"Of course Democrats lie because the Democratic Party is the party of Satan whereas the Republican Party is the party of Jesus."
Absolutely wrong. Not everyone in the Republican Party is saved. Jesus came to institute a Church, not a political party. Be VERY careful here, this is the line of thought that led to the corruption of the Roman Catholic Church. I believe you are you the one who claims Christ and is still in the RCC, no? Surely you will admit that the RCC, at the very least, has put its hand in the world's affairs where it simply doesn't belong.
Republicans are wicked, just like Democrats are wicked. God has simply restrained the Republicans a little more. That is a far cry from them being "the party of Jesus".
Being a Christian and a gamer are not incompatible. Being a Christian and a hardcore gamer are. Just because some games are wicked doesn't mean the medium is evil any more than erotic novels make books inherently evil. Nintendo especially makes family-friendly games (which is why I only own a Wii U).
As a gamer myself, I've looked into this Gamechurch thing. I walked away from it a little mixed. On the one hand, it is not so fluffy as to give Joel Osteen a run for his money. On the other hand though, it feels a little empty. It almost seems like it's saying "Jesus wants you, and He wants you to change, but more Achievements are good too." It reminds me of Relevant Magazine, personally. If you're familiar with that magazine, that's the general feel I get from Gamechurch.
The problem is that that is their word for God. El is the Hebrew word for God, Baal is the Canaanite word for God, Theos is the Greek word for God, and Allah is the Arabic word for God.
The problem is that there is no other alternative that makes sense natively to Arabic speakers. Christians now must either risk imprisonment, or use a term to describe God that most they are trying to reach are unfamiliar with (either a made-up name, or another language's word for God). It would be like the Jews or the Mormons trademarking "God" so that we couldn't use it. There are connotations (both positive and negative) that an unbeliever would automatically assume.
Neil wrote: You're Cherry Picking, as you failed to address verses like
Prov. 31:6: "Give strong drink unto him that is ready to perish, and wine unto those that be of heavy hearts."
To be fair, he did address that one. But the others are pertinent, so your case certainly stands.
For those who want to say that all drinking of alcohol is wrong, the miracle at the wedding must be tricky. After all, we cannot imagine Jesus giving anything else we would all agree is sinful to these people. If I may meld cultures, would Jesus go to a bachelor party and hand out Playboy?
In addition, if alcohol is indeed wrong, and Jesus (whom I am to imitate) gave it to others, should I then go around giving things I believe to be sin?
For clarification, I am a tee-totaler by choice. I have tasted alcohol, but the very taste disgusts me.
While it would make me sad that the missionary seems to have repented from his "crimes", I have to remember that this is coming from a North Korean attorney. They have no accountability here. No one can check up on their facts. So I will give the benefit of the doubt to the Christian and say he did no such thing.
Honestly, I'm a little surprised by the anger towards this. While I haven't read the whole article, it seems like it is a modern translation based on the Textus Receptus, rather than the eclectic Greek testaments from after 1611. I would have thought that the TR-onlyists would like this. Oh well. Can't please everyone I suppose.
It seems as though they're saying that this "ultimatum game" is the basic concept of survival boiled down into a few principles, and upon understanding those principles our ancestors created concepts of fairness and spite.
Ignoring other "doubts about Evolution" as they write, and even ignoring my own doubts about the basic premise, that this game is the basics of survival life, this understanding still falls flat on one point.
They expect me to believe that animals with brains significantly less developed than my own pulled together concepts of present and future, we're capable of weighing out the results of their actions, and chose to behave in ways they never behaved before (since we're talking about the origin of such actions). And all without a single shred of science (science being defined in the traditional way of something being confirmed through use of the scientific method).
Trust me, as a married man, I can tell you that the size of the wedding means only a tenth as much on this side of marriage. Everything looks fuzzy in your memories. Everything but your wife. If she's there, then that's all you need.
And speaking of traditions, a far longer tradition is for the bride's father to give a dowry of some sort. If you're cheap, just ask for the money that could go to a big wedding be given for a dowry, and then have a small wedding. That'll matter a whole lot more than some ceremony.
Tracey, for a time the Apostle Peter was anti-Gentile, so much so that he refused to eat with them to placate his Jewish friends. This would have continued, had God not sent Paul to correct him.
Believing false doctrine, even doctrines that affect one's relationships, is not necessarily mutually exclusive with Christianity.
If this singer continues to believe this false doctrine, then either he will continue to stray and show all that he was never saved to begin with, or he will die, go to Heaven, and find out that he was very wrong on this issue.
Wow, Tracey, the way you make it sound is almost like being saved and being pro-gay marriage are mutually exclusive. This is not an issue of dogma. (For the sake of clarity, it should be made known that I am not at all in favor of same-sex marriage)
Also, the singer wanted a non-speculative, non-slippery-slope argument? Well, first off you're limiting your evidence, that just shows that you've already decided. Secondly, gays already have full marriage rights in every state. The difference is that their preferences are different than what most states offer. That is all. This is an issue of preference, not rights. Law should be used to secure rights of citizens. Law has no business securing the preference of citizens. There is no legal basis for same-sex marriage.
But of you wanted to talk about what God says, He is quite clear of His command in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1, as well as a few other places.
John Y: "Christians are not supposed to be celebrating Passover anyway but are to celebrate the Resurrection on Easter Sunday."
What? Nowhere in the Bible does it forbid Christians from observing Passover (as long as one is doing it for Jesus; see Romans 14), and nowhere in the Bible is Easter even mentioned, much less commanded. Unless you mean that we are supposed to celebrate the Resurrection every day. But then that makes Easter irrelevant.
I agree that this assignment is ridiculous, but the way you speak sounds frighteningly close to putting the Constitution on the same level as Scripture. The Constitution, as useful and well-written as it is, is still a fallible document written by fallible men. It's inferiority to Scripture can be shown most plainly by the fact that the Constitution has had several amendments (in fact, this very page is all about them). God's Word, on the other hand, needs no amendments. The Law of The Lord is perfect.
And then they, in turn, would pull out their guns. Either you would step down, definitely lose your kids, and the media would publish an article about "crazy conservative Christians", or you would shoot one, get killed yourself, the children would get put in the system, and an article about "crazy and dangerous conservative Christians" would be written.
Either way, the kids lost, and more importantly the Kingdom is damaged.
John Yurich, True. However, considering Jesus (and practically the entire book of 1 John) show, in different words, that loving others is the visible fruit of salvation, we can be fairly confident that he wasn't saved. This is tragic. I would absolutely LOVE to be wrong, but unfortunately I don't think I am.