I got married just before my sophomore year of college. My grades surely dipped somewhat, but when I think back (though it's been just 2.5 years), I matured during college much faster than others. They were busy with having fun, while I was busy giving my life to my wife. Now I'm seeing them all get married, and even those who are older than I don't seem to be much more mature than in college. But marriage does that to you.
You may come to regret those words. I certainly hope you do.
There was a time when some Christians may have said something similar. Raiding churches, perhaps killing Christians. The temptation certainly existed for Christians to say something almost identical to what you said:
Saul is going to Hell.
But God radically changed him and the one who raided churches ended up writing a sizable portion of the New Testament.
Is Hall in sin? Yes, most certainly he is. I see no reason to suspect that he is a genuine Christian.
But my God is strong enough to take even him and make him a beloved son of the Father.
If He does, you will apologize in glory. I sincerely hope you do.
That's exciting. Il have to check my local store and see if they get anything in. We celebrate (some) the Jewish holidays (in a Christian manner). Target has normally been the place to buy Chanukah stuff, but now there might be somewhere else.
John 10:22 begins the story of Jesus speaking to the Jewish leaders on the Festival of Dedication (Chanukah). It's wonderful to look, on the eighth day, at our menorah, full of light, and explain that the Temple restoration by Judas Maccabeus was a light in the darkness, pointing to (and greatly overshadowed by) the Light of the World, Jesus Christ.
"When this child becomes a man, he will have met the first criteria..."
How do you know he is not a man? Men younger than 19 have led soldiers into battle, have jumped in the way of bullets, have sacrificed. One certainly can be a man at 19. Do you know this person? What knowledge do you have that tells you he's not a man?
Also, I disagree that Paul's statement should be taken as a strict commandment that must be enforced in every case. I think he was trying to weed out people with polygamous intentions, and people who have divorced, ie people who don't hold marriage very high.
Otherwise, in 1 Corinthians 7, he essentially says that his desire would be that everyone is disqualified for the pastorate.
By refusing unmarried people for the pastorate, the Apostle Paul himself cannot be a pastor. More importantly, the Shepherd Himself, our Lord Christ Jesus, is disqualified to shepherd a flock!
Man, you can see the bias straight out of the gate. "and which school teams they join based on their gender identity instead of their chromosomes." They make it seem like drawing the line at someone's sex rather than their identity is arbitrary, by using the overly technical word "chromosomes".
Well, it's a lot closer, and this sort of thing should be encouraged. I'm sick and tired of women holding the double standard where they are either claiming that they are no different from men, and that they should fight and bite and claw to get to the top, but then whenever docility is advantageous, all of a sudden women are to be protected because they are gentle and should be handled gently. Pick one. This woman has. Does she get everything exact? No. Does she submit unto the Lord? Maybe, maybe not (I don't know her). But this decision to willingly submit is a breath of fresh air, believing or otherwise.
I don't see a problem with it. I reject gay marriage, but I see no reason to withhold financial benefits from a gay couple that we hand out to a married couple (though they should add unmarried straight couples too). As I've said before, we can't punish worldly people with worldly things, simply because they are worldly. They will receive their due punishment at the Judgment. Let the tares grow.
Overturning Roe v Wade is useless. Sure, it might make abortion illegal, but that will do nothing but make abortions less safe for the mother. The goal is not to make abortion illegal. We need to learn from Prohibition. The goal is to convince the people that abortion is wrong. Once that happens, making abortion illegal is easy. Just look at what happened when the government tried to take away something that the general public didn't see as bad.
Curtis wrote: No matter what anyone says, a persons theology does matter.I can not vote for Mitt Romney, his religion is sending people to hell. To votee for someone who believs. That Satan and my Lord Jesus are brother is hertical. Now that doesn't say that iLm going to vote for Pres Obama either. Before when vote we ought be asking God to give us a true Christian for president.
Please don't throw around that word; it weakens it's power.
Believing those things is heretical; voting for someone who does is not.
The way I see it, we have Obama, whose religious and practical affinities are clear and have been discussed by many a member here.
Then we have Romney, who, while also heretical in his views, is more conservative and altogether closer leaning than Obama, particularly on the two hot-button issues of our day: abortion and gay marriage.
Finally, we have Ron Paul, who has all but withdrawn from the race.
While nobody here agrees with Romney's theology, if we have a desire to vote, and to vote in such a way that has any weight (if the electoral college has left that option, that is) then sad to say Mitt Romney is our best bet.
eyesclosed wrote: 'the view of religion which takes you to the theater is so far off from mine that I cannot commune with you therein.'
It must be a strange school for virtue which attracts the harlot and the debauchee. It is no place for a Christian if it is best appreciated by the irreligious and worldly. http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/christia/spurgeon.htm
I would certainly hope that Charles Spurgeon is denouncing Christian theatregoing on grounds further than this. By that logic, the house of the tax collector likely had the same such "sinful" types of people coming and going, but that did not stop Jesus from going in. And a shared experience is a fertile ground for evangelism. "what did you think of that part where . . .". "do you think it's okay to do that in real life?". Such great conversations can spring from movies, even if the movies themselves are not biblically-based. (that is of course very different from going to see an unrated or NC-17 film)
2 and 2 wrote: ""What happened up in Aurora ... was the product of pure evil. It was the result of a depraved individual taking his free will to the extreme," said Jim Daly, president of Focus on the Family, in a statement Friday." In Calvinism, Total Depravity is often defined that every cell in one's body is tainted with sin. But this is not to imply that a sinner could be Utterly Depraved -- or is 'pure evil.' Therefore, how can a Calvinist describe himself, and everyone else, as 'Totally Depraved' while labeling Mr. Holms as merely 'depraved' -- making him, at least on paper, seemingly more holy than 99.9999% us? Something just doesn't add up.
I've never heard this cell definition. I also would like to know what sources you use.
The way I've been taught the concept of total depravity is that sin has tainted every part of the individual. What this means is that I cannot trust any part of me to make a decision that is not influenced by sin. My intellect, my emotions, my sense of justice, love, and peace, all of it is rendered untrustworthy. Now the level to which these things have been tainted varies from time to time and from person to person, but they have all been tainted to some degree.
R.gr wrote: Those in hollywood worship satan and with the name dark knight rises, we all, i hope know who that is refering to and its not the charactor in the movie its all about symbolism with them!
Certainly you don't suggest it merely because of the word "dark". Dark can be a godly thing. "Then spoke Solomon, The LORD said that he would dwell in the thick darkness" (1 Kings 8:12). It isn't often godly, but if darkness is equated with evil, then what does that say about God, who surrounded Himself with darkness?
But regarding the movie, I don't see anything wrong with it for an adult to watch. It is actually a good showing of how the secular world thinks concerning good and evil, pragmatism and honor.
Also, this article is for The Dark Knight, which came out 4 years ago. Why not use an up to date article for the new film?