Roy B.

Why is it that Christians don't share their struggles with fighting sin? It seems I'm battling sin every hour of everyday and other Christians I know never seem to have a problem.

NEXT month, the Temple of Baal will come to Times Square. Reproductions of the 50-foot arch that formed the temple’s entrance are to be installed in New York and in London, a tribute to the 2,000-year-old structure that the Islamic State destroyed last year in the Syrian town of Palmyra. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/opinion/sunday/life-among-the-ruins.html?_r=1 Ritualistic Baal worship, in sum, looked a little like this: Adults would gather around the altar of Baal. Infants would then be burned alive as a sacrificial offering to the deity. Amid horrific screams and the stench of charred human flesh, congregants—men and women alike—would engage in bisexual orgies. The ritual of convenience was intended to produce economic prosperity by prompting Baal to bring rain for the fertility of "mother earth." The natural consequences of such behavior—pregnancy and childbirth—and the associated financial burdens of "unplanned parenthood" were easily offset. One could either choose to engage in homosexual conduct or—with child sacrifice available on demand—could simply take part in another fertility ceremony to "terminate" the unwanted child. Modern liberalism deviates little from its ancient predecessor. While its macabre rituals have been sanitized with flowery and euphemistic terms of art, its core tenets and practices remain eerily similar. http://www.charismanews.com/us/56060-temple-of-baal-will-be-erected-in-times-square-next-month

In Romans 7:25, Paul ends the chapter by saying, "So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin." How can he then write in the very next chapter these words in verse 13, "for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die" Granted that Paul did not say in 7:25 that he is living according to the flesh, but he does say he is serving, with his flesh, the law of sin. How can these two passages be reconciled? This is not a trick question. I am honestly looking for an explanation. Thanks!

Dandelion88: Remember this: A person who has never been saved can not lose their salvation. How would you lose something you never had. I say this may apply to you because I don't read anywhere in your posts where you confessed Jesus as Lord. A child? In a fit of anger? Said something that was blaspheme? Perhaps we should determine what blaspheme is? IMO...it's giving credit to Satan for something God has done, others might say its never asking for forgiveness. IMO You can be saved, if you want it.

Got a question. I was reading John 8:30-46, 30 Even as he spoke, many believed in him. 31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?” 34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.b ” 39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered. “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you wouldc do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.” “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.” 42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.” I'm getting a mixed message. Can someone sort this out: In verses 30 and 31 we see that many Jews believed in Him and then at the end of the passage we see Jesus saying to them, "The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God." So this passage begs the question: Did the Jews who believed in Jesus, belong to God? If not, how/why did they stop believing so quickly?

Riverwalker: I understand what you're saying...I too have struggled with this issue. Even though the conservative message is the right message, there is a higher message. As you know, it's the message of salvation. Not that it is wrong to "bleed the conservative message", Paul wrote this: "No soldier in active service entangles himself in the affairs of everyday life, so that he may please the one who enlisted him as a soldier." We must be careful not to get so entangled that we lose site of our ministry and message.... the ministry of reconciliation.

shilo357: I would agree with you. This judge would most likely say it's okay to shout fire in a crowded theater.

ayin jade & Shiloh357: At first I thought about finding a chronological reading guide, (plenty of those online) buying a cheap NASB, a pair of scissors and making my own. Guess I won't have to now. Thanks guys!

Does anyone know if there is a Bible that is in chronological order? In other words, a published Bible that puts in order the events as they happened. It is my understanding, especially in the OT, that the same historical event is told in different places, much like the gospels. Has anyone done a ..... let's say a "cut and paste" ... of events of the Bible, in order, without telling the same story (event) twice? Hope that makes sense. Maybe such a Bible doesn't exist? If it does can anyone provide a link? Thx!

almightyist: With respect....Causing a child to sin, child molestation, denying and betraying Christ are sins which can all be forgiven. As evil as they are, those sins are not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

I was just curious because when Jesus was tempted, Satan said, "I will give all this domain and it's glory; for it has been handed over to me and I give it to whomever I wish." Perhaps all that changed after Jesus was raised from the dead?

Yes, I agree the earth is the Lords. Has He turned control, or partial control over to Satan?

So...who rules the earth, Satan or God?

Has anyone studied the life and writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Was he wrong to plot against Hitler's life?

Where I work there are a lot of Muslims, they seem to be kind and are very polite. Most Muslims in the U.S. (the ones that I know personally) are not violent at all, would they be considered "back-sliders" by those Muslims who actively participate, promote and encourage violence?

I don't know that being a homosexual is a sin...but practicing it...sure is. But then I think, if a person isn't taking part in the lifestyle then they aren't a homosexual. Kind of like before I got saved...I chased women and committed fornication, when I stopped that sin, I was no longer a fornicator. So maybe a person stops being a homosexual when they stop participating in the activity? Yes?

I like to shoot my black powder rifle....at paper. I have a Lyman .54 caliber GPR and a .45 T/C Hawken. I also shoot a .44 caliber 1858 Remington revolver (pietta), it also has a replacement cylinder so .45 LC can be shot. I also camp and gold prospect.

Psalms 51:10 says, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me." In Ezekiel 18:31 we read, "Cast away from you all your transgressions which you have committed and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! For why will you die, O house of Israel? My question would be: Is a "clean heart" the same as a "new heart"? Since both of these verses deal with God's chosen, where does a "clean heart" or a "new heart" come from? Is it up to us or does God do it? I'm asking because there are a few things (sins) in my heart that I can't seem to get rid of. I have a love for money and an addiction. I can't seem to find strength to overcome either one and I need help. If God has made up His mind for me to make myself a new heart, as mentioned in Ez. 18:31, then I'm in big trouble because I can't seem to do it. If God does create a new heart...how do I access His grace?

http://youtu.be/UuuZMg6NVeA

If this temple ever gets built, do you think God will dwell there?

I have a couple questions. Why would God promote having a temple built? Would it not distract people away from Christ? Salvation is not found by making sacrifices in a temple, is it? I'm having a difficult time thinking that something (sacrifices) which God did away with would once again be instituted. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins, right?

The blood of Jesus, which redeems us, is not available to Satan and/or to angels. As a matter of fact, they (angels) long to gain a clear glimpse into the gospel. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to [a]look. - I Peter 1:12 Footnotes: 1 Peter 1:12 Or gain a clear glimpse

Good question Alex: I don't think anyone will be condemn because of the sins of Adam/Eve. If someone is to be condemned, it will be a result of their own sins.

Two in a row for John "Obamacare" Roberts. He final got it right. Here's the other one he got right. "The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled Monday that public-sector unions in Illinois cannot collect fees from home health care workers who don't want to be part of a union. The ruling is a setback for labor unions that have boosted their bargaining power -- as well as their bank balance -- in states like Illinois, by signing up thousands of in-home care workers and forcing them to fork over union dues." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-rules-against-unions-in-home-healthcare-worker-case/