EnochBethany

Yes, I agree that a troop employment would be far more likely if it weren't for the several thousand nukes (supposedly 3500 according to the latest treaties) that russia is sitting on. At this juncture I don't see a way that nuclear war could be avoided if there was a direct confrontation between the US and Russia (i.e. russian troops v american troops). At the end of the day russia isn't quite ready to face the US military, especially technologically. It would be brutal, though, russians are warriors and it's always tough against them, no matter who you are. My general fear in that scenario would be russia having to fall back and feeling that the only resort they had to defend their homeland would be resorting to tactical nukes, which would then almost certainly lead to strategic retaliation. I see no benefit whatsoever to us even involving ourselves here in the first place, even speaking about it. It seems that the facts of the matter are that the US and EU backed a popular coup in the western half of the country and Russia unilaterally interdicting after putin accused the US of not going to the UN security council over syria (see the new york times op ed written by putin himself on September 11th of last year). Both sides are being hypocritical here in a lot of ways, the US by backing a prime minister and president in Ukraine who was not democratically elected, simply because the old one was pro russian (the main barometer the US always uses when dealing with foreign governments as far as their legitimacy goes is whether or not they are democratically elected, supposedly), and russia unilaterally taking action. Hypocrisy aside, the US and EU significantly misread what russia would do and russia seemed to know exactly what the US and EU would do and clearly had ideas about escalation levels and response initiatives, even being able to fool US spies on the ground in western russia into thinking that they had no plans to invade, WHILE they were invading (this sort of efficiency is striking, to the point of insanity). That gives russia a significant strategic advantage in any situation such as this. I have to believe that this is because putin is simply a better overall strategist and conflict tactician than is obama, as even though they both have a ton of aides, they are the ones calling the shots. Really, we have no dog in this hunt as far as i can see. We just wanted to make russia look bad. Ukraine, crimea in particular, is incredibly important to russia, they certainly seem to be willing to shed more than a little blood over it. We do not have this sort of resolve in that part of the world, nor should we, because we don't benefit one way or the other, and us getting involved in situations seems to only increase the number of people getting killed. The US and EU simply expressing support for the uprising in kiev probably emboldened them to go farther than they would have otherwise, just as france and england giving poland support convinced them to do the same prior to world war II (referencing your comment on hitler using protecting ethnic germans as a pretense for invasion). Why give russia any pretense at all. They may not need it, but putin also wouldn't blindly invade a country without his citizens believing it was necessary. You've got the new government in ukraine right now talking about how they are going to reconstitute their nuclear weapons program and bashing the russian speaking ukranians there, and russia is looping this stuff on every television channel they have. So now, putin has his population firmly behind him and has no real need to worry about backlash at home. If there's one thing that history has shown us, russians stick together in times of conflict against outsiders, any hopes that "sanctions" are going to erode his popularity at home may as well be thrown out the window and shot, in my opinion, due to this. If anything they will be more resolved than they were before. Thanks for your insights; you seem to know more about this than I do. (the main barometer the US always uses when dealing with foreign governments as far as their legitimacy goes is whether or not they are democratically elected, supposedly), and russia unilaterally taking action. Unless it is Saudi Arabia? IMHO, it is an error to suppose that a multi-party republic govt is feasible for all nations. And the idea that the USA should crusade (like Wilson) for such everywhere is a bad idea. I really don't know how much shot-calling Ob does in between playing golf. As to Hitler, I don't know that it was a pretense, but a first step. I see Hitler's attempt to unify the Germans into one state as the continuation of the consolidation of Germany, which began as something like 300 little states in the middle ages. Also, Germany would logically feel mistreated by having parts of Germany given to Poland, where the people were Germans. Yes, he probably did envision grabbing all the Slav territory (Lebensraum) after he consolidated all Germans into a greater Germany. Of course I also think that Hitler was demon-possessed. I guess if the West is not willing to go to war now, we will see Russia continue to expand, swallowing up areas that have Russians in it and turning the left over into a weak spheres of influence. As to events in the Ukraine, do you think that they were driven by Western subversion, or by a native uprising out of the West's control? I agree that sanctions are ineffective & knucklehead.

But friend, your vss do say, 1) complete eradication of the sin nature in this life by "sanctification" and also 2) nevertheless, such a person can "lose his salvation" & end up in the Lake of Fire None of my vss say that at all. As far as the Old Man, let me just quote some scriptures: Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Note, that the old man is crucified with Him. That occurs at the point of salvation. And thus it has nothing to do with a special category of elite Christians who have been "sanctified." 2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. Again, there is entire sanctification when we are saved. Some like to call this positional sanctification, but I dislike that term as I think it emphasis makes it sound like God views us as sanctified but it really isn't true. If the bible says it, I take it as truth, and there are too many verses which speak of us being a new creation using differing descriptions. It is called positional based on the fact that it is due to being in Christ. It is true, just as our being raised with Christ is also true, & our being seated on the right hand of God in Christ is true. All these things that are true of our Head are true of all Christians. But our condition is that we have not yet been raised from the dead. Now pardon me for asking, & this is just a hypothetical: If you were at the pearly gates wanting entrance to Heaven and you were asked why you should be let in, what would you say? For the last question, the reason I will be let in is because of Jesus complete work. Are you saying that because Christ paid for your sins on the cross, you should be forgiven & let in? Without going ino the 'sin nature', sanctification means separation for a purpose. In the Temple there were vessels which were sanctified, separated for use of honoring God in the Temple. Identical vessels could have been made, but they were not sanctified, so there was nothing special about the vessels. What made them special was God. They had been separated, sanctified, for Gods purposes. And they were not morally righteous, as inanimate objects. Entire sanctification is separating people for Gods purposes. Sanctification means we are now new creations, no longer in Adam, but made new, sanctified for Gods purposes. This is done at salvation by God, with no work of our own. We were not partially sanctified. We were entirely sanctified for Gods purposes and we can not add to or take away from our new position. Since that is a part of what God does in order to save us, there is no work, nothing, that we do to earn it. Indeed true. At this point I have given a verse saying that the old man is dead, co-crucified with Jesus. That we no longer live, Jesus lives in us. That we are new creations, which includes the old having past away. Romans 6:6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Gal 2:20I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. So far that is three verses. Here is a new one, which says we are sanctified. Note, the tense in the following verse. It is not future, but now. We are sanctified: 1 Cor 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their's and our's: 1 Cor 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. The following verse is really quite mind blowing: Hebrews 10:14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Yes, that verse actually says God has perfected those who are sanctified. Perfected means to be made whole. How were we made whole? The old man is dead and we are now new creations, made whole. Jesus lives in those who are born again, those who have received salvation. Great truths. But what does this have to do with the theories that 1) complete eradication of the sin nature in this life by "sanctification" and also 2) nevertheless, such a person can "lose his salvation" & end up in the Lake of Fire. I was arguing against those 2 claims. Now I am confused. You reject them too?

first off i would like to note the gift of prophecy has not and will not cease until the end. second merely recieving a dream or vision does not make one a prophet and third who knows? maybe she was right maybe jesus will return this year. i end with this. in the last day God says i will pour out my spirit on all ppl. your sons and daughters will prophesy your young men will see visions your old men will dream dreams 1 Cor 13 says that prophecy would cease; & it has. If one receives a vision or dream & then published it, that would be a prophecy. There is no possibility of the lady being right who said Christ would return that year because that year came & went long ago! Scripture says, "And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams: 18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood," We are not at that point yet. This happens during or at the end of Daniel's 70th week, during or at the end of the Great Tribulation. But we are not there yet. As for prophecy, it shall cease! And it has ceased for the Church age. Now if you have a person who predicts the future infallibly, with indisputable fulfillments & no errors, you might have a case. But show the proof! We should not suffer any false prophet Jezebel. i am not going to debate with you on this if you dont want to understand then thats between you God but i have seen the future and i am watching it unfold before my very eyes. that is how i know god was warning me. You claim, "i have seen the future and i am watching it unfold before my very eyes. that is how i know god was warning me." To authenticate your experience, why not give us some short term predictions, so the validity can be checked. Tell us the high & low temperature in New York on March 16, 2014 -- something like that. Num 12 "Hear now my words: if there be a prophet among you, I YHWH will make myself known unto him in a vision, I will speak with him in a dream. " Deut 18: "But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. 21 And if thou say in thy heart, How shall we know the word which YHWH hath not spoken? 22 when a prophet speaketh in the name of YHWH, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which YHWH hath not spoken: the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, thou shalt not be afraid of him." As I said, Now it should be noted that the original post which began this thread did not claim to be a vision or dream from the Lord. So one would not classify that poster as an Eliphaz or as a Jezebel! This is not a rebuke to him at all.

He didn't say this was a prophesy. He didn't say the dream was "from the Lord." He didn't claim to be a prophet. So who is all that stuff above aimed at? It couldn't be aimed at the OP because he made none of the above claims. He simply described a dream he had. Comparing someone who is just describing a dream they had to Eliphaz makes no sense whatsoever. "So who is all that stuff above aimed at? " My post is not a backquote to anyone. It is Biblical instruction on the topic. If the shoe fits, wear it. Compare whatever you want to Eliphaz, who claimed a vision, but was rebuked by the Lord. It couldn't be aimed at the OP because he made none of the above claims. He simply described a dream he had. Comparing someone who is just describing a dream they had to Eliphaz makes no sense whatsoever.

first off i would like to note the gift of prophecy has not and will not cease until the end. second merely recieving a dream or vision does not make one a prophet and third who knows? maybe she was right maybe jesus will return this year. i end with this. in the last day God says i will pour out my spirit on all ppl. your sons and daughters will prophesy your young men will see visions your old men will dream dreams 1 Cor 13 says that prophecy would cease; & it has. If one receives a vision or dream & then published it, that would be a prophecy. There is no possibility of the lady being right who said Christ would return that year because that year came & went long ago! Scripture says, "And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dream dreams: 18 Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. 19 And I will show wonders in the heaven above, And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood," We are not at that point yet. This happens during or at the end of Daniel's 70th week, during or at the end of the Great Tribulation. But we are not there yet. As for prophecy, it shall cease! And it has ceased for the Church age. Now if you have a person who predicts the future infallibly, with indisputable fulfillments & no errors, you might have a case. But show the proof! We should not suffer any false prophet Jezebel. Now it should be noted that the post which began this thread did not claim to be a vision or dream from the Lord. So one would not classify that poster as an Eliphaz or a Jezebel!

I note as to how it is reported that Putin put his plans to their legislature & got approval. But what leads you to think that Putin got instruction from his govt? I thought he was the instructor! I had thought we should stay out so long as all Putin was doing was putting back the Pretzel on his throne. I won't be surprised now if he virtually annexes Crimea & Eastern Ukraine. His policy reminds a lot of Hitler's attempts to add territory to Germany based on a German population there. But yes, I do think the USA has erred greatly by butting into other country's business. If there were not nukes involved, it is likely that there would be a war, as when Hitler invaded Poland, though there is no defense treaty here.

How about "shaven" -- & seeing this as sarcasm? Or as what is done to a prostitute? Are you sure you have inserted the right words in brackets? Advice: Check out translations with an interlinear or with the old ASV (1901) before arguing from a modern translation (for which I am thankful). I think Biblos.com has an interlinear (Greek) version.

"Gay" means happy & carefree. One is advancing the propaganda-vocabulary purpose of those who practice sodomy by calling them "gay," just as one may advance fornication by calling it, "being sexually active." I recommend using Biblical terminology.

Thus saith ol Eliphaz the Temanite, miserable "friend" of Job: Q 12 Now a thing was secretly brought to me, And mine ear received a whisper thereof. 13 In thoughts from the visions of the night, When deep sleep falleth on men, 14 Fear came upon me, and trembling, Which made all my bones to shake. 15 Then a spirit passed before my face; The hair of my flesh stood up. 16 It stood still, but I could not discern the appearance thereof; A form was before mine eyes: There was silence, and I heard a voice, saying, 17 Shall mortal man be more just than God?" unQ "And it was so, that, after Jehovah had spoken these words unto Job, Jehovah said to Eliphaz the Temanite, My wrath is kindled against thee, and against thy two friends; for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right," Why would anyone believe an Eliphaz-ish claim to a vision or dream from the Lord? To authenticate prophecy requires that a prophet be able to make infallible short term predictions that come true. I conclude from 1 Cor 13 that prophecy, as a gift, has ceased in the Church Age. In the OT death penalty was prescribed for claiming to be a prophet falsely. To authenticate a prophet requires infallible predictions that come true. Before anyone is to believed as a prophet, he must first demonstrate ability to predict the future. Years ago, I ran into a woman who claimed a vision/dream as to how Christ was coming back this year. I told her she was a false prophet. "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like a flame of fire, and his feet are like unto burnished brass: 19 I know thy works, and thy love and faith and ministry and patience, and that thy last works are more than the first. 20 But I have this against thee, that thou sufferest the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth my servants" Now it should be noted that the post which began this thread did not claim to be a vision or dream from the Lord. So one would not classify that poster as an Eliphaz or a Jezebel.

A little shut-down-ski would be OK

Wait until July!

Do it do it. You know you wanna. OK I could come by and bump it once a week or so, that way you all could just reread it and irritate each other without having to go to the trouble of posting.. Ha, love that pie foto!

unfortunately in the cultural war, what legislatures pass means little, so long as liberal federal judges are ready to change the law to what they want it to be. The law that needs passing is the Constitution on reining in the judges & removing them from bench on re-call elections.

"Non-nebulous"? Not sure what you are implying by that.... But you are talking about adultery, murder, and defaming God's name before the people - not the kinds of things being spoken of in the OP. Does God strike down husbands and wives for having dysfunctional relationships? As for David, could he have written Psalm 51 if he didn't have a solid grasp on God's mercy and grace? I don't believe he could cry, "Create in me a clean heart, O God," if he thought God's wrath trumped his mercy and grace. Q "Non-nebulous"? Not sure what you are implying by that.... unQ I am saying that you are non-nebulous. It was supposed to be a complement! No defamation at all; it was famation! As to the rest of your post, it doesn't fit with my comments; prraps you would like to re-read them? Thou shalt not fire cannon balls at canary birds, Hezekiah 9:6 As I said, God's grace is the trump card for men!

In John 3, remarkable statements are made about the Christian's inability to sin. 6 Whosoever abides in him sinneth not: whosoever sins hath not seen him, neither knows him. 7 My little children, let no man lead you astray: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous: 8 he that doeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. To this end was the Son of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God. 10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother. At first glance the reader may think he is reading an impossible & fantastic claim, namely that the Christian cannot sin; though we Christians know full well that we sin frequently. Also James tells us that in many ways we stumble (present tense). Thus, many interpreters have sought some explanation of how it is that this verse seems to say we cannot sin, while we sin. The desire seems to be to relieve the text of stating an absurdity, that Christians don't sin. Refuge has been sought in the doctrine that the Greek present tense means habitual or continual action. Thus the passage is re-translated "he cannot sin habitually" or "cannot sin continually." However, the Greek text has no word that means "habitually" or "continually" in it. The Greek present tense can be used where action is habitual or continuous; yet the present tense in & of itself does not mean "habitual" nor "continual." Now if one searches the internet, one can find both affirmation & denial of the "continual" claim for the present tense. Here is Greek: "πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει" πᾶς = everyone ὁ the ὁ γεγεννημένος = the one begotten ἐκ = out of ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ = out of (the) God οὐχ = not ἁμαρτάνει = sins οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει = does not sin. No word that means habitual occurs. ἁμαρτάνει is a present tense verb, and the present tense may be sometimes used where the action is habitual. I rule out that possible usage because in fact Christians do habitually sin. Πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ, ὅτι σπέρμα αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ μένει, καὶ οὐ δύναται ἁμαρτάνειν, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγέννηται. The present active does not mean continuous -- Tho it can be used where the action is continuous. (IMHO, the idea that present means continous & aorist always means punctiliar has been seized on by ignorant preachers & thus spread.) < James 3 "πολλὰ γὰρ πταίομεν ἅπαντες." For in many things we all stumble." ptaiomen = present active indicative 1 Plural. If the present had to mean continuous, this would mean "For in many things we all continuously stumble"!!! "but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat." μηδὲ συνεσθίειν. Sunesthiein = present active infinitive. Paul is not telling them yes, you may eat on occasion with the fornicator, but don't you continually eat with him. In the same way, IMHO, 1 John is not telling them that yes Chrs sin, but they don't sin continually. To express continually in Greek one may use διὰ παντὸς (dia pantos). < Heb 13 "Through him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually" The verb is ἀναφέρωμεν anapherōmen = present active. Thus we see that while the present can be used when an action is continuous, the verb by itself does not specify continuous. IMHO, those who claim "continual" display ignorance of Greek or a superficial understanding of Greek. If the present tense had to mean "continual," then one would be forced to read James to say that in many ways we all continually stumble, that is continually sin! Think for a moment. Can Christians continually sin? James at least implies that we habitually sin. Now what about "continually"? The Christian does have a carnal state in which he sins: "Are ye not carnal?" 1 Cor says. Romans 7 speaks of a Christian in the carnal mode: "I am carnal, sold under sin." Now how long can a state of carnality last? Isn't everything a man does in the carnal state sin? If the Corinthians lived 1 month in a state of carnality, would that not be continual sin? What about 1 hour of carnality? Would not the carnal man be sinning continually during the hour? If we say that "continual" means forever, of course eventually a Christian stops sinning; for as Peter tells us, he who suffers in the flesh ceases from sin -- which I take to mean when you die you stop sinning. So if Christians indeed are capable of living in a continual sinful state (whereby the admonition is "Awake thou that sleepest & Christ will dawn upon thee," and "Put on the Lord Jesus Christ and make no provision for the flesh"), then the "continually" interpretation of 1 John 3 is wrong. Fortunately, the "continually" interpretation is not the only way to reconcile what John says with reality. I put it to you that a better explanation is that John speaks of the New Nature which cannot sin because is begotten of God. Moreover, to enjoy the non-sinning state, the text indicates that we must abide in (fellowship with) Christ. This makes sense to me. It seems to me if our new nature did sin, we should be "lost again" -- and never truly saved; our new nature would be defiled & we would need another regeneration! My interpretation of 1 John 3 is consistent with Romans 7 where a strange interchange of I's and me's is found. It is clear that the Christian has two different ego's or I's (an old & a new). With regard to the Christian sinning it is said, "It is no longer I [sinning], but Sin [is sinning]." "I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I know not: for not what I would, that do I practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 But if what I would not, that I do, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 So now it is no more I that do it, but sin which dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing; . . ." The Christian has an evil me and a righteous me, an old nature & a new nature. Consider that the context of 1 John is abiding in Christ, an expansion of the theme of John 15. Whosoever abides in him sinneth not. This statement does not mean that if you abide in Christ you will not continually sin; it means that when you abide in Christ you never sin while in that condition. How could one abide in (fellowship with) Christ and be sinning?" How could one be abiding in Christ with Gal 2:20-21 fulfilled, ("no longer I but Christ lives in me . . . I live in faith in the Son of God . . . ) and yet be sinning? So brethren, finding that 1 John 3 speaks of the New Nature which does not sin, makes much more sense to me that trying to force the present tense (without dia pantos = διὰ pαντὸς) to mean continually.

Do you not believe that the 'old man' is dead? Or that we are new creations? What of this scripture? Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. Again, entire sanctification is not sinless perfection. It is Gal 2:20. It is no longer being in Adam, but now being in Messiah. But friend, your vss do say, 1) complete eradication of the sin nature in this life by "sanctification" and also 2) nevertheless, such a person can "lose his salvation" & end up in the Lake of Fire I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. Constant faith is required to realize the ideal of Christ living in me -- that is abiding in Christ. The Chr life is like Peter walking on the waves. Dead does not mean non-existent. Death is a separation. When Christ died, He took everyone who has been baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ with Him. This is not a special thing for an elite "sanctified" group. All Christians enjoy this baptism (1 Cor 12:13). Christians are new creations. And we are told to know no man after the flesh in effect. But the Old Man remains, exerting his opinion. The flesh won't keep its mouth shut. In many ways we all stumble (James). If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves & the truth is not in us. The flesh lusts vs the Spirit & the Spirit against the flesh -- this is a continuing process. Do you mind my asking where you would go if you died tonight & how you know? To answer you last question, to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. How do I know? I have been born again, and His Spirit bears witness with my Spirit. As far as the Old Man, let me just quote some scriptures: Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Note, that the old man is crucified with Him. That occurs at the point of salvation. 2 Cor 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. Again, there is entire sanctification when we are saved. Some like to call this positional sanctification, but I dislike that term as I think it emphasis makes it sound like God views us as sanctified but it really isn't true. If the bible says it, I take it as truth, and there are too many verses which speak of us being a new creation using differing descriptions. I also believe there is continuing sanctification, which is obvious in scripture also, but more people emphasize continuing sanctification and ignore entire sanctification. Without both, people tend to be trying to do what God has already accomplished in entire sanctification. None of your verse state either 1) complete eradication of the sin nature in this life by "sanctification" and also 2) nevertheless, such a person can "lose his salvation" & end up in the Lake of Fire. You have to prove your claims from the Bible. Now pardon me for asking, & this is just a hypothetical: If you were at the pearly gates wanting entrance to Heaven and you were asked why you should be let in, what would you say?

Actually, I was thinking of this (the parts in bold): Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick. 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child ; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground. 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them. 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died. And the servants of David were afraid to tell him that the child was dead, for they said, "Behold, while the child was still alive, we spoke to him and he did not listen to our voice. How then can we tell him that the child is dead, since he might do himself harm !" 19 But when David saw that his servants were whispering together, David perceived that the child was dead ; so David said to his servants, "Is the child dead ?" And they said, "He is dead." 20 So David arose from the ground, washed, anointed himself, and changed his clothes ; and he came into the house of the LORD and worshiped. Then he came to his own house, and when he requested, they set food before him and he ate. 21 Then his servants said to him, "What is this thing that you have done ? While the child was alive, you fasted and wept ; but when the child died, you arose and ate food." 22 He said, "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept ; for I said, 'Who knows, the LORD may be gracious to me, that the child may live.' 23 "But now he has died ; why should I fast ? Can I bring him back again ? I will go to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Sam. 12) Did David perceive God's judgement and vengeance to be His #1 characteristic, the trait above all traits, the position that trumps all else? Non-nebulous says, "Did David perceive God's judgement and vengeance to be His #1 characteristic, the trait above all traits, the position that trumps all else?" Now that is a non-nebulous question. Of course not. For men, His grace is the trump card. But David sure learned that our God is a consuming fire; it is a fearful thing to fall into His hands for chastening. His hope that the child would not die was disappointed. And the Lord does let us suffer disappointments. Take the book of Lamentations, it rises in the middle, like to a mountain peak (before sinking back down): Remember mine affliction and my misery, the wormwood and the gall. 20 My soul hath them still in remembrance, and is bowed down within me. 21 This I recall to my mind; therefore have I hope. 22 It is of Jehovah’s lovingkindnesss that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. 23 They are new every morning; great is thy faithfulness. 24 Jehovah is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him. 25 Jehovah is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him. 26 It is good that a man should hope and quietly wait for the salvation of Jehovah. 27 It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth. 28 Let him sit alone and keep silence, because he hath laid it upon him. 29 Let him put his mouth in the dust, if so be there may be hope. 30 Let him give his cheek to him that smiteth him; let him be filled full with reproach. 31 For the Lord will not cast off for ever. 32 For though he cause grief, yet will he have compassion according to the multitude of his lovingkindnesss. 33 For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men. 34 To crush under foot all the prisoners of the earth, 35 To turn aside the right of a man before the face of the Most High, 36 To subvert a man in his cause, the Lord approveth not. 37 Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, when the Lord commandeth it not? 38 Out of the mouth of the Most High cometh there not evil and good? 39 Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins? 40 Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to Jehovah. 41 Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens.

Why do I need to ask him to reveal something. He's God. If Jesus wanted to reveal something he will do it, no? He can, but He also wants a relationship with you. Relationships involve communication. He wants us seeking Him. While I may struggle with hearing form God, I know others who are more sensitive in this area, so I know it is possible. Even still, there are times I know the thoughts and impressions that came to me were God speaking to me. I remember one time feeling frustrated with myself, and I cried to God, "Why do you love me?" (for I certainly did not love myself). A thought came to my head: "Why do you love your cat?" That took me back a bit. But I thought about it, and responded with my thoughts, "Because she is mine." The impression came back to me, "And that is why I love you - because you are Mine!" It blew me away. No it's not possible. You're taking a risk. If it was possible there would be less people in the world. Where there is sex there is risk. I feel very puzzled at your perception of things. The evidence that this is possible are the various couples that have no children, and the many more couples who stop having children after one or two. The "ooops" babies are the rarity, not the norm. I can agree with this, but marriage is a choice we make. You can still serve God and people and not get married. For me it wasn't a choice. For decades (yes decades) I wanted to be married, but there was no man who loved me and I likewise loved back. I had several "one way" streaks - where I liked him but he didn't like me, or he liked me but I didn't like him - but there was no reciprocating feelings with anyone. Thus, I was stuck with being single. Sure I could chose to marry someone I had no such feelings form but being married for the sake of being married wasn't worth that. However, when I fell head-over-heals over a man who already deeply cared for me and thought the best of me (and I found out later apparently could not keep his eyes off my legs!), not getting married would have been insane. I would think it would be more painful to have the burden of fatherhood when you're not ready. Have you ever heard of the phrase 'Cognitive Dissonance' it's best explained like this…"sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief." (Frantz Fanon). If you mind is made up, then why did you ask for our opinions of the gift of celibacy in the Question and Answer forum? "why ask for our opinions" (pardon me for answering a question not directed to me) My guess is that he was hurting and had a rock in his shoe. I agree with him that trusting the Lord is not easy, even if it is essential. We are all like Peter walking on water in the Christian life, requiring the constant miracle, frequently taking our eyes off the Lord & starting to sink. Fortunately, if we have truly trusted Him as Savior, we don't drown before He pulls us up. If I could find some way to weld my gear shift lever into the "trust the Lord" position permanently, I would love to do it; but it frequently jumps out of gear!

If you can't control the things that come your way causing you to make decisions you don't want to, or have to, or want to, then how is it your will is free? It isn't. Only God has free will. We have a will. Again, I am not saying we are not responsible for our actions and decisons. But our will is not free. Quantrill You're redefining free will to mean maximal autonomy. Such a definition is incorrect. No standard definition of free will requires that one be able to control every situation. If you wish to continue using a different definition of free will, that's fine, I'll simply replace your word "free will" with "maximal autonomy" and nod in agreement. But keep in mind that the topic under discussion isn't whether human being have maximal autonomy, but rather whether humans have free will as per the standard philosophical definition of libertarian free will. Determinism vs Free Will How about a scale, 0-10 with 0= You can't do nothing. 1= You cain't hardly do nothing. 10 = You stand over the Key to Time & dictate omnipotently? 5 = you are impelled by opposing forces to the point that you don't know what to do; so you are stuck forever in a feedback cycle, pecking around the equilibrium. Or you might have an influence scale with the Zeitgeist blowing on you at different intensities. 0 = no Zeitgeist, no persuaders. 10 = completely controlled by the politically correct. Hi Enoch, Notice how your summary of free will vs determinism still deals with what one can do, in other words abilities, and not the real issue which is human will? I'm not sure how to better explain this other than simply stating that no definition of free will involve what actions one is capable of performing. I didn't catch the zeitgeist statement, would you mind clarifying? Isn't exerting will doing summut? You speak of free will. I refer to the fact that men are influenced. The Zeitgeist is the set of beliefs dominant at a given time. These pressure us to think a certain way. Okay, I'm not sure what your point is though, but influences by definition do not determine, but rather "influence". Free will doesn't mean devoid of influence either. Sometimes influences can be very strong, but influences aren't causes. If a young man is influenced by a desire to have sex to go out and rape somebody, such a person is still held accountable, because even though there may be an influence, he ought to have done otherwise. Ought implies can. One cannot be held accountable for a moral duty that one isn't able to keep. So if a person is caused to do something such that they couldn't have done otherwise, then they are not held accountable. Where there is influence though, this doesn't remove accountability. In terms of whether exerting will is an action. It depends what you mean by exert. I am confident that if you sign a contract with a gun to your head, then you tell the judge in court that you did not sign it of free will, the judge is not going to tell you that you don't use the term "will" correctly. I am also confident that a judge doesn't define free will to mean "the ability to do anything". Well, Luftwaffle, thanks for an interesting conversation. To pursue this further would necessitate checking the meaning of Biblical terms in Hebrew & Greek, instead of just asserting what they mean. But I am not inclined to put in the effort right now. And of course we don't want to argue over words, in the negative sense. Hey, I love that screen name, Luftwaffle -- great name!

LoL You seem to have a lot more confidence in global governments than I do.... I certainly do hope you are correct. I don't necessarily have confidence in their ability or willingness to make proper decisions. I've looked into this a bit and it would seem that there are definitive threats of a new nuclear program from the ukranians. However, 3 to 6 months before they could make any sort of nuclear device (and even then just a dirty bomb) is the estimate. Ironically they get the majority of their nuclear fuel from Russia according to what I've read. It's capable of being refined into the sort that would be needed for legitimate nuclear weapons, but it would take them years to get centrifuge farms up and running, etc. I think that even the possibility of this being put into play, even a rumor with some tacit legitimacy behind it, would see ukraine conquered in totality by russia. This would not be a wise move from ukraine. Didn't the Ukr's give up their concentrated nuke material to the Ruskies a couple of years ago? One thing I find disturbing about Putin is him threatening to use nukes. I guess the question now is how much resistance the Ukr's will put up vs Russia? But IMHO, it is only a matter of time before there is nuclear war in the world, what with all the proliferation, countries like N Korea & Iran. Even Pakistan could be taken over by Islamists. Now this is just my guess; I am no prophet: My guess is that eventually the USA will get nuked reducing it to inconsequential power in the world, accounting for its lack of mention in Bible prophecy. A nuclear war would provide a reason to not notice the Rapture, not that the Bible says it won't be noticed or that it will be secret. But as to the Ukraine, I doubt that Russia will swallow it up totally. I think that the fragmentation of both legs of the Roman empire will continue, no one able to unify it again to any long, serious extent until the land Beast arise. Well, it may be nuked, it may not be. It could be that it's simply involved but not mentioned, as well. I have a hard time believing that any country that nukes the US doesn't also get obliterated. Also, the only country with enough nukes and the proper type right now would be russia. That could change in the future though, as you've said. Insofar as the rapture I lean more pretrib, so i think it will be very open and noticeable when it does happen lol. "insofar as the rapture I lean more pretrib, so i think it will be very open and noticeable when it does happen" But I don't know how many times I have read on the internet an attack on Pre-tribism for the supposed reason that it teaches a secret rapture. I don't know of any scripture to prove how open or how secret the rapture will be. Yeah, that was my mistake, lol, i mean i lean more post-trib. Though, i have seen pretrib argued in a variety of ways, from public to secret. I do know that in light of: 2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. I don't think it will much matter if it's full knowledge that people were raptured or not. Well, I have not been convinced that this delusion is specifically about the Rapture -- it could include that. BTW, I think a case might be made for most mental illness being delusional. The truth sets free. Even now there is plenty of delusion. As I think of the Ukraine, I sure don't know what will happen. I expect Russia to put the ousted president back in office. But I did not anticipate an invasion of the Crimea. I don't necessarily think that it's about the rapture specifically, more about following the man of sin (anti-Christ), paul speaks of, which would effectively blind people to that. As to ukraine, russia has stated that the only way they would be willing to back down is if yanokovich was placed back into power in ukraine under the terms of the previous agreement, i.e. he gets to be president of a coalition government until december at the earliest. I strongly doubt those in kiev will ever agree to that. Boy, Steve, I have no idea how it will pan out, but the more I think about it, the more Putin's actions resembles Hitler's policy on German populations outside Deutschland or separated from the main country. I doubt that the west has the guts to land troops in Ukraine nor go to war over this. The USA also has troops tied up in Afghanistan (insanely). I won't be surprised to see the Ukraine divided into East w/ Crimea, vs West. The mobbers didn't anticipate the next move of the Chess game when they ousted Yanokovich. If there were not nukes involved, perhaps the West would go to war. In the last days, perilous times shall come.

"how a text is understood is influenced by how it was written," How does the interpretation of a text depend upon how the penman received the revelation? If it is true, what difference does the revelatory process make? "As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter." 1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends? 2) How do you know that probably a priest did it? 3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter? 4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"? 5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1? is that anachronistic reasoning? "The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative. Well, Old School, I asked you for your proof before, didn't I. And you did not give it. Will you respond now? "Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends" 1) What does written in a vacuum mean? Was it not written for ancient Israel by the Lord? What how does Sumeria become the context for revelation given to Israel in Sinai during their 40 year wandering? You think the ex-slaves were thinking about Sumeria? 2) How do you know it is a collection of local Sumerian legends? 3) How do you distinguish between local & non-local Sumerian legends? 4) What ancient documents do you list to substantiate your collection theory? 5) What percent of the Pentateuch has a parallel in Sumerian legends? 6) Do you confuse flood parallels with creation parallels? 7) What is the percent of correlation between you ancient legends & Genesis 1? 8) Are the correlations explainable by real events which happened instead of literary borrowing? 9) What ancient documents have you personally studied? As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter. The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative. , e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter. "The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative." "As I previously posted -- and you failed to include -- Genesis wasn't written in a vacuum. It was probably a collection of local Sumerian legends, e.g., the Enuma Elish, that someone inspired by God -- probably a priest -- took and gutted of all its polytheism, much like the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism and given new meaning in Easter." 1) How do you know that Genesis (which is not polytheistic) is the result of gutting Sumerian legends? 2) How do you know that probably a priest did it? 3) How do you know that the festival of Ishtar was gutted of paganism & given a new meaning in Easter? 4) Does the Bible have an "Easter"? 5) What does Ishtar & Easter have to do with Genesis 1? is that anachronistic reasoning? "The reader also has to take into account that the early chapters of Genesis are either multiple versions, or the same events viewed by different authors. In Chapter 3, Genesis also uses some literary devices found in fables, moving its genre closer to a parable than that of a strict historical narrative." 1) How do u know what the reader has to do? 2) What leads you to suppose that Gen 1ff is multiple versions or same events views by different authors? Proof? 3) How do you know that Genesis uses fable literary devices? 4) Do you understand the different between fable & parable? 5) Which events could not have been historical? How do you know? Pardon me for pointing out that you are making a lot of assertions for which you give no proof. Best wishes

TRUTH! ============================================================================= (Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." ABSOLUTE TRUTH! Absolute Truth. Amen

That right there is what I'm talking about. It's like God is backing us into a corner or something. 3 and 4 are basically saying "please have sex with your wife and let's hope the condom doesn't break because i don't ever want kids." lol. I hear that all the time... "well all you gotta do is ask him and hear his voice".... sorry nebula I don't agree with that. it doesn't work. it's just not realistic to me. I've been in Christ for eight years now and still.... no voice. The Lord wants you to love Him & your neighbor as yourself. I think it is a great mistake to isolate commandments from that hierarchical context. We are not backed into a corner. God's rules are not like theological tiddlywinks. Let all us Christians pray the prayer in Eph 3:14-19 for each other. Do you not perceive God's voice when you read His word? Are you willing to let Him shape your desires, the meditations of your heart?

Not exactly. I do acknowledge both; however, in speaking with you I tend to emphasize the latter because you come across as presenting a God who holds a lightning bolt ready to strike us down. King David knew God better than that - and He lived in Old Testament times. King David knew? David sinned greatly, & God forgave Him; but David was severely chastened. He lost 4 children & had a daughter raped by a brother. David had to flee from his son Absalom, who committed adultery with David's concubines, practically in public. " And the anger of Jehovah was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God. 8 And David was displeased, because Jehovah had broken forth upon Uzzah; and he called that place Perez-uzzah, unto this day. 9 And David was afraid of YHWH that day" 2 Sam 6. Yes, King David knew. After the sentence was pronounced and his son became ill, what was David's response? David knew God was not ready to smite with a thunderbolt. Well, David knew that God was forgiving, but he also respected the severity of God's chastising, which was really severe on David. I guess you consider the death of 4 children, a daughter raped, a son do sex with your concubines and try to kill you, less than a thunderbolt? Which would you chose? The thunderbolt or all the above? Thunderbolt is sudden, of course, and David's torment went over many years, not that he was in constant torment. So David's chastisement was not a thunderbolt, but the Lord is long suffering and forgiving. Yet His chastisement can be severe.