John UK wrote: Bro Mike, have you ever come across any dispensationalists who do not believe that animal sacrifices will resume during a supposed millennial reign of Christ?
I'm not Amill, John, so maybe the label "dispy" might be applied? Maybe I'm wrong, but I have no good reason to think there will be animal sacrifice during the millennium. Since Revelation doesn't say anything about it, and as we know, the purpose of Revelation is to disclose, to reveal, to make clear, to manifest, (unlike parables) there is no reason to suppose it will be resumed. If a serious hunt has to go on in order to find verses somewhere which allegedly support something which isn't there, then it probably isn't there, and the other verses are improperly used. If that which was given to disclose "that which must be hereafter" (4:1) doesn't disclose what someone is looking for, then perhaps it isn't there to disclose.
Ignominious Emirakan wrote: CNSNews.com) â€“ Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on NBCâ€™s â€śMeet the Press today that â€śthe unborn person doesnâ€™t have constitutional rights.â€ť ---
She misses the point, even while using the word "person." The unborn person is a human, therefore has the right to continue to live. Why do people listen to these ignorant buffoons? As for constitutional rights, one of them Americans have is the right to life, endowed to us by our Creator. So yes. the unborn American person also has constitutional rights. A person is a human, Hillary! Wake up and smell the coffee. Not surprising she doesn't want Americans to have constitutional rights, but does want illegal non-Americans to have them.
Kev wrote: Mike from NY Notice what is said in Revelations, notice the wording. Revelation 2:29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. Now notice the same wording Jesus used when he spoke in parables. Could this be that Revelations is like a parable, or is there a beast with a horn knocking stars out of the sky. Mark 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. Revelations is meant for those with deep spiritual understanding(I'm not one of them at least not at this point)
Kev wrote: I feel responsible since I started this to say that many dispensationalists don't hold to this clearly unbiblical stance on giving temple sacrifices so I don't want them to be lumped together that they all believe this nonsense. Most aren't zionistic either and have the belief that the "Holy Land" must be acquired at all costs either. Many are mislead though by this literalism approach to interpreting difficult passages of scripture like in Revelations. I like your passion Penned and your comment
Kev, methinks lumping all elements together makes the argument against them easier. Like when a gun is used in a crime, all gun-owners are lumped together with criminals. Similarly, dispys in general must be wackjobs because some have excess imagination. As for Revelation difficulty, it might be less difficult for some if it were read with less fuzzifying spiritualization, suggesting the manufactured fuzz is mystery, understandable only by hunting around elsewhere for appropriately needful verses. Would it not instead be better to ask, why is the book called The Revelation of Jesus Christ, if the purpose of that revealing as described in Rev 1:1 was meant to be obscured? A hidden revealing is a contradiction.
John Yurich USA wrote: The San Benito Unified School District in California should have known that a court in the State of California eight years ago concluded that state law permits homeschooling as private education.
Who gave the State permission to permit parents to teach their children?
John UK wrote: --- This is what we're up against, and I for one am glad that there are governmental departments who spend all their time seeking to prevent things like this. I even see it as a provision of God. ---
Me too. If only they could be everywhere for the times they can't prevent these things we see increasingly. We sure do lay a lot of responsibility for the impossible on the unable, don't we?
John UK wrote: --- I am looking for a practical application of scripture. Bear in mind that in the UK we are not even permitted to carry a small penknife outside our houses. KJG, ---
Sad, bro. Governments seem always to drift toward thinking they are your mother, protecting adult toddlers from the scratches and bruises of life, whereas real Mums know when their children grow up.
Kev wrote: Yes this comment was about the martyrdom of Paul and BRF also used the word martyrdom in his comment. I think the context was in the case of martyrdom. I do not know how it got changed. Sometimes hard to follow with a bunch of different posters. I think this is the original context in this post.
For the sake of clarity, the original context for the shift in direction the thread went is- Allie said "John from UK, you folks need to be armed." BRF replied "We are to trust in God not guns." Christian said "@BRF:Amen We love our enemies and turn the other cheek..." Mike asked if God never used armed people to defend themselves or to destroy others? BRF replied "When the apostle Paul faced death for his faith he neither took up arms nor encouraged others to either."
There is difference in being persecuted or even martyred for one's faith, and defense of oneself or those God has entrusted to us for reason other than persecution. Context is important. The question is would God allow for people to employ arms to defend themselves? Jesus said:
Luke 12:39 "And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through."
New Testament teaching. What might we suppose the goodman was to do in this situation to prevent the thief from doing his deed? Humbly let him steal, and kill, and destroy? Maybe not. The thief cares not what your faith is, and letting him rob and kill isn't being taught here as a way to bring glory to God via martyrdom, which it would not be anyway.
BRF wrote: When the apostle Paul faced death for his faith he neither took up arms nor encouraged others to either. We are to live by faith and even die for it rather than cling to this world. Death for the believer is the door way to glory and if God wants to take us by the way of martyrdom that should be considered as a privilege. Set your affections on things above and not below Col 3:1-4.
You mean God has never used armed people to defend themselves or to destroy others? We may have to rewrite biblical history.
Kev wrote: Sometimes I get upset with the USA to. Sometimes I wonder if USA is the Babylon of Revelations, specially with all this homosexual agenda we are pushing on everyone it does seem to fit. But you have to keep in mind all us Christians are pilgrims in a foreign land and we don't belong to any country, we live for a Kingdom not of the world. ---
The reason it seems as you say is, Americans wear their underwear on the outside, so to speak. Meanwhile the debauchery has gone on for centuries, well before there was such a thing as the USA. But they may be better at pretending than we are. Like I've said before, we are just trying to catch up with where the rest of the world already is. Look around at what is going on in the world outside the US. Then decide who is leading the race to destruction.
Wayfarer Pilgrim wrote: I still think that come October that Clinton will have a 5% lead over Trump and win the presidency. Picking one poll out of ten and saying Trump is in the lead is not realistic. However, if the US has a couple of France like attacks, Clinton will be demolished. She could win the middle if she wasn't kissing Sandinista Sanders posterity. But, the Clintons cannot pivot and make their case that this election is in the best interest of all Americans. Sanders, Obama and Trump all sucked up all the air in the room. If she looses, blame her and her predecessor.
I can't say my limited observations are indicative, but around here in my travels, I've seen one or two Hillary signs, a few of Bernie's, and a notable number of Trump's. I know this State has always been in the tank for Democrats, but you can't tell it from the signs this year. Maybe we don't want Hillary to do for the country what she did for NY.