alphaparticle

There are risks we have to live with if we want to be people with rights that are actually respected by the state. Of course encroachment always starts in teh name of safety, but once the precedence is set there is no going back.

The big deal is that they are teaching false things about the gospel. gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. Jesus, His apostles, did not preach a gospel which included shunning the technology of the civilization around them or suggest that failing to adhere to complex rules leading to excommunication is tied up in the salvation of people.

I did not say that they don't understand God's Love alpha. I am saying that God's love, and acceptance of it is paramount to our walk as believers. That is what we need to understand. Having accepted it, it should be easy to articulate no? I have yet to see anyone attempt to articulate the very thing that should be the foundation of our faith, the core of our being. Some have explained how they Love Jesus, and some have questioned that even. Peter walked on water because he loved Jesus and had faith in that love. If he understood the Love of Jesus for him, he would have walked with ease. Alpha, what I am saying is that people who concentrate on extra biblical stuff and try and attribute scripture to it, like satan sending ufo's, and camouflaging demons as aliens, should first and foremost be sure of their standing with God, which is sort of like important, eternity wise? And how can you be founded in faith if you don't understand the Love your creator has for you? Instead of pursuing stuff between the lines of truth in scripture, we should be pursuing God. John was one person who understood the difference. He called himself the disciple who Jesus Loved, while Peter for a while there, was the disciple who loved Jesus. John was at the Cross, was Peter? (this is not a Peter bashing thread, so lets not go there, Jesus called him the rock, which is good enough for me). I'm still unclear if you wanted me to answer that question myself or if you were trying to make a point. This is what I was responding to, specifically: "I read posts about aliens, demons, evolution, days, moons, politics, bible/s, end times, horses and helicopters, etc, and sometimes I despair. Because for me it is so simple, and I don’t get why other people who profess to be believers, don’t get how simple it really is. Why they love to complicate things." I don't see why Bible translations shouldn't or couldn't genuinely concern people who love God. I don't see why the question of evolution couldn't be important to some (and here is a live issue for me), or politics, or demons, or "end times". Your OP seems to suggest that people shouldn't be discussing this stuff, or if they are, that they don't "get it" in some sense but I still don't see how that is supposed to follow. How do you draw the parallel to Peter wavering on the water here? Your last paragraph again seems to imply that people who discuss stuff that you find to be uninteresting must not get it like you do. Perhaps I misunderstand you here, it would not surprise me, but that's in essence what I have been taking away from the exchange.

what do you guys think of this sort of response? http://phys.org/news/2013-10-backlash-surveillance.html#ajTabs

I don't know why it needs to be labeled specially. This sounds like common akrasia, weakness of the will, to me. rom 7:15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.

I agree with you here, but porn addiction is very real. It's not about just looking at naked people having sex, it's about that physical sensation that goes with it. If that sensation were missing, people won't be so attracted to it. Yeah but that is true about most activities humans are engaged in, or want to be engaged in. People are tempted by things because they find them pleasant at some level. This for me is a semantics issue. What should and should not addiction count as? At what point does the word not become helpful? This is combined with the fact that addiction is often a word used to excuse people from responsibility to what amounts to poor choices.

I don't understand that either. Another thing I don't understand is, why do those who attend church automatically assume that non-church goers are ignorant and void of any understanding? Alpha, tell me what God's love means to you, what does it mean? Not you love for Him, His for you? Man I answered your church concern in the previous post to this one. I don't mind answering that fez, but first, is that a rhetorical request? And second, I wonder how is it relevant to what I asked. Why would enjoying discussing or even debating politics imply that the people who engage in those things don't understand God's love?

because it stimulates the same pleasure centers as does heroin. people who get really addicted to porn get to the point they had rather do porn than sex itself.... it will literally destroy a marriage.... on a side note i don't think bopeep understands what levels porn today has reached........ and that is very refreshing to me. Yes, people also have affairs and destroy their marriages. That doesn't mean they have addictions. It means they make bad choices. They wouldn't be doing this if it weren't pleasurable, so what? I think we are entirely too quick to label things as 'addictive' and explain bad behavior in terms of addiction rather than people just doing dumb or wrong things.

Did they claim you might go to hell if you don't adhere to a dress code that forbids certain kinds of fasteners?

I admit, I don't get it at all. I don't see how discussing topics that interest people, such as politics, means they don't get God's love. That's not an inference that seems valid.

The article claims changes to the brain as a result of porn. That is why I would have liked more information about the study and how it was conducted? Any repetitive activity will change the brain, that seems trivial to me. If there are actual changes in the brain, then the article has merit. The changes in the brain create an addiction. Every time you learn a new skill your brain changes. That's how learning works.

I have spent a lot of time looking into the Amish beliefs. There have been times I have considered converting to being Amish, or at least Beachy Amish. Recently I watched a video at YouTube about the Amish that was produced by the BBC. There was one Amish family that consented to allowing them to be filmed because they felt like they should spread the faith. This was in opposition to the elders opposition to being filmed and put them at risk of being put out of the church. For the most part, I agree with the way they live. What surprised me was that they all knew their Bible. Even the children were smart in the Word. The family was in Biblical order. When I started watching the program, my first concern was over the family choosing to disobey the elders, as that is rebellion, and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. At the same time, the reason they disobeyed the elders was to obey Christ's command to share the gospel, and Christ is higher than human leaders. There are reasons for what they teach. I don't necessarily agree all of these things are necessary to salvation, but there is nothing wrong with them. I have always opposed compulsory education, so I have no issue with Amish children not always being that far along in their studies, but I would point out that I went to school with High School seniors that could barely read, yet they still got a Diploma. They just put those struggling into easy classes, and push them along. They don't have cars for two reasons. One reason is that they feel it is better that everyone be a close knit community, and limiting the distance they can easily travel keeps them that way. The other reason is so they won't be prideful over their automobile. Do I feel this is necessary? No, but neither do I have an issue with it. The Amish people don't have electricity, and that protects them from the bad influences of the media, as well as time wasting activities. I come in contact with Amish people while traveling in Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania, and I have a great deal of respect for them. I do believe the way they live is much more Biblical than the way most people live. Yes, they do put people out of the church for rebellion against the authorities, and they are not to eat with those people or have close contact with them, but they know the rules. None of this comes by surprise. My view is that any church has a right to place any rules on the congregation they want, and this is a free nation and if we don't like them, we can go elsewhere. If we choose to be part of a strict community like the Amish, then we should abide by their rules. I mentioned the distinction with them and the Beachy Amish. They have many of the same standards, but don't shun all modern conveniences, like cars and electricity. I feel like I would be more likely to join that type of Amish if I was to go that far. They also do believe in evangelizing, unlike the older order of Amish. You say you don't understand people admiring the Amish because of a list of things you don't agree with. In my case, I have no problem with any church being extremely legalistic, and even find it preferable to the liberal churches. In my case, the things that bother you don't bother me. The part that I find offensive about 'legalism' is when the following of minutiae is tied up with salvation. If people choose to do such and such, go off the grid, whatever, that is their business. When they form communities that demand that everyone do that, or that they might go to hell, I have a problem with that. I also find the linking between shunning technology with 'saltiness' or 'light' or 'fruits'. These seem, on the surface, fairly unrelated to me. They don't seem to tie their lifestyle to salvation, at least to the point of saying everyone outside their community is lost. It is not the shunning and lack of technology in and of itself that is salt and light to me, but the fact they have really come out from among the world, along with the heathen culture. Yes except that they do teach that adhering to their rules is a part of earning their way into heaven. They aren't the only ones who 'detach from heathen culture', you can find extremist groups everywhere and with every theology under the sun who do that. That part does not interest or impress me. Everyone has a differen't belief when it comes to "earning their way into heaven" and what exactly that means? For instance, I don't believe anyone can be saved without faith in Christ, but at the same time, I don't believe one can continue to live in wilful sin and remain saved. The Bible states that faith without works is dead. Others consider "earning their way into heaven" to mean we simply turn over a new leaf and do our best to be saved, with or without Christ. I don't believe that, and neither do the Amish. Some believe that salvation is nothing more than believing in Jesus, and you can continue to live like a sinner and remain saved, and anything else is legalism. I reject that. Even the devils believe in Jesus. The Amish show a change in lifestyle because of their faith, which is what James tells us is required. Their communities require that they follow rules which have no basis in scripture whatsoever. Whether or not I have a belt has nothing to do with whether or not I am responding to God in my life. This is the point at which things become negative. Further, there should be no sense that a particular community with peculiar rules has anything to do with my soteriological status.

The article claims changes to the brain as a result of porn. That is why I would have liked more information about the study and how it was conducted? Any repetitive activity will change the brain, that seems trivial to me.

I have spent a lot of time looking into the Amish beliefs. There have been times I have considered converting to being Amish, or at least Beachy Amish. Recently I watched a video at YouTube about the Amish that was produced by the BBC. There was one Amish family that consented to allowing them to be filmed because they felt like they should spread the faith. This was in opposition to the elders opposition to being filmed and put them at risk of being put out of the church. For the most part, I agree with the way they live. What surprised me was that they all knew their Bible. Even the children were smart in the Word. The family was in Biblical order. When I started watching the program, my first concern was over the family choosing to disobey the elders, as that is rebellion, and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. At the same time, the reason they disobeyed the elders was to obey Christ's command to share the gospel, and Christ is higher than human leaders. There are reasons for what they teach. I don't necessarily agree all of these things are necessary to salvation, but there is nothing wrong with them. I have always opposed compulsory education, so I have no issue with Amish children not always being that far along in their studies, but I would point out that I went to school with High School seniors that could barely read, yet they still got a Diploma. They just put those struggling into easy classes, and push them along. They don't have cars for two reasons. One reason is that they feel it is better that everyone be a close knit community, and limiting the distance they can easily travel keeps them that way. The other reason is so they won't be prideful over their automobile. Do I feel this is necessary? No, but neither do I have an issue with it. The Amish people don't have electricity, and that protects them from the bad influences of the media, as well as time wasting activities. I come in contact with Amish people while traveling in Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania, and I have a great deal of respect for them. I do believe the way they live is much more Biblical than the way most people live. Yes, they do put people out of the church for rebellion against the authorities, and they are not to eat with those people or have close contact with them, but they know the rules. None of this comes by surprise. My view is that any church has a right to place any rules on the congregation they want, and this is a free nation and if we don't like them, we can go elsewhere. If we choose to be part of a strict community like the Amish, then we should abide by their rules. I mentioned the distinction with them and the Beachy Amish. They have many of the same standards, but don't shun all modern conveniences, like cars and electricity. I feel like I would be more likely to join that type of Amish if I was to go that far. They also do believe in evangelizing, unlike the older order of Amish. You say you don't understand people admiring the Amish because of a list of things you don't agree with. In my case, I have no problem with any church being extremely legalistic, and even find it preferable to the liberal churches. In my case, the things that bother you don't bother me. The part that I find offensive about 'legalism' is when the following of minutiae is tied up with salvation. If people choose to do such and such, go off the grid, whatever, that is their business. When they form communities that demand that everyone do that, or that they might go to hell, I have a problem with that. I also find the linking between shunning technology with 'saltiness' or 'light' or 'fruits'. These seem, on the surface, fairly unrelated to me. They don't seem to tie their lifestyle to salvation, at least to the point of saying everyone outside their community is lost. It is not the shunning and lack of technology in and of itself that is salt and light to me, but the fact they have really come out from among the world, along with the heathen culture. Yes except that they do teach that adhering to their rules is a part of earning their way into heaven. They aren't the only ones who 'detach from heathen culture', you can find extremist groups everywhere and with every theology under the sun who do that. That part does not interest or impress me.

Why would porn be literally addictive? I don't get it. We are entirely too quick to label things as addictions. Yes, if you do x and it's pleasurable, you are more inclined to do thing x again. Is that all that we mean? Because that learned behavior applies to just about anything.

I have spent a lot of time looking into the Amish beliefs. There have been times I have considered converting to being Amish, or at least Beachy Amish. Recently I watched a video at YouTube about the Amish that was produced by the BBC. There was one Amish family that consented to allowing them to be filmed because they felt like they should spread the faith. This was in opposition to the elders opposition to being filmed and put them at risk of being put out of the church. For the most part, I agree with the way they live. What surprised me was that they all knew their Bible. Even the children were smart in the Word. The family was in Biblical order. When I started watching the program, my first concern was over the family choosing to disobey the elders, as that is rebellion, and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. At the same time, the reason they disobeyed the elders was to obey Christ's command to share the gospel, and Christ is higher than human leaders. There are reasons for what they teach. I don't necessarily agree all of these things are necessary to salvation, but there is nothing wrong with them. I have always opposed compulsory education, so I have no issue with Amish children not always being that far along in their studies, but I would point out that I went to school with High School seniors that could barely read, yet they still got a Diploma. They just put those struggling into easy classes, and push them along. They don't have cars for two reasons. One reason is that they feel it is better that everyone be a close knit community, and limiting the distance they can easily travel keeps them that way. The other reason is so they won't be prideful over their automobile. Do I feel this is necessary? No, but neither do I have an issue with it. The Amish people don't have electricity, and that protects them from the bad influences of the media, as well as time wasting activities. I come in contact with Amish people while traveling in Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania, and I have a great deal of respect for them. I do believe the way they live is much more Biblical than the way most people live. Yes, they do put people out of the church for rebellion against the authorities, and they are not to eat with those people or have close contact with them, but they know the rules. None of this comes by surprise. My view is that any church has a right to place any rules on the congregation they want, and this is a free nation and if we don't like them, we can go elsewhere. If we choose to be part of a strict community like the Amish, then we should abide by their rules. I mentioned the distinction with them and the Beachy Amish. They have many of the same standards, but don't shun all modern conveniences, like cars and electricity. I feel like I would be more likely to join that type of Amish if I was to go that far. They also do believe in evangelizing, unlike the older order of Amish. You say you don't understand people admiring the Amish because of a list of things you don't agree with. In my case, I have no problem with any church being extremely legalistic, and even find it preferable to the liberal churches. In my case, the things that bother you don't bother me. The part that I find offensive about 'legalism' is when the following of minutiae is tied up with salvation. If people choose to do such and such, go off the grid, whatever, that is their business. When they form communities that demand that everyone do that, or that they might go to hell, I have a problem with that. I also find the linking between shunning technology with 'saltiness' or 'light' or 'fruits'. These seem, on the surface, fairly unrelated to me.

It can not be just as damaging in your relationships & your mind? That's not my point. My point is that it shouldn't be compared to substances that cause physical dependence. But the author of the article's point (if I have understood correctly) is that porn's effects on the brain are far more damaging as an addictive 'substance'. No? I think that is a very misleading claim. I do not think porn should be compared to physically addictive substances.

It can not be just as damaging in your relationships & your mind? That's not my point. My point is that it shouldn't be compared to substances that cause physical dependence.

I would not compare it to narcotics. I don't find that a useful analogy insofar a narcotics involve physically flooding your system with neurotransmitters that your brain then ceases to make on its own and an equivalent thing is not occurring when people indulge in porn.

One can talk about aliens, and demons and the love of Jesus. And is it not sad that talking about the love of Jesus and His teaching would actually chase people away? Your statement is extremely telling (I am not talking directly about you, I have read enough of your other posts to know differently), and proves my point with regard to what some people are comfortable discussing. It extends my point to many branches of the modern church in many ways The body is the church There are many here who discuss demons, who through their own admission do not attend church. If you are going to concentrate on those forums and subjects, at least have a good church and solid teaching and leadership to back you up. satan picks us off one by one, it's all he has to do.... "the church" not attending "a church". We aren't talking about people showing up for bible studies for new believers and end up talking about every topic under the sun. This is an internet board which has subsections for discussing politics, 'conspiracies', controversies, science and so forth, and then saying that people are wrong for using those subsections. I think you miss my point there. People have different interests and skills and it stands to reason that the way we 'experience God' is also going to have some variation. What omegaman said is exactly right.

Well, .. that is an interesting reaction.

It's right where it should be alpha, but Worthy is first and foremost a Ministry, and my point is that I have seen people concentrate on what is in your quote (thank you for providing an example) almost exclusively, and I wonder how it Glorifies God? Do you (not just you alpha, all of us) feel the awesome, amazing, all encompassing, secure, Love of God in your life, all the time? I don't, all the time, because I have my bad days (if I were to look in my own mirror). And no UFO is going to help me accept His Love. "And if you wondered even for an instant, aliens, satan and UFO's are the very last thing you should concern yourself with". I don't see what's wrong with people being curious and wondering about the world. I do not think there are alien spacecraft (or demons masquerading as aliens) at all but I don't see why I should get on anybody's case for wondering. Should I not be interested in discussing or even debating politics? Should I not have a passion for science or spend free time reading about history? Presumably people have a lot of varied interests, and personalities, and the board set up reflects that. Sure, it's possible that some people obsess and possibly to the neglect of other things, fundamental things, but I don't know that. I know for myself that God speaks to me in many areas of inquiry, and sometimes in nonobvious ways. Still this springs to mind: 1 cr 12:14-20 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. If all were a single member, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. This is in the context of gifts and things but I think it is applicable here, insofar as we have different personalities, gifts and interests. I see no reason why they can't all be complementary rather than insisting that everybody be one way.

Not surprising but here it is: http://phys.org/news/2013-10-nobel-physics-laureate-higgs-overwhelmed.html

Evolution *is* the only scientific game in town. Besides which, it being 'only a theory' is meaningless. Gravity is 'only a theory'. That germs cause illness is 'only a theory'. The theory which allowed us to build nuclear weapons is 'only a theory'. The theory which allows us to make transisotrs for your computer is 'only a theory'. Something being a theory doesn't mean it's ill established at all. Also its an observable theory, why do you think we need to make a new flu shot strain every year. Yep you guessed it. Evolution Or my favorite concern, MRSA. People will often want to distinguish between 'micro and macro' evolution and say that while micro evolution can be true macro is not, but I find that distinguish to be arbitrary. Physically, macro-evolution is a bunch of micro-evolutionary steps over time. If one is a fact then that the other happens is all but certain.

Evolution *is* the only scientific game in town. Besides which, it being 'only a theory' is meaningless. Gravity is 'only a theory'. That germs cause illness is 'only a theory'. The theory which allowed us to build nuclear weapons is 'only a theory'. The theory which allows us to make transisotrs for your computer is 'only a theory'. Something being a theory doesn't mean it's ill established at all.