|
Post by louisberard on Aug 31, 2014 23:18:05 GMT -5
That's not congruent because you would still support those activities. Like I'm against abortion, but I work at an abortion clinic... Doesn't make sense does it. You would be consistent not supporting those institutions at all. Having someone do something as a proxy for you, is the same as doing it. Even if you were consistent I would disagree with your position however. My take is based on John the Baptist telling the Soldiers not to be greedy for more pay... He did not tell them it is immoral to fight, even though they may have supported Roman objectives at the time. He did not tell them to leave the military. He told them to be righteous in their dealings with people... don't shake them down for money. John was the beginning of the New Covenant, so I think that carries a lot of weight. Also Jesus said they had enough swords (two,) before he was betrayed. Now this is not a slam dunk for him advocating for self defense, but he certainly didn't seem shocked or dismayed that his followers were carrying swords. I think when Jesus said to have a sword when the final persecution comes, is more of a slam dunk that self defense is ok. Why else would he tell his disciples to make sure they had swords?
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Aug 31, 2014 22:50:08 GMT -5
Yo, what's the deal?! I didn't make that last post. Hope that was a one time glitch
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Aug 20, 2014 0:29:48 GMT -5
There have been some large interview studies with Homosexuals. Most if not all were either sexually abused, or were un-loved or emotionally abused by their same sex parent. In the case of women, Abuse from men/fathers, or abandonment coupled with an un loving mother drive them to the emotional safety of intimate relationships with women. These people are neurotic,(acting out their un met love needs, ) in a perverse sexual way. The amygdala receives input filtered through the frontal cortex, and the feeling center of the mind. If the opposite sex parent = pain. or the love need from the same sex parent is so great, or a combination of the two, sexual arousal will be directed to met these unmet needs. There has never been any evidence to support a genetic link for homosexual behavior. There is some evidence that hormonal damage in the womb, one that feminizes a male, or masculinizes a female, couple with the right environment ( un loving/abusive parents,) can result in homosexual attraction. In the end however,who cares. My "natural" fleshy impulse is to want sex with every women I see. That's not compatible with God's will either. In my case however, my sinful desires do not go against Nature, that is my natural design of my body. A homosexual's desires are sinful AND go against the natural design of their body. What they are acting out as sex, is actually them saying love me daddy!..," or "love me mommy!"
|
|
|
Paul
Aug 20, 2014 0:06:14 GMT -5
Post by louisberard on Aug 20, 2014 0:06:14 GMT -5
It's not wrong to worship on any day, Sat, Sun. Mon, etc.. " It is un-biblical to tell others that they must worship on a certain day, like the Adventists, Yeshua only folks, and some Sunday worshippers do. "Make no issue of Sabbath days, one man prefers one day above another, one man treats every day alike. Let every man be fully convinced in his own mind." When the apostles went to preach to Jews, they naturally did it on Saturday, since the Jews were in Temple on that day, The new testament Christians were worshipping on Sunday however, obviously as a memorial to Jesus's resurrection.
|
|
|
Paul
Aug 19, 2014 23:57:47 GMT -5
Post by louisberard on Aug 19, 2014 23:57:47 GMT -5
All I can say is that Peter called Paul's letters scripture. That pretty much seals it. Do you have some seeming contradictions between Paul and Jesus we could discuss? I can't think of any off the top of my head
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Aug 19, 2014 23:48:32 GMT -5
1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance. My take is this. "who have been chosen ...through the sanctifying work of the Spirit..." So, God Knew, that all who were sanctified by the work of the spirit would be "Chosen." This is actually an Open Theist description, that reinforces man's freedom to accept or reject God. I think my reading of this is harmonious with other scriptures that state ALL are called, Christ died for ALL, some will fall away, etc... When I read some of the Calvinistic proof verses, some of them can be troubling if they are read just standing alone. However, when you harmonize them with every verse on that subject, and the theme of the NT, the Calvinistic interpretations fail. Here however, even standing alone, I read no predestination in it.
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Aug 15, 2014 23:44:20 GMT -5
Gentleman, those were some well written, exhaustive answers! There is nothing I can really add to your arguments. I can just say that you are 100% correct with your Moral and Biological arguments. The sin of mental adultery, and or fornication will get you thrown into hell also. I have a part of my flesh that is tempted with this all the time. I have to kill those desires. Part of that is cultural training, and some of that is having a normal "good" sex drive, but having temptation to twist the natural use and function of that. Many of us are damaged, and we have used sin as a pain killer before becoming a Christian, However Temptation and desire is no excuse for sin. Most of us are tempted to covet or steal or lie at times in our lives. We weren't "born that way!" But none the less, we can pervert the normal desires God gave us to try and meet earthly desires. They never deliver. They always leave you empty and unfulfilled. and in danger of hell fire. How much more will an even more twisted use of a normal "good" sex drive leave one wretched inside and on the way to hell fire?!!
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Aug 15, 2014 23:11:08 GMT -5
I find this line of reasoning fascinating. I think the argument for open theism is compelling. I'm still not sure. It's an interesting intellectual exercise but in the end (IMO) it's not relevant in winning souls. Most people are never exposed to these types of arguments, and few, very few, come to Christ based on these type of arguments. What is compelling about the open Theism argument is the concept of time. Most of the uber Christian apologists today believe in the "timeless God. Frank Turek and Norman Geisler make this argument based on the evidence we have. ALL time, space and Matter appeared (was created,) in an instant, otherwise known as the "Big Bang." They then infer that since Time Matter and space was created at this moment, there must have been a massively powerful creator who was Timeless, matterless, and spaceless. I thought this was a pretty sound argument, but after reading some arguments for open theism, I am not so convinced anymore. The timeless aspect of their argument seems to have a dent in it based on the open theism arguments. Now that I think about it, just because All time matter and space occurred at an instant in compromising this Universe, in no way makes it certain that These elements, and especially time weren't present wherever God dwells. I like to hear how one of these caliber professional Philosophers would respond to the open Theism argument. So far I am leaning toward open Theism. It's quite a departure for me, since I was raised as a Catholic, and later as a Christian have been exposed to the timeless argument as the only way to perceive God. Interesting stuff!
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Aug 14, 2014 18:55:27 GMT -5
Hello, In light of the fact that I have not been able to find a sound congregation anywhere I have looked; Either false theology, friendship with the world, or making allowances for "sinning all the time," etc....Even the tiny sound church I was attending imploded when the assistant pastor's wife committed adultery and left him. The assistant pastor followed suit into adultery, and the head pastor allowed the adulterous wife back in the church when she hadn't repented, and wasn't going to repent. That crushed me, because those "Pastors" had been my good friends in the Lord. It still hurts. So for the last 18 months My family has church at home. The couple of people I know as sort of friends, are lukewarm at best, or not obeying. So basically I have no fellowship with Christians besides my family. From What I've seen, there are very few sound Christians out there. My idea here is to see if there are any like minded REAL followers of JESUS out there that need to find fellowship. Wherever you are put out a post and see if anyone is nearby that you can fellowship with. I'll get this started: I live in the Caldwell Idaho Area, that's about 30 mile from Boise. If there are any like minded folks in SW Idaho please post, and maybe we can get together for Fellowship of some kind. Thank you and God Bless everyone! -Louie Berard
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Aug 14, 2014 18:41:13 GMT -5
I didn't read the other posts, but my quick reply is this. Simon Greenleaf is considered the Author/Founder of our legal system's rules of evidence. He set out to disprove the Gospel accounts, but because the Witness Testimony was so undeniably true (to one of America's greatest legal minds,) he was converted to Christianity. What you are thinking is contradictions, are actually just witness accounts from different people that were either witnesses of the same thing, or were second hand witnesses of these events (Life of Jesus.) The fact that some things are in some Gospels and not in others, or that timelines are not exactly the same, actually strengthen the veracity of the Gospel writers. In real life, witnesses that saw the same a week ago, will have similar discrepancies based on individual perceptions and focus. The fact that the Gospel writers had these differences (which do not in any way contradict each other,) written years after the events, only shows that they were writing truthfully. If everyone's story is exactly the same, that means they got together and concocted a story. That's why the "Father " of our Rules for evidence was so convinced that he converted to a follower of Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Aug 14, 2014 18:27:05 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure Jesse doesn't propose Baptism is necessary for Salvation, but I may be wrong. Hope not. I think first Peter chp. 3 should settle this matter for anyone that reads it. It's pretty clear "...only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water SYMBOLIZES baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ... The Baptism that DOESN'T SAVE is "..The removal of dirt from the body (water Baptism,)..." The Baptism that saves is "...the Pledge of a Clear Conscience toward God BY the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." In other words, REPENTANCE and FAITH in Jesus and his resurrection is the BAPTISM that saves you!!! If you read the whole epistle, it's clear that Peter teaches an Obedient faith, with many warnings, that blow away OSAS also. What I did several years ago was write down every verse in the New Testament that talks about Baptism and moments of Salvation for people. If you do that, taken with Peter's clear message, it is clear that water baptism does not save.
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Jul 5, 2014 2:38:47 GMT -5
so in the Greek is fulfilled synonymous with illustrated?
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Jul 5, 2014 2:28:54 GMT -5
All of the 10 commandments were reinstituted in the New Testament under the new covenant EXCEPT keeping the Sabbath. In fact Jesus and his Apostles broke the Sabbath, Paul said NOT to make an issue of "Sabbath days", "one man holds one day above another, one man holds ever day alike..Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind" The new testament Christians worshipped on the "Lord's day" which is Sunday. Paul said " I don't allow a woman to teach.. because Eve was deceived." Why do you then listen to a woman's Teaching who was first led astray by the Millerites, a false cult, then came up with a kooky doctrine to cover up Miller's error on the return of Christ? She is also a proven plagiarist and false prophet, and further distorted the Gospel with her Sabbath keeping nonsense! Besides the "Mark" of the Beast is an actual MARK!!!! On the hand or forehead. There is nothing in scripture that even remotely hints it is not keeping the Sabbath. Did you know the OT states the Sabbath is a memorial for the Jews? Please get your head away from the SDS cult you re on the path to hell believing that nonsense!
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Jul 5, 2014 2:10:06 GMT -5
Anyone that preaches a false Gospel is a false prophet. So anyone preaching a license to sin (OSAS folks,) Anyone preaching fellowship with false systems, such as Billy Graham, who has directed people to the Catholic church for decades. anyone that preaches salvation by other than a continuing repentance of sin, faith/obedience in Jesus for Salvation. Anyone that preaches "friendship with the world" and or a prosperity message. Pretty much cuts out 99% of the " Preachers/ pastors" out there. This is the great Apostasy, People DO NOT want to put up with sound doctrine. Most people in the west are seeking "ear ticklers" because they really do not want to give up sin or their worldly selfish lives. That's why Jesse's site and Dan Corners are about the only 2 that I read outside of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Jun 7, 2014 23:17:00 GMT -5
Hey it is better to be honest than to be a hypocrite. Jesus said to religious hypocrites, Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. They worship me in vain.." There are a few different ideas you've brought up here. First I'll explain why other people have said these ideas limit God. People have this idea of time like it is a giant calendar. When you look at a calendar all the different days are right there in front of you - at the same time. You can see all the different days at once. There is a philosophical and religious tradition that says time is really like that. People theorized that time is like a calendar so that God can see every day at once. They said it was like God could take a step back and view all of history simultaneously. If that view of time were true then, Yes, it would be a limitation if God could not predict the free choices on a given day. If all of history existed simultaneously, like on a calendar, then of course God would be able to see it all. He wouldn't even need to predict things, because they would be directly visible. Imagine... there's a little boy taking his first steps on one day - scroll down the calendar a little - and there's that same person as an old man rejecting God on a later day. That would be totally insane, but that is basically the mainstream tradition. Is that something along the lines of what you meant by God being limited? If the future actually existed then God would certainly be limited if He could not see it. Fortunately reality is not like a calendar. There are not multiple days all happening side by side. There is none of that "Back-to-the-Future" / "Butterfly Effect" time travel stuff where you can go visit some other day in the past. The past does not exist. The word "exist" is a present tense verb. How could the past or the future "exist" (present)? It is all a big contradiction. There are not any other days you could "go to" other than right now. It makes a convenient science-fiction plot device, but it does not describe reality. If that stuff was true, imagine: you are worshiping God one day, strumming your ukulele on some tropical beach. But the whole time you are singing your heart out to God, in the corner of His eye, He can see the future way down on the imaginary calendar, and there you are in hell because years later you harden your heart and robbed some poor old lady. It is possible for anyone to choose to be good or bad. If all the different days actually exist, God might see all this at the same time you are on the beach praising Him under your coconut tree. You wouldn't know it, but He would. You would be enjoying worshiping Him, but He would be thinking "Why would I even make a universe like this?" Isn't that insane? If you and I would be reasonable enough not to make a universe like that, then certainly God is reasonable enough not to make things that way. To say that the future itself already exists is a direct contradiction to free will. If the future already exists (present tense) then our future choices have already been made - they would be set in stone. This is impossible because we have free will. There are actual different possibilities, not a script all written out in advance. If we have free will then the future can not exist already. Not only does it practically contradict the rules of grammar to say the future exists, but it also contradicts our ability to make free choices. The future does not exist. Since the future itself does not exist, God is not limited if He can't directly see "it". If I said God does not see Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer's nose, I would not be saying that God is limited, because Rudolph is fictional. It is not a limitation when we "can't see" things that don't even exist yet. There is no such thing as seeing something that doesn't exist. About the idea of God making mistakes: It is not like anyone has to be bad. People have free will. Creating people was not a mistake on God's part. It was a risk. It is people who have the power to turn themselves into a mistake or not. You can't give people the chance to be good (voluntary choice) without giving them the power to rebel also. The ability to be good and the ability to be evil are the same ability, not two different abilities. We are fully able to choose either way. So if it is wrong to give people the ability to be evil, then it is also wrong to give people the chance to be good. But is it wrong for a man and a woman to have children? Is it too much of a risk to have children who will develop the ability to choose good or evil? It seems pretty sad to say that no one should ever exist because some people might abuse their free will and endanger the whole community. Creation was not a mistake, as if God didn't realize what kind of power He was giving to people. It was a risk to create people. There is no way to share your life and power and have a relationship of trust without taking a risk of being betrayed. The other ideas you brought up were hell and tyranny. Certainly hell would be a tyrannical and unjust abuse if our future was set in stone before we were ever born. But if our future is open and we are in control of our moral choices, then God has the obligation to uphold the law for the good of the whole universe. God's law is not arbitrary but is based on self-evident truth (like in the Declaration of Independence). God only requires what is necessary and beneficial. He does not just make up impossible laws arbitrarily. His law is based on what is self-evidently best for everyone. God only punishes wicked people because He has to - not because He likes to hurt anyone. The Bible says, He has no pleasure in troubling and causing grief to the children of men. Let me know if I've misunderstood anything you brought up. I condensed the last couple points there to make the reply shorter.
|
|
|
Post by louisberard on Jun 7, 2014 22:54:13 GMT -5
Hello, Could you please pray for me. I am Mightily discouraged at this time. I believe in Jesus intellectually, but feel there is a total lack of experiential truth to my faith at the moment. Also the discouragement of never ever finding one person that faithfully follows Jesus is painful. Every pastor I talk too makes some allowance for soul damning sin in their congregation. Even my two close friends, Pastor, and assistance pastor, fell after the assistant pastor's wife committed adultery. I am in a dark place with my faith at the moment. I don't need an intellectual pep talk, and I'm well enough versed in the Bible. Where is the power in Christianity? I don't see it anywhere. Jesus does not seem to be very personal at the moment. I could use some prayer. Intellectualism is not enough. I am discouraged and empty. Thank you.
|
|