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.
It would seen that way. However; it does appear that when the economy is bad, at least in America, that people try to relieve their stress through recreation and entertainment even more. Granted, in our parents generation (1920s-1940s)responsibilty outweighed recreation, but not so today. 1,000 yrs. from now when they exavate the ruins of America to determine what destoyed to culture, the conclusion will be "They entertained themselves to death"
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..."
Good word Mike. I was hoping to come to this news topic and find some intellegent remarks, and hoping that someone might have suggested some of the more conservative Presbyterian fellowships as an alternative to PCUSA (I had recently discovered the ERPC evangelical reformed presbyterian church)Instead much of the discussion has been straining at a gnat and ignoring the camel. Hopefuly your comment will encorage others to adress the subject. P.S. Hope the strom did not go too badly. We prayed for your area yesterday.
truthful witness wrote: Amen. Why can't people understand that Talmudic, Kabalist Judaism IS SATANISM?
Why can't you understand that not every thread is about Zionism. Read the Title of the News Article.
You are getting as bad a Jim with his turning every thread into anti KJV, and as bad a Tony with his ALL caps posts. If you keep turning every thread into your own vindictive hobby horse, I for one will can the attention of the moderators to your posts, and they will close them.
Interesting Regarding Campings false prophesy; in all fairness, Camping is not predicting the end of the world on May 21st. Rather, he is predicting the second coming of Christ.
Of course any date setting is wrong. Nevertheless, when someone predicts the second coming of Christ and we call it the end of the world, we make the same mistake the world does. No premillinialist believes the rapture and the end of the world happen at the same time.
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?"
You have hit the nail on the head when it comes to these Emergent people. They think their embracing paradox makes them intellectually surperior, but what it makes them is just old fashioned liars.
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.
Yes you do mean to be sarcastic, and overreactionary. I don't mind you or anyone else using technology judiciously. But your post reveals several things. First you are Very defensive toward someone who has pointed out the abuse of this technology. This makes me think you may be among the 80% of people who are addicted to texting, or who use the tecnology inappropriatly. Secondly, you have put words in my mouth by portaying me as wanting to go back to smoke signals. Thirdly, you have totaly missed my point about how church services are interupted and the Holy Spirit quenched by people texting and surfing the net during the ministry of the Word. Not only in church, but when you can't even have a conversation with someone without them ignoring you to text someone, or they can't do their job due to texting, something is wrong. As to the idea that God's work cannot move forward without technology....Don't you believe in the suffeciency of scripture? So how about not jumping to conclusions when someone twice your senior recognizes the danger of fads.
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.
Thank you. I was saved out of the hard rock music in the 70s (I played it listened to it, and lived it's spirit)Many preachers at that time, rightly said, that Rock was of the devil.
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".
And "Lets play Rock to get people interested in Reformed theology" Sad days indeed!
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.
You know Sean. For over 3,000 yrs. people have gone deeper into the Hebrew words and it means the same today as it did when it was written. In Gen. Ch. 1 where it says "In the begining God Created" the word for created means All at once out of nothing. As for science; once the prejudices for eveolution are set aside, true investigators have found more reason to believe in a recent creation. Even unsaved scientists are recognizing purpousful design and intellegence. Of course they don't want to call it God. If people are looking for a Middle Ground posistion where everyone gets to be right, and live happily ever after; there really is no such groung in reality.
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.
If you want to research further, The Genesis Record by Dr. Henry Morris is a good start. Glad to see you don't buy Evolution.
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!
My friend; I'm afraid you may be close to getting caught up in the very thing you originaly posted against. Don't take the bait.
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!
While I believe that an objective study of the translation issue is important. I believe what you are saying is absolutly right. What good is it to stand around and Talk about who's sword is the best, when there is a much more serious battle raging. Take the sword and use it.
Joe the Protestant wrote: Rob Bell; the Emerging church pastor of mars hill, isn't far behind this vicar.
I am familiar with the methods of the contemporary church. They use the Mars Hill methodology as well as when Paul says he became all things to all people, as an excuse to copy the most gutter level subculture. All in an attempt to be Relevant. I guess that's what this misguided vicar is trying to do. I guess he must be some kind of liturgical emergent.
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 canâ€™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.
This is now only the heresy of Ellen G. White, JW, and Armstrongism, it has nothing to do with the topic. This thread will not continue if it remains Off Topic
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 canâ€™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
You owe an appology to John, God, and even yourself for embracing heresy, and for being so impertanent in usurping authority in trying to teach men. And not only men, but men who are much more taught in the word, and by God than you are. 1st Tim. 2:12