Leaderboard

Relax be still and know that He is God. Don't depend on your feelings. They will lie to you. God promised He would never leave you or forsake you. He's there even when you are not aware of His presence. I know what you are going through. Just remember what He promises, He is the same yesterday, today and forever. When you are struggling with this begin to praise Him. The Bible says, God inhabits the praises of His People. So even if you feel like your stumbling in your praises know that He is there and He will answer you. We also have a chat room that you might like to visit where you can talk one on one. God Bless You Evar. Because He Lives!! RustyAngeL

The great purging! Everything I say is nulus consuentia , but the Word of God remains!

It has been the rare occasion that I have heard God in a way, where it has been like a voice, as opposed to a knowing of something that came to me. Hard to explain even that. Same with God's presence. Only a couple of times in thirty plus years, have I 'felt' His presence. I think hearing and feeling God, is the exception, not the rule. I know in the Bible, that some people heard God, but those are fairly notable exceptions to the apparent norm, and off the top of my head, I do not recall God being felt at any time in the Bible. How would we really know that these experiences are what we perceive them to be anyway, perhaps they are only our imagination, or in some cases our own wishes manifested by our minds in some way? There are over 70,000 people registered here, not all of them are active of course, but still, there are a lot of people who read these forums. In 12 days, not many have replied to you with an answer, I suggest that may be because not many have the experience that you seem to now be missing? Personally, the fact that I do not typically feel God's presence, does not bother me in the least. I do not believe in Him, follow Him, serve Him, love Him or obey Him, because of some feeling I get from that. He has given me faith to believe, and out of the faith these other things flow. I know that he will never abandon, me, what ever I am feeling, and I hope that He gives me the grace, to never abandon Him. From reading the Bible, I know what He wants and expects from me, and I understand how much I get from Him, and this is enough. Not feeling Him, is not something that needs to be fixed, in my opinion.

Since butero has given the correct interpretation of Scripture regarding this matter, what you are saying is that you reject the biblical teaching on headship and submission, and you would impose your own personal ideas by suggesting a 50-50 partnership. "Faith" means believing God even though your flesh rebels against His principles. Okay who says that butero is correct? What makes him the expert on scripture? I think I know a thing or two about scripture and a thing or two about being married. (17 years last week by the way thank you very much) Love my friend! Love is the answer. I do for my husband because I love him. Not because I am order to do so. But because I love him. And he loves me as well. All of the Bible is about love.

Thanks. Now I have a red-faced monkey in my head.

I appreciate what you're saying Morning, I was just responding to a post that [to me] sounded like atheists don't believe in God so that they can not be held accountable for their actions. My point was that it doesn't appear that by believing in God that people are holding themselves to some incredible moral standard. I know Christians are human, I'm actually good friends with my boss, he's a good man. It's just odd to see that Bible on his desk and yet see him ignore it when it's convenient. In America anyway, I really don't see the Christian life as much different than mine. The views are different, but not the lifestyle.

Why would God create evil when He hates even the appearance of anything evil? I believe evil came into existence through the pride of Satan. Satan wanted to be like God. Satan was puffed up with pride. Do we not see such actions in today's world?

Really, personally attacking him like this only demonstrates you didn't understand what it was he was trying to say. :(

It has been customary for all, except for the occasional infant, to have their genital area and buttocks covered when in public. Females over a few years of age are normally expected to also wear coverings over their nipples. Decades ago, men were required to wear tops, even at the beach. Recently, thong bathing suits, which expose almost the entire buttock area, have changed our concept of acceptable clothing in many areas of North America. Some jurisdictions allow women to go topless. Naturists believe that if weather, location and laws permit, activities such as sports, swimming, hiking and relaxing in a social environment can be enjoyed without the necessity of wearing clothing. " Naturism is not the exploitation of nakedness, exhibitionism, a religion, or a cult...Naturists accept and admire the beauty of the human body as it is, regardless of age, gender or form." 1 Some people oppose social nudity (also called nudism and naturism) and would like to criminalize it even if it is confined to private naturist resorts. Some feel that nudity, when practiced within a family, is a form of child sexual abuse. Many people feel awkward when a woman breast-feeds her infant in public. Topless women can be arrested in most of North America, even though the practice is generally accepted on European beaches.

The Bears have it in for me and there will be payback, Bears season is only three months away. A few weeks ago I was camping in the mountains (I made a post on why I was camping in another thread), the last day of my camping trip my wall tent canvas was damp, so I decided to let it up a couple day and come back for it later. After four days I went back and much to my surprise I found that a bear decided my tent needed two more door. Today I just got back from a Mountain Man Rendezvous and had a wonderful time, other than Friday night. Friday night it rained and that doesn't bother me because rain hitting the canvas can make you sleep like a baby. My camp setup is a diamond tent to sleep in plus put my equipment and cooler in, I also have a dining fly about five feet away from my diamond tent. A diamond tent is nothing more than a canvas tarp staked down on three corners and a pole on the fourth corner with a smaller pole in the center, its like a tent with a picture window without the glass window. Like I said Friday night it rained and that is okay, however after it stopped raining in the wee hours of Saturday morning I was sound to sleep and got rudely woken up by my dining fly falling down and pots an pan clanging. I woke-up and seem my dinning fly down and thought "You got to be kidding", I pulled myself out of bed to put the fly back up because I didn't want it down if it started raining again, making things soaked. I found that my one fly rope nearest to where I was sleeping was broken which made it fall down, I fixed it and put the fly back up and went back to bed. The morning sun comes up and a man camped forty yards from me said he heard the noise from my camp earlier and said after that a bear came running behind his tent. So we figured a bear was going for my cooler which was in my diamond tent, heard me snore all of the sudden, got scared and turned around and tripped over the rope which broke, causing the fly to crash, which made the pots and pans fall which scared the bear even more and he took off like crazy. I'm so glad God makes my life so exciting at times.

We must temper our understanding of God's grace with: Ezekiel 33:18–19 (AV) 18When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby. 19But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby. We tend not to consider these things when we go into the doctrines of grace. All of us try to make God's compassionate grace into a perpetual confession booth (where we sin confess sin confess sin confess ad infinitum and typically over the same sin). It is a combination of imposing on God's compassion while ignoring God's compelling us not to sin and destroy ourselves and others. In texts like Romans 7:14 - 8:39 and 1 John 1:5 - 2:17 we focus in on the forgiveness and deliverance and blot out the conditions in which they apply "if we walk in the light as he is in the light" etc. If we reminded ourselves about Ezekiel 33:18-19 as we read about the doctrines and aspects of God's forgiveness we would maintain a better, more balance understanding of what God's grace actually is. It is not a license to sin. It is not a free pass into heaven; It cost God his own blood (Acts 20:28). This is not about loss of salvation once you are saved. Emphasis on "once you are saved." Many think they are saved that are not. Take the cults for example. But this is about making your life and others a living hell or a gracious blessing. Finally, my brothers and sisters, consider that ultimately, if we are saved but will not be swayed from our iniquity, God will take us out of this life to keep us saved: 1 Corinthians 5:5 (AV) 5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Imagine the hell on earth for a believer which God turns over to the devil (removing his protective hedge).

Was it the world that drew and then disowned a "red line" ultimatum for Syria and also claimed ISIS was just a JV terrorist team, or were both done by Barack Hussein Obama? ISIS is a world problem, not that of a single country. It is not our responsibility alone to deal with them. If you wish to point fingers at a single person, the person who removed Sadam Hussein would be a good target. There would be no ISIS if he were still in power. No, Obama is the one to blame. Blaming Bush for ISIS is like saying, "We would have never had a civil war if the founding fathers hadn't won our independence from England, so we need to blame George Washington and Benjamin Franklyn and Thomas Jefferson for the Civil War." ISIS arose from a vacuum left by this administration when they failed to put a SOFA in place and leave some American troops on the ground as a buffer. Furthermore, Obama was warned for over a year about ISIS and the threat they posed and he completely ignored it and ended up calling them the Jay-vee team. We soon found out how wrong he was and we have paid for it in American lives. Obama let ISIS become the regional power it has become. I agree with you Shiloh.

bopeep1909, there is a huge difference, between interpreting, and noticing what is not being said. I do not know why you cannot see that your are using verses to imply things that they do not say, but you most certainly are. Personally, I think that calls for repentance, but you do what you think best! Also, if there are verses which support what you are saying, you should actually post those instead!

Sigh, I wonder if we will ever get past this irresponsible tactic where people state something that is an opinion, or is their personal definition as though it is a Biblical doctrine. If I were to say, "Paul was an extraterestial alien", I would likely be ridiculed for it, and rightly so. Yet people routinely do a similar thing in this forum. I think this tactic is deplorable. I realize that people who do this, mean no harm, and are genuinly stating what they belieive to be true. However, I bleieve it is improper, to imply that the Bible says things which it does not. Let's look at examples of how this is done: "3) The rapture is the removal of believers from the earth as an act of deliverance (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, 5:9). The second coming includes the removal of unbelievers as an act of judgment (Matthew 24:40-41)." First, it is stated that the rapture is the removal of belieivers as an act of deliverance, and verses are cited. I like that fact that verses are cited, because then we can look them up so see what the verses say: In this case, 1Thess 4:13-17: 13But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. Verse 17 indeed says "we who are alive and remain will be caught up", so certainly this IS the rapture. However, those verses say absolutely nothing about it being an act of deliverance, so while there is no deliberate deception, that fact remains that if a person cites a reference to establish an idea, and that idea is not contained in the reference, then it is never the less deceptive. This is why I posted that thread about the things that are never said in the Bible, that some people teach as true. When people assert ideas as factual, and the evidence is lacking, that is a form of deception, no matter how well intentioned. So, giving this poster the benefit of a doubt, perhaps this 1 Thess reference was not meant to show us anything about the deliverance, but only the fact if believers being caught up. Of course, post-tribbers such as myself already know and admit that fact. So, what about 1 Thess 5:9? Does that establish this act of deliverance? Let's look: 9For God has not destined us for wrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ Now, that verse seems to have some potential to show and act of deliverance. I can see why people gravitate to this promise. However, we should be asking ourselves, what is this wrath that we are not destined for? Is this necessarily the tribulation. If we can show, that the tribulation period (and to the pretribber that means a 7 year long period in their theory) is God's wrath, then we might be able to make a case. However, we would also have to establish that it is God's wrath, that we are delivered from, and also that the tribulation is the only type of wrath, that God has in the future as of when that verse was written. Notice that the verse begins with the word "for". That means that there is some thought stated before this verse, and this verse is addressing. Going to the beginning of the paragraph, we can see what the context is, and it is an end times context, so far, so good. "1Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you. 2For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night." So, the subject is at least, related to the Day of the Lord. In the O.P. I quoted the following verse from Acts 2:20 "The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord." So, we see here that Paul in referring to the Day of the Lord, is referring to an event which, seemingly at least, according to Jesus In Matt 24, is Immediatly after the tribulation, when He is about to return: 29“But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT So, perhaps this idea that a deliverance is in 1 Thess 5:9 is an accurate one, but if so, it appears that this deliverance is after the tribulatlion, not before. We could go on the demonstrate this a number of other ways, but one should be enough to convince us that Paul does not seem to be speaking of a pre-trib rapture. If you want to pursue that yourselves. look at other things in that 1 Thess 4 passage, like the order of events that happen before the rapture (just as a hint). Another thing to consider in the 1 Thess 5:9 thing, is that the wrath that we are not destined for, is contrasted with the alternative to that wrath, what we ARE destined to. We are destined to salvation. I am expecting to obtain salvation, purchased by Jesus on the cross, so I do not have to endure God's wrath in eternity. I could site as much as I already have here, to refute the conclusions suggested in the citation of these Thessalonian verses. I do not see any reason to over power readers with too much information, I have given enough to demonstrate that these verse do not necessarily lead one to assume a pretrib rapture. The other claims and citations in that post, can be discredited just as easily. Sadly, this has been done before, but never seems to make a difference to some people. Some people will defend man made doctrines over what the bible says, an continue to promote things that they have seen, are not warranted. So, I respond, not because I think that a person can be succesfully corrected, but I hope that when the flaws are exposed, others will not be led astray, and will do their own study, and not just absorb what they are fed with cut and paste answers they read somewhere. Be a Berean, one who searches the scriptures to see what is true. Cut and pastes are great, when Bible verses are pasted, in context, and allowed to speak for themselves. Of course, it is true that sometimes commentary might be in order, to bring out what might go unnoticed by some, but when you read such comments, look at them carefully, and see if that is what the Bible is really saying. If someone wants me to expose the other flaws that are deceiving in that post, I can do that, but I prefer to move on to other things and let this thread be about what is was intended to be about, things that Peter said and how may they relate to the end times. Thanks for the ear, and the encouragment from those who see and understand what I am saying. I also want to thank those who are making a counter point, for having a passion and an interest in the truth as they see it. Edit 12/2/2017 - Note: This post quotes a user named bopeep1909, that may be confusing to some, not understanding where the quote came from. It is a reference to the third post in this thread, which now says it was posted by missmuffet. missmuffet formerly had the username bopeep1909, sorry about any confusion.

yes, all well and good Marilyn, but most of that is not related much to the topic of looking at things Peter had to say, these things are fine observations for other topics, my ongoing battle here always seems to be maintaining the focus of a topic. Otherwise, I would spend all day replying to extra material that people insert into a topic.

If that is true, why is it mentioned in Revelation people will be given robes to wear? The Lamb is not literal. We understand that the Lamb is Jesus Christ who was sacrificed for our sins, the palm branches represent worship, the white robes represent being clothed in righteousness. I think the number of people who believe that Jesus Christ reincarnates as a literal sheep are very few indeed! Why would we think the white robes are literal? So, do you believe Jesus is nude or covered? I believe that question isn't addressed in scripture so anything I thought would be useless conjecture at best. I believe that doctrinal questions can not and should not be answered with prophetic, symbolic, writings. The Book of Revelations will not answer any questions about modesty or nudity, or any other questions of scriptural law. There was a claim that we would stand naked before God. So what is the Scriptural support for this claim? If there is support, the next question is how far does this nakedness go? Either the ones in Heaven are covered or they are nude. This includes Jesus. S which isit?

So, do you believe Jesus is nude or covered? I believe that question isn't addressed in scripture so anything I thought would be useless conjecture at best. I believe that doctrinal questions can not and should not be answered with prophetic, symbolic, writings. The Book of Revelations will not answer any questions about modesty or nudity, or any other questions of scriptural law.

So, do you believe Jesus is nude or covered?

Attire of a king is often symbolic - at least in those days. It is possible for something real to be symbolic as well. Anything is possible It's possible that Jesus comes back as the Jesus Doll TM, with bronze feet, and hair made out of wool - with the special child friendly feature of a sword coming out of his mouth?!?!? No. You were right the first time. It's symbolic.

Attire of a king is often symbolic - at least in those days. It is possible for something real to be symbolic as well. Anything is possible

Attire of a king is often symbolic - at least in those days. It is possible for something real to be symbolic as well.

Nothing is as sensuous as a fully clothed body. When the body is mostly dressed there is nothing to the imagination and thus not as seductive - in the 18th to the late 19th the ankle was most sensual because it was covered up. Having said that I do not like the low cut 'everything' that is out there - personally some would probably be down to my navel. As a Christian the clothing should not be seductive yet when you go out to the store is there much available to purchase? So much is left to eh designers and not the purchasers of the clothing - no option if you want something new.

So, the sword coming out of Jesus' mouth is not figurative imagery? Really? are you sure you want to stick with that story? The first clue that it is figurative is that it was a vision, not a reality. Second, the entire description of Jesus is filled with symbolism and figurative speech. His hair was not really wool and his eyes were not really on fire. His feet were not really made of bronze. The stars and the lampstands are symbolism.

I would if I had the dimmest foggiest idea what I said wrong. In my ignorance, I've got no way to comply.

Please respect this ministry as you use descriptive words, thank you.

hummmm, a level headed person

'dressing provocatively' suggests bad intent and foreknowledge she's doing that.... honestly i don't think most girls and women are thinking that when they put on outfits you don't like

If a woman is dressing in a provocative manner not only is she not showing respect for God, she also is not showing respect for herself.

we see God had no problem with them being nude before the fruit incident, so it was only them that now had the problem with their own nudity, I'm not for nudity at all I'm just saying before the fall nudity wasn't an issue

JDavis is right about this. I don't understand why people think that their notions of modesty as being so 'obvious' won't address basic questions, such as, women wearing outfits considered modest today would have been shunned as harlots 200 yrs ago. The obsession with outward attire bothers me insofar as people are making judgements about the intentions and the hearts of others based on what is culturally defined. Not everything is culturally defined,but this particular thing is.

In our hearts we all know what modesty means ...it's written on our hearts Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) Yes,if a person is arguing the point that at woman should have her breasts hanging out of her top and most of her body showing in what she is wearing their is a serious problem.Especially if that person says that they are a Christian.Maybe that person can justify a woman dressing so inappropriately because they do not want the immodest way of dress to change.

In our hearts we all know what modesty means ...it's written on our hearts Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) and had you been born 200 years ago your heart would have known something different than it know now. what is in your mind? what picture do you see when you think of how The Lord clothed Adam and Eve?

In our hearts we all know what modesty means ...it's written on our hearts Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) and had you been born 200 years ago your heart would have known something different than it know now.

In our hearts we all know what modesty means ...it's written on our hearts Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

This is so undeniably false. what you view as modest is based on where and when you live, nothing else. I have seen what is modest change in the half century I have been alive. had you been born a couple hundred years ago anything less than this would have not been modest. Today this is considered modest...

Yes,if a person is living in the jungle and has not seen civilization then they might have a reason to not wear much.I think you will see that in National Geographic Magazine.But others do not have an excuse to let it all hang out.The Bible does not say if you live in a certain culture you can wear what you want and be as immodest as you want.It also does not give an excuse for a young woman to dress inappropriately but a grandma it is not excepted.Age does not matter. it is a bit deeper than that, but even in your view it is still "civilization" that is setting the definition. and when I said age to age I guess I should have said "era to era" as what you and I consider to be modest is likely very different than what we would have considered modest 100 years ago. No,modest is modest no matter where or when you have lived.

Yes,if a person is living in the jungle and has not seen civilization then they might have a reason to not wear much.I think you will see that in National Geographic Magazine.But others do not have an excuse to let it all hang out.The Bible does not say if you live in a certain culture you can wear what you want and be as immodest as you want.It also does not give an excuse for a young woman to dress inappropriately but a grandma it is not excepted.Age does not matter. it is a bit deeper than that, but even in your view it is still "civilization" that is setting the definition. and when I said age to age I guess I should have said "era to era" as what you and I consider to be modest is likely very different than what we would have considered modest 100 years ago.

Yes,if a person is living in the jungle and has not seen civilization then they might have a reason to not wear much.I think you will see that in National Geographic Magazine.But others do not have an excuse to let it all hang out.The Bible does not say if you live in a certain culture you can wear what you want and be as immodest as you want.It also does not give an excuse for a young woman to dress inappropriately but a grandma it is not excepted.Age does not matter.

The definition of modest always had been and always will be based upon the culture in question. The definition changes from place to place and age to age.

The style of clothing may change over time, but the definition of "modest" remains the same.

I disagree.The bible says that we are supposed to dress modest. yes it does, and what is "modest" changes from place to place and from age to age. What you and I consider modest most likely would not have been considered so 100 years ago. What is considered modest on the island of Samoa will be very different than in Scotland. Does that make one of them wrong? are we wrong because we look at "modest" differently than they did 100 years ago?

I disagree.The bible says that we are supposed to dress modest.

what one wears and how much is covered is purely a cultural thing, and it changes over time as people change. There is no biblical dress code. There was a time when anything than this on a man was scandalous... If you had been born and raised on the island of Samoa your view of what was right and wrong to wear will be very different than if you were born and raised in Scotland.

(I'll attest to the above. Getting the proportions right, and understanding how and why fabric hangs as it does is freaking impossible without first getting a working understanding of the naked form.) The above is in defence of art. I notice you have quoted from man not from Scripture. Well, having my breasts compared to hairy camel humps isn't as flattering as I'm sure it was a few centuries ago, however accurate it may be!

Once God gave man clothing....it became required. And, not to be unkind, but most of us look better with our clothes ON.

(I'll attest to the above. Getting the proportions right, and understanding how and why fabric hangs as it does is freaking impossible without first getting a working understanding of the naked form.) The above is in defence of art. I notice you have quoted from man not from Scripture.

(I'll attest to the above. Getting the proportions right, and understanding how and why fabric hangs as it does is freaking impossible without first getting a working understanding of the naked form.) The above is in defence of art.

Yes,WIP I agree.Whatever I say is not going to make a difference over the influence that the Prince of our world has on people(satan).So I will ignore it.

Whats really sad is that the standards in many churches have dropped considerably and since we Christians are seen to be the ones who set such standards ..little wonder how the worlds acceptance of nudity is..no doubt it will get worse....both in and out of the Church. satan will continue deceiving the minds of many. I get really mad when babies and little children are used in adverts showing their little naked butts to me this is abuse...what about the rights of the child. IMO the naked form is presented as "art" is nothing short of pornography.