|
Post by rayray on Nov 7, 2015 6:37:30 GMT -6
Exactly! It's not like if God doesn't want us to be saved, there is nothing we can do about it. It's if we are saved, than he pre-destined that.
|
|
|
Post by BladeSpinnerRae on Nov 7, 2015 15:14:10 GMT -6
Yeah, and as I said, I think it is His will that all be saved - He calls all hearts toward Him, but not all heed His call.
|
|
|
Post by Brie D on Nov 7, 2015 15:40:07 GMT -6
What do people think about denominations and other Christian labels? Should we identify ourselves like that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Location:
Joined: January 1970
Age:
Gender:
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 7, 2015 17:22:12 GMT -6
I think as long as they are not teaching anything heretical or adding/taking things away from the bible (like the duck dynasty dudes, Bad ducky's!) then I think it is fine. Right now I am part of a church which is non-denominational but is very close to Baptist.
|
|
|
Post by Brie D on Nov 7, 2015 18:12:49 GMT -6
I see what you mean, but though our church has a label, I just consider myself to be a Christian. We definitely should be exclusive in that way. We don't want to say 'I am of Paul' or 'I am of Apollos'.
And calling churches non-denominational hasn't helped. It makes me think of something about competing standards. Say you have five competing standards (let's say types of data cables). Someone creates a universal cable. Now we have six competing standards.
|
|
|
Post by rayray on Nov 7, 2015 21:20:16 GMT -6
My church is a bible church.
|
|
|
Post by Brie D on Nov 8, 2015 0:32:26 GMT -6
Unless that means you think only one translation is right, that's definitely a good thing. Any other kind of church doesn't sound very good.
Our fellowship has a wide range of views on some things, but they say we're baptists are allowed to disagree. That means we all learn from each other and, we pray, get closer to the truth.
|
|
|
Post by BladeSpinnerRae on Nov 8, 2015 7:10:21 GMT -6
Well, personally, I do not like all the different watered-down Bible versions. There's so many out there, it's sad. And so many of them completely take away Jesus' power (for example, saying that Mary's virgin birth wasn't virgin at all, but rather a young pregnant girl, or the verse in Philippians that takes away Christ completely and instead just says 'him' not even capitalized - there's no reason to take away the name of Jesus). I don't want to get into a big debate with everybody, but if you disagree or are curious about it, I encourage you to do your own research on it.
|
|
|
Post by Brie D on Nov 8, 2015 14:12:29 GMT -6
Oh yes. There are certainly bad translations or paraphases. And commentaries too. It's just that there are churches that believe that the old king james is the only good translation. It does have it's good points. Most of places jackals are mentioned in the bible, they translate it as dragons. But, they say, 'Dragons are mythical creatures. It must be wrong. We'll fix it.' On the other hand some words have changed meaning enough that it's not easy for everyone to understand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Location:
Joined: January 1970
Age:
Gender:
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2015 17:04:08 GMT -6
Yea i hate when they change words. Like in Job it says "who can train the unicorn? Can you make it plow your fields? " and the switch it for 9Ox. An Ox is trainable! Now when God said unicorn he was actually talking about a unicorn which was a one horned animal (a.k.a an extincted rion) or like when it says dragon they changed it to 'snake' if God said dragon He meant Dragon! Okay dragons where real. They use to be alive but sadly we killed them all. And don't get me started on the 'message' bible
|
|
|
Post by Brie D on Nov 8, 2015 17:10:32 GMT -6
Yeah I know about the unicorn or one horn. That isn't so bad as the creature most people know as a unicorn isn't real. It's from a whale.
Something I've been questioning since I read Resistance: Should Christians fight, defend themselves?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Location:
Joined: January 1970
Age:
Gender:
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2015 19:14:37 GMT -6
Can you show me a verse in the bible that says we shouldn't?
|
|
|
Post by Brie D on Nov 8, 2015 19:52:08 GMT -6
I haven't come to much of a conclusion myself. I think we should stop people who are trying to kill us, because life has value and they should not be allowed to murder. However I think that in a case of kill or be killed, it is better for us to die.
Matthew 5:38-45 (NKJV) "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away. "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
|
|
Dame Tashawna
Soldier
Location:
Joined: June 2015
Age:
Gender: Female
Posts: 313
|
Post by Dame Tashawna on Nov 8, 2015 20:02:28 GMT -6
That's really hard... If you're walking with God, then you just ask Him to show you what to do in a situation like that. There are situations where you have to kill a bad person, though.
|
|
|
Post by Brie D on Nov 8, 2015 20:37:41 GMT -6
I agree, it's something between us and God and possibly your family. If we can avoid fighting we should though.
Perhaps. If you can stop them without killing them you should though.
|
|
|
Post by rayray on Nov 9, 2015 7:00:31 GMT -6
I don't think that we can really say what we should do in there. None of us will ever be in a situation like that, unless something crazy happens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Location:
Joined: January 1970
Age:
Gender:
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2015 11:42:06 GMT -6
Brie D what are you trying to say with that verse? I have taken NT survey course (which the The Master's College )
we went over these verses and I can brake it down piece by piece and it say nothing about defending ones self from attackers. In verse 38 is a quote from the OT which is stating that the punishment for any civil case should fit the crime. In verses 39-42 are talking about personal retaliation, not criminal acts, but rather if someone offended us to not be quick to retaliate In verse 43 is also a quote from the OT, the first part is found in the Law of Moses, the second part is how the old Pharisees explained and applied it. But God never said to do that (Prov. 25:21). In verses 44-45 Jesus is teaching that God's love extends to even His enemies (which we use to be ) otherwise known as common grace, but it is different from the love the He shows to His children (Jer.31:3) In the NT I can't find a place where it says "Do not defend yourself when someone who is physically attacking you" so if you can please tell me. But rather what I see is that we have the right just like anyone else to defend ourselves, after all we are made in the Image of Go. We are not to just roll over an die when we are attacked, did Paul or Peter or John or any of brothers of old? no, they may have not physically fought but their words where more then enough. And rayray I am going into law enforcement so these are dictions I will have to make, Paul says "the soldier does not bare the sword for nothing" so if you brake the law expect to be punished.
|
|
|
Post by Brie D on Nov 9, 2015 13:57:35 GMT -6
It was just the first passage I thought of. As I said, I haven't come to any conclusions yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Location:
Joined: January 1970
Age:
Gender:
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 17:05:12 GMT -6
Okay here is a new one. What is your take on the age of the earth? do you think it is old your young? what do you have to say about stuff like radiometric dating? (and no radiometric dating is not about dating the radio host )
|
|
Dame Tashawna
Soldier
Location:
Joined: June 2015
Age:
Gender: Female
Posts: 313
|
Post by Dame Tashawna on Nov 21, 2015 15:30:33 GMT -6
I believe the earth is young... like not in the "millions and billions of years", but like, something thousand. However they calculated it according to the Bible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Location:
Joined: January 1970
Age:
Gender:
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2015 15:37:59 GMT -6
I believe the same thing, one of the reason they use radiometric dating is because it give the earth and other things an older date which to them proves evolution. But radiometric dating is actually a flawed system on dating, here is a link to a video that enplanes everything in a matter of minutes www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6oy3QVRg-E&list=PL1v9pqs4w1mxRVplL9I5Pq_qQH9jy8b1V&index=4check it out and tell me what you think
|
|
|
Post by Brie D on Nov 21, 2015 16:11:13 GMT -6
I know the earth is young like the Bible says. I didn't watch the video, 1. because I don't have much internet, 2. because I've been hearing that kind of stuff all my life and could explain it pretty well myself.
Of course a longer time doesn't prove evolution. It's just even more impossible in a shorter space of time. They say that in an infinite time, the impossible becomes possible. But if it's impossible nothing will help.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Location:
Joined: January 1970
Age:
Gender:
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2015 16:14:15 GMT -6
really? cool would you mind explaining it (I just want to hear how you say it)
|
|
|
Post by Brie D on Nov 21, 2015 20:57:58 GMT -6
Well, radiometric dating is based on a lot of assumptions. They assume the amount of the parent isotope in the rock when it was formed, that there was no daughter isotope, that none of either has leaked in or out, that the decay rate has stayed constant. If all those assumptions are correct then they should be able to get a fairly accurate date for the formation of the rock. if not they can get whatever date they want by trying enough methods. Sometime different dating methods completely contradict each other. They will discard any date that doesn't fit. Also these dating methods are usually incorrect for rocks of known age.
Another note, carbon dating cannot give dates older than thousands of years. If anything was over a million years old there is no way that there could be any carbon-14.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Location:
Joined: January 1970
Age:
Gender:
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2015 9:18:36 GMT -6
Wow Brie D ! Great answer! That was just like the video from Ken Ham. I think it's safe to say that most (if not all) dating methods are a assumption so there for most on them will yield a wrong answer. There are some that give a younger age to everything but i don't know enough about them yet.
|
|
|
Post by Brie D on Nov 22, 2015 13:22:01 GMT -6
As I said, I've been hearing it all my life. Of course there are still plenty of things on the subject that I don't know. One of my younger brothers tries to read every new article on the creation.com website.
|
|
|
Post by rayray on Nov 22, 2015 13:25:59 GMT -6
Ok, what do you guys think about the Starbucks cups and the Christians getting upset over it?
I saw something on Pinterest that said, "This is me not caring what Starbuck puts on their cup", and I loved it. If we say that because they aren't putting snowflakes on cups than they are trashing Christmas, than we are celebrating snowflakes and symbols. If they are trashing Christ, that is wrong, but all they did was make their cups red instead of putting symbols on them.
|
|
|
Post by BladeSpinnerRae on Nov 22, 2015 13:42:06 GMT -6
I haven't even heard of the whole issue with that one...only bits and pieces. I don't drink coffee and have never been to Starbucks...
|
|
|
Post by rayray on Nov 22, 2015 13:46:41 GMT -6
Well I only drink home brewed coffee, but I keep up with the news a lot. Read an article, this topic is fascinating.
|
|
Dame Tashawna
Soldier
Location:
Joined: June 2015
Age:
Gender: Female
Posts: 313
|
Post by Dame Tashawna on Nov 22, 2015 16:15:52 GMT -6
Christians being upset about the whole Starbucks red cup ordeal is dumb, no matter what the reason was. There's a lot bigger problems than that- children starving in Africa, people being killed for being Christians, and how America is going in the wrong direction... getting mad about something as minor as a red cup is silly. I don't think Starbucks is Christian owned, so what do people expect? Worry about the important stuff.
|
|