scott mcmahan wrote:
I find the media's view of the economy difficult to reconcile with reality. One NFL player gets $100M and the NFL is flourishing. If the economy was as bad as the media wants us to believe, wouldn't the NFL be affected even slightly? (At least if not actually cutting back, then not having record contracts for players, but holding the line.) If the media had not told me the economy was bad, just looking around where I live at the booming construction, I would think I was living in a boom time.
Let's wait until after the Superbowl, college bowl season, and March madness and see if anything has been cut back this season. The worse the economy gets, the more money sports makes.

Mike wrote:
To find equivalency between trees that can do no evil and gays in the pulpit who can, seems a mite strange.
I find it interesting when someone runs out of ideas, that he may well resort to personal criticism. But for my edification, perhaps you might show where I wickedly corrupted myself "further by condemning Christians..."

Garrett wrote:
Its cursive, no one uses it. WHO CARES

truthful witness wrote:
Amen. Why can't people understand that Talmudic, Kabalist Judaism IS SATANISM?

And this "Regardless of sexual oreintation" someone could argue that their orientation was with unwilling partnres, children or animals.

You think it couldn't happen? I'm sure many thought openly gay people in military and forcing it's acceptance, couldn't happen 30 yrs. ago.

RR wrote:
I suspect that Bell has been influenced by the likes of Karl Barth and the Barthian Thomas Torrance.
Barth basically said so much for which the implication could not have been anything other than Universalism, but then in the end, I believe that he denied that he was a Universalist.
Is like someone comes up to you and says:
(1) All men are mortal.
(2) Socrates is a man.
So then you say "Ah. So Socrates is mortal" and the person say "Oh. I never said that."
You reply "But how can that be?" and the persons chuckles and says
"Ha Ha... Its a paradox. Isn't that beautiful?"

Jacob McAnally wrote:
I don't mean to be so sarcastic but this is the kind of atitude that has stopped the church from moving forward and reaching more people in just about every generation.

In somnia wrote:
God's religion is a heart religion and it is interesting that one particular Calvinist rapper was convicted at conversion to give up his "Rap" but was then persuaded to simply Christianise it instead.
I was heavily into punk (70's) and Indie music(80's) and never expected that to invade the church when I was converted in 1990.
Yet we now have Indie Calvinistic bands with guitar right out of the worldly indie music genre of my worldly days?
Pop music in the 70's and 80's invaded the charismatic churches but few conservative churches followed. Now we have charismatic calvinists...I think I see a link
John Knox..is he a fossil or is he correct?
Study: research the history of rock and roll and what the term means. Most Indie stuff comes from an original source.

Now some of those same churches and pastors have adopted it just to get people in.

The catch prases now are; ' Lets offer Fun to get people interested in Fundamentalism".

Josh Wood wrote:
more of us have Androids than iPhones in our church.

Sean P. wrote:
I doubt evolution, I also believe that the the creation of Genesis isn't as literal as some say, I think if we where to go deeper into science, the Hebrew words, the meaning, etc. Something special may appear to us.

The intent of the Genisis record is that it should be taken at face value. When the Bible speaks symbolicly, it is apparent when it does so, and it will point you to the place where you can find the meaning of the symbolic wording.

Intrigued wrote:
What Sword,
Since you're saying not to ask man, but God, where in the KJV does it say that it is the inspired Word of God? Where does God say that it is the only one that He will use? If God was able to perfectly preserve the KJV, why didn't He just do one better and keep the original manuscripts from the real inspired version around for us to have today? You argue your points without a single verse, in context, to prove your point. However, I can see that this is more about being right than it is about being biblical, and so I will leave you to your bliss. Notice, I didn't call you or Strret-Preacher names, nor did I question your salvation. Thankfully, the security that I find in salvation comes from God and not from men. I'll see you both in Heaven some day and, thank God, we will all be in full agreement then. We will also be humbled to find out how little we actually knew here on Earth, and also embarrassed for how we treated each other while here. Godspeed, friends!

Intrigued wrote:
I came to this article because I knew what discussion would be taking place; the same old tired ramblings of proponents from both sides of the argument. While you sit here and argue, the world is on its way to hell. Pick up your Bible, walk out your door, and proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ! Don't tell me that it will only work if you use the KJV. I don't think anyone here would dare say that if the KJV wasn't used when you were witnessed to you aren't saved; God is greater than any translation. He is the one doing the work! Be faithful to Him and to the calling that He has given each one of us!

Praxis wrote:
I am an amillennialist like the Reformers!

Joe the Protestant wrote:
Rob Bell; the Emerging church pastor of mars hill, isn't far behind this vicar.

Ivor wrote:
to continue
We used to believe the unsaved would be punished for sin by having to spend an eternity in a place called hell being tormented forever. We therefore deduced that, in order to pay for the sins of the believers, Christ had to endure the equivalent of spending an eternity in hell. However, now we know that the unsaved will not spend an eternity in hell. The punishment for sin is eternal death, both body and soul. Once this world has been destroyed, the unsaved will completely cease to exist (see Study on Hell).
To fully pay for the sins of the believers, Christ would have had to be put through the equivalent of eternal spriitual death. We can’t fully comprehend this, but it would have to have been a resurrection from the equivalent of annihilation. This is why Christ is spoken of as being begotten. He is from eternity past, but He had a beginning in that He came back from the equivalent of annihilation. That is how He was begotten and that is why the Father can accurately refer to Him as His begotten Son.

Samantha wrote:
I as Fred suggested did visit the latter rain site and found that Fred is correct and here is why.
Christ is from eternity past. In order to be begotten He had to have a beginning. In order to have a beginning He had to, in a spiritual sense that we can’t understand, be spiritually dead. This is what happened when He paid for the sins of the believers. He paid the penalty all unsaved individuals must eventually pay: eternal death, both body and soul.
Christ finished the work of paying for sins before this world was created:
Now John you still owe apologizes to
"all"those that you have called names.
Samantha