taylor30

Sin is evil. If you EVER sin, then you commit evil, hence and evildoer. ALL PEOPLE are evildoers, Christian or not.

Yes David killed 200 men to get his bride. He also murdered another man and took his wife. However there is no indication his salvation was ever in danger. God never condemns his murder of 200, and when confronted about the Bathsheba sin, he immediately repented.

I admit difficulty in saying who is wrong here. It is sad that 2 supposedly "Christian" parents would take another to court over it. There is actually a verse by Paul that says Christians should NOT go to court against another. I also am unsure if 5 & 7 is old enough to understand the significance of Baptism. I am not in any way saying its wrong to baptize children, but I don't know if they understand. Mormon baptize at EXACTLY 8 years old. I suppose with were at fault. The mother should NOT have done it against the fathers wishes, but also the father should have been happy about a baptism. A good solution would be to baptize them in BOTH denominations. You have to consider ONLY the facts; both parents agreed to the court order. She violated that order therefore she is in contempt. I don't see it as a religious issue, but a civil one. But I do think the parents should have worked this out between themselves rather than involving the court in the first place. Well if you go by a civil matter then they were BOTH wrong. Scripture says Christians are NOT to take other Christians to unbelievers courts. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 NASB Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren. I agree, Taylor. But since they both involved a secular court, they are bound by law to comply with that court's ruling. They may have had a prearranged agreement, but wasn't it the HUSBAND who took HER to court? I may be biased, but I don't get how it can be wrong to Baptize no matter what the agreement was.

I admit difficulty in saying who is wrong here. It is sad that 2 supposedly "Christian" parents would take another to court over it. There is actually a verse by Paul that says Christians should NOT go to court against another. I also am unsure if 5 & 7 is old enough to understand the significance of Baptism. I am not in any way saying its wrong to baptize children, but I don't know if they understand. Mormon baptize at EXACTLY 8 years old. I suppose with were at fault. The mother should NOT have done it against the fathers wishes, but also the father should have been happy about a baptism. A good solution would be to baptize them in BOTH denominations. You have to consider ONLY the facts; both parents agreed to the court order. She violated that order therefore she is in contempt. I don't see it as a religious issue, but a civil one. But I do think the parents should have worked this out between themselves rather than involving the court in the first place. Well if you go by a civil matter then they were BOTH wrong. Scripture says Christians are NOT to take other Christians to unbelievers courts. 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 NASB Does any one of you, when he has a case against his neighbor, dare to go to law before the unrighteous and not before the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? So if you have law courts dealing with matters of this life, do you appoint them as judges who are of no account in the church? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not among you one wise man who will be able to decide between his brethren, but brother goes to law with brother, and that before unbelievers? Actually, then, it is already a defeat for you, that you have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded? On the contrary, you yourselves wrong and defraud. You do this even to your brethren.

I admit difficulty in saying who is wrong here. It is sad that 2 supposedly "Christian" parents would take another to court over it. There is actually a verse by Paul that says Christians should NOT go to court against another. I also am unsure if 5 & 7 is old enough to understand the significance of Baptism. I am not in any way saying its wrong to baptize children, but I don't know if they understand. Mormon baptize at EXACTLY 8 years old. I suppose with were at fault. The mother should NOT have done it against the fathers wishes, but also the father should have been happy about a baptism. A good solution would be to baptize them in BOTH denominations. Mormons are not Christian. I didn't say they were. I was only trying to show that some Faiths have a specific time set for the ritual of Baptism.

That quoted line is from a Stephen King film called Storm Of The Century. Liam Neesen was not in that film.

That is sad. I always really liked Liam Neesen. Especially after he did Star Wars episode 1 and was the voice of Aslan on Chronicles of Narnia. It is not really surprising though. It seems like every belief system EXCEPT for Christianity is the voice"IN" thing in Hollywood.

I admit difficulty in saying who is wrong here. It is sad that 2 supposedly "Christian" parents would take another to court over it. There is actually a verse by Paul that says Christians should NOT go to court against another. I also am unsure if 5 & 7 is old enough to understand the significance of Baptism. I am not in any way saying its wrong to baptize children, but I don't know if they understand. Mormon baptize at EXACTLY 8 years old. I suppose with were at fault. The mother should NOT have done it against the fathers wishes, but also the father should have been happy about a baptism. A good solution would be to baptize them in BOTH denominations.

Though they make up some of the dates (such as Christmas), Easter is pretty well certain as being the day that Jesus died. The bible mentions that Jesus was crucified the day before Passover started, and in the evening the Roman soldiers had to break the condemned people legs so that they would not have to "work" during Passover. When they came to Jesus they found he seemed to be already dead, and so pushed a spear into his side to make sure. As they did so, blood and water came out. While Christmas is stationary on the Calendar and nearly likely wrong ( but its good to have a date since I think having a day set aside for his birth is better than none at all ) Easter actually is even MORE wrong date wise. Easter jumps dates every year. Its never the same day twice. The only thing that remains the same is that it ALWAYS is on a Sunday. If we truly wanted Easter to be on the right day, we would celebrate it with the Jewish passover.

There is no temple. They haven't built it yet.

I don't think God will hold it against you. As you said, its a Snyder holiday just like Christmas. It was not ordained of God. I LOVE Easter and Christmas, but there is nothing wrong with not observing them or simply observing it at home. Don't let your conscience bother you. Its totally fine.

I have respect for everyone so far quoted, but did you know Thomas Jefferson actually had a bible he would cut verses he didn't like from? He literally had a swiss cheese bible. I think he was more Deist than Christian. I heard that our schools are trying to say ALL our founding fathers were Deists.

Actually there is NO law that.forbids the reading of a bible in public. There are even public schools that read the bible and the supreme court has said it IS constitutional. The ACLU often loses bible battles but you NEVER hear about it in the media.

It sounded like you were addressing my comment. If I am wrong, sorry in advance. If not, here is my reply. I believe because of the corruption that is in a lot of churches ( I have literally seen dozens of pastors in my home state of Colorado get busted on the news for stealing from their one church. One was just 5 blocks from my house). My suggestion to give to people you meet was based on 2 points of reasoning. #1. You don't KNOW if the money you give the church or a charity will actually go to help needy people. #2. Some people in society are too ashamed or proud to ask for help, answered will NEVER receive help unless someone goes out to find them. I may be able to help someone that no charity or church can. Besides, since most people DO give to church and charity, they don't really need my few extra dollars as much as the hungry mother and her kids down the street do. I am not saying EVERYONE should stop giving to charity. I am only listing my reasoning for doing so. I am not selfish, but you would think horns had sprouted out of my head from the looks of some churchgoers when week after week the collection plate is passed and I never put anything in. NOTE TO ALL WHO READ THIS. Please be slow to judge your fellow Christian. You may not know the full story of why someone does something. Just because you may not witness good deeds, doesn't mean someone doesn't do them. Besides, Jesus said to do good deeds in secret.

I personally don't give money to ANY church or charity, not only because less than 100% goes to needy but also because every week we hear about another scandal of greed. Therefore, I would go out into society and give the money directly to the needy where you know exactly where your money is going. I don't mean a begging homeless person either cause I don't give to them. I mean find a poor family and stock their fridge or pay an overdue bill or something. Give your money DIRECTLY to needy people and skip the charity and church.

Maybe, but people also dress up fancy to draw attention on themselves. We need to be careful NOT to judge a book by the cover. ONLY GOD knows for sure why a person dresses or looks the way they do. We should give people the benefit of the doubt since we really don't know. This has to be a new record, quoting a 6 year old post WOW, I never noticed that. I think the moderators on this site are.starting to know me well by now. At least 2 have noticed that I answer threads years old ( totally by accident, I don't look at the dates, I just read and answer ). I have to admit that is pretty funny. So if its a record, what do I win? :):)

Jesus said we only need a mustard seed of faith. It is NOT the amount of faith that is important, it is the object of our faith. The so called Christians who fall away from the faith didn't have small faith, they had misplaced faith. God says those who endure to the end are saved, BUT he also says HE will preserve their faith and not LET them fall away. True faith in Christ, no matter how small, CAN NEVER be destroyed.

The roles are obviously very clear. The problem with today is people have made it a discrimination issue. I have heard many.clever attempts to claim otherwise, but scripture is very clear, and no amount of smooth talking can change what's in black and white. Restricting women from being ministers is not sexist. It is simply the roles assigned to men and women. Just as men cannot be mothers and women cannot be fathers.

Hebrew 6 that you just mentioned IS talking about blasphemy of the holy spirit. Because in the very first line, it says it is IMPOSSIBLE to renew them to repentance. Jesus said the ONLY unforgettable sin is Blasphemy Of The Holy Spirit, so these are the same thing. As for as backsliding, that simply means a Christian who goes back to his sin for a season, not someone who completely turns their back on God. There is a difference. No, it is not talking about blaspemy of the Holy Spirit. The reason blasphemy of the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven is because the person who commits is irretrievably wicked and will not seek forgiveness. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is rooted in a determined inpenitent unbelief that will not seek forgiveness under any circumstance. The compalint being registered in Heb. 6: 1-6 pertains to spiritual immaturity, not backsliding or living in sin. The line of thought actually begins in the last two or three verses of chapter 5 where the writer is complaining that they are too immature for spiritual meat. The word in Greek for falling away in THIS context does not refer to apostasy and is not the usual word for apostasy. It refers to falling aside in the way that an atheletic runner falls out of a race because he is not trained well enough and fatigues before the race is over. Actually spiritual immaturity CAN breakfast repented of, so this passage CAN'T be talking about that. The point of the passage is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to repent once you commit the sin. Since even Jesus himself said BOHS was the only thing you.can't repent for, it is pretty obvious. If YOU want to say this passage is NOT BOHS, then you have to make the case that there is something else that you.can't repent for.

Not really sure how much difference that will make. Through government already pays for abortions through planned parenthood st nearly $400 Million a year. Some states have tried to outlaw abortion, but some radical judge always overturn it. Funny, I don't recall seeing the right to kill in the constitution. In fact, right to life IS in there.

Hebrew 6 that you just mentioned IS talking about blasphemy of the holy spirit. Because in the very first line, it says it is IMPOSSIBLE to renew them to repentance. Jesus said the ONLY unforgettable sin is Blasphemy Of The Holy Spirit, so these are the same thing. As for as backsliding, that simply means a Christian who goes back to his sin for a season, not someone who completely turns their back on God. There is a difference.

It seems to me IMO that it is because John is the most intimate of the Apostle ( being called the disciple whom Jesus loved and was the only apostle allowed to die a natural death ). Therefore John likely knew the LORD better than anyone who ever wrote about him. Also, John is 90% unique among the other gospel AND also much more shows the diety of Christ than the others.

The cross is not actually a graven image, at least not in the way God forbade it in the OT. Also, wearing the cross is a public way to proclaim our faith, AND while some see I as an instument of death and sadness, I see it as a symbol of God's love and my own salvation. Don't let legalists convince you a cross is wrong. I think Jesus would wear a cross today. He kinda did already, but a far bigger one than I have.

What I read said the Anti-Christ will arise during the time of the last pope, not that the last pope would be him. You are correct. The false prophet and the anti-christ are not the same thing. When reading revelation, we see 3 main people, the dragon, the false prophet, and the beast ( the antichrist ). sort of like an Unholy trinity. The last pope is the false prophet, NOT the antichrist, but the antichrist is already on scene if this is true.

I don't mean to bash the Catholic Church, but I personally can't buy this prophecy coming from God..... But the last 40 or so popes it described don't seem to me to be a coincidence and with the averages falling into 2012 it's just one more thing that seems to me to be a pagan or occultic phophecy from hundreds of years ago that focuses on this time period. I find it very interesting that so much from the same origion scattered thousands of miles appart and hundreds and thousdands of years apart is focusing on the 2012 time frame. I find it hard to believe that the devil is just out to make himself look dumb. Watching and waiting for my Lord. I am not catholic, and I am not saying the prophesy is actually from God. I am only saying it is a VERY interesting prophesy. I also don't think that just because someone is catholic, it excludes them from "possibly" hearing something from God. Again, not saying its a fact, just VERY interesting. Though i DO hope its true.