HistY quoted wrote:
"there is no evidence outside of Bede for the existence of this Anglo-Saxon goddess (Eostre). There is no equivalent goddess in the Norse Eddas or in ancient Germanic paganism from continental Europe.

Britain renamed "Whitsuntide" to "Spring Bank Holiday" years ago and then fixed the date. Suggest Iowa finds another name for "Good Friday" that hasn't yet been taken.

HistY - what about the goddess "Ishtar" which seems to be missing from the quoted analysis?

Of course the fact that the Hapsburgs are no longer on a throne does not mean that they do not wield power and influence.

Consider:-
1. The chief combatant against the British MEP here
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6842
2. Who claims to have been a leading organiser of the events that lead to the domino collapse of eastern European governments shortly after. A claim readily admitted by then East German leader Erich Honeker.

Mike wrote:
Fortunately, we don't have a king.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
It is interesting that all the major players dethrowned their monarchies, except Great Britain and Italy.

I realise your comment was resricted to the major players in WW1 but there are bigger issues, chief of which is that the countries or Empire that the monarchs ruled effectively ceased to exist. It is a fact of history that kingdoms rise and fall as we see in our time.

FYI Wikipedia says:
"Contemporary constitutional monarchies include Australia, Bahrain, Belgium, Belize, Cambodia, Canada, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Morocco, New Zealand, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Thailand and United Kingdom."

Neil wrote:
Jim, I cannot imagine you finding fault with your church.

Zqxk wrote:
The dopey politicians we have, think that getting every Tom, Dick or working class peasant to do a degree will win votes and influence people. That is the reason why this education system is vacuous!

Neil wrote:
Maybe college would be less costly if the gov't got out of the [URL=http://www.dl.ed.gov]]]student loan business[/URL]. Basic economics - more loans granted creates greater demand, which raises tuition. Education is not a right, & I think it is being used as a way to create more gov't clients (who gratefully re-elect their Benefactors).

Not being in government's ongoing debt, we can then rely on sheer ingratitude, beer money and selfishness to ensure that no political party benefited unfairly at the polls.

Kids yesterday, didn't know that they were born!

I did not intend to imply that you were justifying duelling. I was just looking for more information on the parallel you were drawing.

Can you expand on the link between "honour" and "duels" please?

I tend to see a duel as more akin to the way thugs and gangs and terrorists behave with revenge beatings and getting even; more to do with their 'turf' and their 'manor' or their women than with real biblical honour. I'm not sure that it was that different in the 19th century, given that human nature was just as depraved. I would appreciate more information to make the distinction. I've never read Jane Austen.

Neil wrote:
Rick, one pertinent sermon text for this problem (& Facebook as well) is Prov. 29:11.

Quite why people feel the need to tell the whole world "What are you doing?" or "What's happening?" at any and every time of the day simply escapes me.
Not to mention the safety and security concerns.

Rick wrote:
Ironicly, there are more non christians addressing this problem than christians. Maybee many professed christians are too in love with the world.

jpw wrote:
Well, every once in awhile the story has a happy ending. Homeschooling, what a worthy profession! I am glad to see a persecuted family being given refuge.

As a non-American Christian homeschooling family it is gratifying to see a potential place of refuge in the event of persecution at home (may it never be!).

It is a good and noble American tradition to be a place of refuge for those suffering persecution for their religion.

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

prince charles wrote:
also i heard him slag off martin luther once

Contrast what Martin Luther meant when he spoke of justification by faith alone:-

"The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24–25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23–25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us ... Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31)."

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/sva-04.html

"2. Restore a Biblical Doctrine of Salvation

The preaching of the gospel must include a clear call to repentance and justification by faith alone, with a recognition that such salvation delivers us from eternal judgement. We are in danger of using a superficial message and methods which rob people of a true knowledge of salvation. "

There is something missing, even in the midst of their own call to "Restore a Biblical Doctrine of Salvation".

It speaks of the gospel, repentance, justification by faith alone, eternal judgment, salvation. But it does NOT speak of Christ actually taking the punishment for our sins. I venture that this is not a simple oversight. I venture this is directly because Clifford Hill co-authored it.

To Clifford Hill's thinking as he explicitly expounded it in 1992:-
- Christ's death on the cross was not necessary.
- God forgives, because that's what God does.
- Christ's death was just a "demonstration" of God's love.

prince charles wrote:
In the UK we have quite a well known man called clifford hill who claims to have a prophetic ministry.
I listen to his CD's which are very interesting but on the downside he seems to keep some odd company at times which makes me wonder .......have any any UK based brethren come across him ?

Clifford Hill's denial of Christ's penal substitution can be found in a message entitled:
"The downfall of western civilisation and the triumph of the justice of God"
It was delivered at the Yeshua '92 conference in August 1992 held at Southampton University.

It was recorded by Anchor Recordings.
Prediction: they will not provide you with the message.

Hope that helps.

John UK wrote:
I've not come across him bro, but he is very active in the charis movement. His co-written book Blessing the Church? is reviewed:
"But it is Clifford Hill's last chapter in which the gloves really come off. ...
He speculates as to what the future might be. It is gripping, vital stuff. Many Reformed readers will be very tempted to read this book and say, 'There we are, we told you so,' and they would probably be right. But Hill and the others represent a Bible-based, serious charismatic Christianity which deserves better from us."

As far as I am aware Clifford Hill has never repented of his liberal doctrine where he denies the necessity of the shed blood of Christ.

I heard it in person with my own ears.
It was a very carefully prepared message.
He said that he had had that message for 10 years previously but never dared speak it.
It was no slip of the tongue.
He was not misunderstood.

Clifford Hill is a heretic. The Bible rejects his damnable doctrine.

How do they know?

In a situation of organisational chaos, little food, shelter, transportation, sanitation, nevertheless evangelicals can keep on counting exact numbers of converts.

May God indeed bless his Word to the drawing forth of the elect in Haiti.

Max wrote:
I have yet to meet an adulterer who declares his adultery is not wrong,