Dave wrote: Steve r is a wolf, he jokes of child rape by the Catholic Church. Be warned, he is a creep
I regret to bother you during your days of prayer and reflection, as you promised us a couple of days apart from your wisdom. But now that you are here, a question requiring your special judgment, what is the most elegant fortified wine to serve with vegemite?
you obviously caught wrote: woman's volleyball. The men are usually covered from shoulder to knee when playing. Which goes to show there is no advantage to the way the woman are attired, if you want to call it that, in their matches.
Chris must have thought women had similar outfits, but coverage to the ankles plus head coverings.
I find it entertaining that when the pro fermented grape crowd wants to justify their wine position, they consult current culture, current definitions and religious tradition. They insult Sola Scriptura in their bias. Its a very Catholic thing to do
I'm sure the BJU educated moderators are enjoying the hypocrisy as well
Kev wrote: Last thing to you Steve. Do you agree with that statement? I'll tell you what, I wouldn't attend BJU. SermonAudio is a great blessing to many.
Last word? My Sodom and Corona crack was about CA, not you.
Even the teetotalers at my Church wouldn't agree with the BJU statement. Not because we use real wine at the LORDs Supper and they partake, but I think they believe Biblical wine is ummmm wine. I certainly hope they don't feel coerced to accept a bit of wine.
Judges 9:13 Â And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?
Kev wrote: I can't imagine one saying yes to this, which really is the basis for this whole discussion. SC also says she doesn't believe in baptism either so maybe she would answer yes.
You cant imagine it, because you grew up in Sodom & Corona. Don't you know SA is the unseen arm of BJU? Here is their position statement on alcohol
" Bob Jones University has taken a consistent stand for complete abstinence from the use of alcohol since our inception in 1927. Bob Jones University does not believe the Scripture condones the beverage use of alcohol by Bible-believing Christians. We will not retain a faculty or staff member or a student who uses alcohol or promotes its use. Bob Jones University believes that the Christian is called to a life of growing conformity to the image of Christ and that the beverage use of alcohol hinders this conformity and growth in personal holiness. It is the Universityâs position that total abstinence is crucial to the believerâs unhindered and unobscured testimonyâin the home, among fellow believers in the church, in the workplace and in society at large."
Kev wrote: I am talking about biblical moderation which means not to the point where one is dulled in the senses. modÂˇerÂˇaÂˇtion ËmĂ¤dÉËrÄSH(É)n/ noun 1. the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one's behavior or political opinions. Are you gonna start grammar checking me Steve?
Didn't SC answer that already? She is zero tolerance for everyone
Kev wrote: Great points there Christopher. Also just imagine if Christ drank wine as many passages in the Bible point towards then it would be as people have set themselves as a judge over Christ! It would also mean that if Christ turned the water into wine at the party it would be sinful, which wine was customary for Jewish weddings. People give place for their own beliefs and understanding and the Bible says "lean not on your own understanding". Steve try to guess what I meant, I left out one word: "for". Great points TMC
OK then " Is it sinful FOR everyone to drink in moderation?"
I think if everyone were drinking in moderation, the world would be a very dangerous place. Not only that, can you imagine the confusion? I mean what wine do you pair with vegemite or Capt Crunch?
My heart goes out to these people, as more rain is on the way and who knows when they can return. Ironically my mens Bible Study had a recent icebreaker question, if you had to evacuate your home and can only take one thing, what would you take? Most said it would be their Bible
I have mixed feelings on this. I think anyone that has been to the Christian section of a Barnes and Noble understands that most of the books found there don't reflect sound Christianity. However, I have to go with Carl on this one, it is fiction. And I have to go with Brains too, as WND sells all kinds of strange stuff in their 'Christian' book and movie section. It is somewhat hypocritical for them to play this storyline up
Christopher000 wrote: This topic also reminds me of guns when they come up and the arguments for and against personal protection. Neither one ever goes anywhere at all.
Are you really comparing this topic with guns?
Except guns aren't an essential part of one of the two Sacraments/Ordinances Churches listed on SA observe. Remember one family member of the board rebuked his own Church leadership DURING the Sacrament because one family wanted water. Another member of the board thinks an essential part of the Sacrament is evil
SteveR wrote: Do you say that because you think rebuking Church leadership during the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is acceptable because leadership would allow one families wish to not have wine? or you are defending Christians the right to drink wine in moderation?
Ladybug Forgive me, looking at your answer, I understand I should have included the option of both
Do you say that because you think rebuking Church leadership during the Sacrament of the Lords Supper is acceptable because leadership would allow one families wish to not have wine? or you are defending Christians the right to drink wine in moderation?
s c wrote: Of those who I know who defend it,they also are the most flesh-driven in their lifestyle choices.
The people I know that defend it, mainly do so because its what their Church uses for the Sacrament backed by (what I would call sound understanding) Scripture. So it really isn't fair to call them flesh driven, unless you want to accuse Conservative Church leadership and their congregations as 'flesh driven.'
Now, the argument that a thimble of wine can lead the weak down the wrong path is an excellent one, and one I pondered more than once. Should we give teens actual wine during the Sacrament? As an adult that never partook of the Sacrament with wine, when I did a thimble isn't a big deal, but what about teens or the weak? I am repulsed of the idea that some should be forced, coerced or even rebuked into drinking alcoholic wine
edit I should add, my first glass of red wine came in college. And it was HIDEOUS. I thought, who would want to drink this stuff? My Church uses a similar cheap wine for the Sacrament, which is a threefold possibility 1) Maybe our teens will despise wine and never ever drink it? 2) Maybe we hurt them because they will like even junk wine? 3) No effect 3)
Anne wrote: God bless you gentlemen! We had an incident a few months previous in church during communion. The tray passed our way and lo and behold there was a row of WATER AND SALTINES. My husband who is generally quiet and deals with things the same way stood and rebuked the elders and pastor right there. A husband and wife said they were fasting and couldn't eat the bread and grape juice. So my dear husband lovingly launched into the finer points of the Lord's Supper. An elder commented that there are those who see the true evils of wine and would leave any church that served wine. When asked what would stop us from serving Coke and pizza bites at the next communion if we didn't have to follow Christ's example there was an lot of awkward silence. In the following weeks the pastor and elders did a study on the use of wine. We now serve wine during communion and look forward to the day when we will drink it with Christ in paradise!
I don't know which is worse, that your husband openly rebuked Church leadership during the Sacrament, or that you are so proud he did.
Mike wrote: It is curious that a court thinks it has authority to regulate immigration. That is solely the responsibility of Congress. None of the court's interpretation is based on who has authority, so if Congress wants to enforce Trump's executive order, it would seem it could overrule the court's hold. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Congress to assert itself.
Congress cant authenticate an Executive Order, but it could pass legislation to achieve the goals of that Executive Order.
So whats the game?
I find it interesting Trump piggybacked this EO on a previous EO issued by the Obama Administration. Thus if it does go to the Supreme Court, there is more at stake than just this EO. I feel the Trump Administration has a plan, either that or they can be just a bunch of idiots grandstanding for attention and causing division