so kind as to quote whoever postulated that position?
Clearly this is not your mindset. Your view of God's sovereignty appears to be in harmony with mine.
That said, would you say everyone on this forum, or in this nation, sees God's sovereignty in the affairs of men, kings and rulers as you and I? That was the point of my post. Not trying to paint everyone with the same brush but I do believe the brushstrokes can be broad.
Geff wrote: Lurker, Maybe I should have written: "So Cruz, the God-fearing man is "more than likely an instrument of God for our hurt" Does that make you feel better? Even so, you still implied that Cruz is "more than likely an instrument of God for our hurt" by bringing it into the conversation. You just accused me of ALTERING your quote which I never did. I put the full quote at the top of my comment, and then I preceeded with my own words afterwards, invoking a snippet of your post. You were still implying it when you said "more than likely". More than likely means almost certainly.
It matters not how I feel. I'm an old man and my skin has grown thick and tough. Truth is what matters and its not right or Christian to accuse someone of lying unless you can make good on it.
That said, you wrote: "Even so, you still implied that Cruz is "more than likely an instrument of God for our hurt" by bringing it into the conversation."
That's my opinion based on my theology and eschatology. To my knowledge, we are still allowed freedom of thought and expression in this country. And your right to disagree is also a protected right and respected by me.
Let's not allow differences of opinion to open the door for the old man to rear his ugly head.
JayJay wrote: Lurker said: "This line of reasoning presumes God's will is flexible and can be shaped by which man gets into the oval office." God decides who gets into the oval office, so if He wants to judge us He can choose Trump, and if He wants to lift us out of judgement He can choose Cruz!
Don't know if you perceive it or not, but you just affirmed what I suggested in my post....... the blessing or wrath of God is dependent on the goodness of lack thereof of the next president. Therefore, you and many others work feverishly to get Cruz nominated believing God's blessing will automatically flow again if he is elected.
Personally, I see that as presumptuous but I understand your reasoning.
John UK wrote: That's it, bro. That's what I was trying to say. There is a political mindset, and there is a spiritual mindset. Too many get caught up in the political machine, with all its excitement and drug-like (high) effects. We must needs always think biblically and spiritually.
You said it perfectly, bro. I just stretched it out a bit. I appreciate your encouragement in an earlier post.
Geff wrote: I'd suggest you cut your lying before you go and meet the sly Devil. Liars do not inherit the kingdom of God. This is the second time you have lied, and any honest observer who isn't a Lurker groupy can see that!
I feel your pain.
Explain something, Geff:
I wrote 2/5/16 11:01 AM: "I see him as more than likely being an instrument of God for our hurt"
You altered the meaning of my quote to say: "So Cruz, the God-fearing man is "an instrument of God for our hurt"
To which I replied to TMC: "I didn't say or imply Cruz "is"...... nor do any of us know of a certainty God's will for this nation at this time."
Explain how it is you accuse me of saying Cruz "IS" "an instrument of God for our hurt" while in the same sentence I also said "nor do any of us know of a certainty God's will for this nation at this time".
John UK wrote: If God has determined some form of judgment upon America as a nation (which I hope he hasn't but is more than likely), then the voting in of this one or that one will make no difference. Unless folks believe that God's will and judgments can be thwarted by men.
I couldn't agree more, brother.
There is the mindset of some on this forum, and I'd guess multitudes in this nation, that Cruz is a good Christian man and if he becomes POTUS then it follows that God has it in His heart to do good for this nation and His blessings will flow again.
On the flipside, Trump is an unregenerate, dreadful man who doesn't need to ask God for forgiveness so it follows that if he becomes POTUS God's wrath will be upon this nation.
This line of reasoning presumes God's will is flexible and can be shaped by which man gets into the oval office. I'm not trying to unfairly paint a picture here but I can come up with no other answer for the militant political activism some here demonstrate.
What is missing from this line of reasoning is that God turns the hearts of kings and rulers to accomplish His will in His time. It matters not a whit who sits in the oval office..... God's will shall be done.
2 Tim. 3:16 wrote: Lurker wrote: "I see him (Cruz) as more than likely being an instrument of God for our hurt?" Lurker also wrote: "I didn't say or IMPLY Cruz "is"..." (an instrument of God for our hurt) In my opinion "More than likely" is an implication.
Interesting how you fellas see what you want to see.
The word "is" does not appear in my first statement which you so graciously quoted verbatim.
Yet in the second quote, you must add to what I wrote to uphold Geff's false allegation that I lied. Here's what I wrote:
"I didn't say or imply Cruz "is"...... nor do any of us know of a certainty God's will for this nation at this time."
"IS" is what I did not say or imply. Geff willfully altered what I wrote, injecting "IS", and then accused me of a lie. Not even a thought of asking for clarification which wouldn't even be needed if ya'll had just read what I wrote as written.
But the really sad thing is...... if I had actually meant what you fellas accused me of; where is the outrage that I dare speak in the name of God saying "Cruz IS an instrument of God for our harm" (even though that is completely contrary to what I wrote above)? Instead, you're outraged because you think what you think I said would hurt your favored candidate. Sad.
Geff wrote: Lurker, You said you never even IMPLIED that Cruz was an instrument of God for our hurt, but adding "more than likely" does not mean you never implied that. Just by saying that, you implied it. Also, I noticed you ammended your original post to add "though that's not his intention" later. You continue to change and edit your posts so that you can cry fowl when someone quotes what you originally said. Stop with the backsliding, ground-shifting, and evasive tactics.
So now I need to ask you what I think and mean? Too funny.
Well Geff..... believe what you will but my history is available for anyone to review to see if what I say has been consistent. You're just upset that you called me a liar and can't make it stick. I should be the one upset for being falsely accused but I forgive you because of your youthful albeit misguided zeal.
As for amending my posts...... apparently you have a problem with adding clarity so no one misunderstands? The sum of your thoughts are always perfectly articulated in your first post to a thread? My, you are good.
OK, I've got better things to do that natter with you and John 8 whatever.
Geff wrote: Lurker, You forgot that I quoted you in that post. Here's that quote again in case you had a hard time reading it the first time: "...you believe Cruz is the man who can turn this nation around to God for our good while I see him as more than likely being an instrument of God for our hurt?" Caught in a lie are we Lurker?
I'll not insult you by saying you have a reading comprehension problem but......... "more than likely" does not equal "is". If you wish to quote me, do so in context so you are not guilty of putting words in my mouth which I did not say or intend.
My position has been consistently clear. I believe things will get worse, not better, regardless of who is president. In that context, it is my opinion that Cruz "could" (more likely than not, IMO) be an instrument of God's wrath even though Cruz has the best of intentions to do good for this nation. (Think his strong pro-Israel stance in the ME hotbed.) It all depends on what God has planned and He's not talking. That's just my opinion based on my theology and eschatology and perhaps a concept too hard for you to grasp.