thereselittleflower

11 minutes ago, gamnot said:

I have found quite a bit of information on this method on the internet including videos. 

You don't want tomatoes resting on the ground.  when you add the height of the bottle to the height of a full grown plant, they will most likely be on the ground if the bottle is hung from a height of 4 feet.

You know that even Richard Dawkins recognizes the evidence also points to intelligent design which  means there must have been a designer, yes?

I think  you want it to be higher than 4 feet - you don't want the plants to be that close to the ground.  A tomato plant grown that way will be way to close to the ground.

You can get poles that  are designed to hang plants off of that will work much better.

Amen!

9 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

your broad stroking of statements I find lacks the scholarship of reality
'sola scriptura is held by protestantism in general' this simply is not true of today...
most of the charismatic persuasion is not!  They believe current tongues is equal
to Scripture or when in conflict of Scripture more authoritative. The catholic have
oral tradition as equal to Scripture etc...   

Well you're entitled to your opinion of course, even if it ignores what is meant by "in general" - which, by definition, is not all inclusive of all protestants.   That's why I used "in general" to qualify what I said.

enough said.

2 hours ago, enoob57 said:

Sola Scriptura is one aspect of fundamental required beliefs... in Scriptures- last canonized book a seal is set forth by God
and within the 66 books lies the assembled Words of God to lead us to His Promise of only source called Scripture

2 Ti 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
KJV
as a true fundamental believer of Scripture I see nothing else needed but the canon of Scripture (66 books Genesis-Revelation)...
Liberality would extend to outside this fundamental truth and include other -as any religion and belief does that says Scripture plus!
TLF scholarship is closed on this as The Scripture above clearly states ... to press further or other than Scripture equates to denial of
the truth of God here in Timothy and begins one on the  journey of liberal belief of other authorities.... Love, Steven
 

Fundamenatalists do not have an exclusive claim to, and hold on, sola scriptural.

Sola scriptura is held by ALL evangelicals, not just fundamentalists.   In fact, sola scriptura is held by protestantism in general, of which evangelicals make up only a part, and fundamentalists make up even a smaller part.

26 minutes ago, hmbld said:

If it depended on us, it would have equal chance of working now or in the future.  Now your example of the early church, where they had all things in common, certainly sounds good.  But why did it work then, and for how long?  I don't know, but it seems not very long.  I was of the understanding it worked as the Holy Spirit was working, which then means it is not up to us, but God.  

No, what I mean is, it would depend on us being able to live as christians fully the way we are called to live in agape love for each other.

That's not happening right now.  Maybe someday it could.  That does not make it an equal chance compared to now.

Remember, I am speaking theoretically.

Just now, ayin jade said:

That will never happen. Ever. It didnt work for the early church. It wont work today. Especially today. Far too many unsaved folks.

I'm talking on a theoretical level.

I recognize it would not work in practice right now.  Could it work one day?  Maybe.  As I said above, that would depend on us.

3 minutes ago, hmbld said:

And yet, Christians attend church, where they should know to show love and seek the good of the other, yet even Christians are not perfect, may at times be selfish, and even churches fall apart.  And they only have to get along one or two days a week!  I don't see this system working.  Even in church, I see marriages, of professing to be christians, who should be able to seek the good of each other, in this case we are talking about a very small group (2 people!), just walked away from.  Now try to get a whole society to work towards everyone else's good and what do you get?

That's why it can't work now.

But that doesn't mean it could never theoretically work.

It would depend on christians if it worked or not.

5 minutes ago, hmbld said:

Exactly!  Even if everyone was a christian, motivated to serve God, well, who doesn't want things a little easier?

I suggest you ask the first christians who shared all things in common. 

Seems to me we have lost something along the way . . . 

1 minute ago, ayin jade said:

My husband works hard at his job. He loves it. But if he were to make the same as someone who puts in only 8-5 hours, sits in a chair, and has relatively low stress in the job, with every weekend off and more family time ... he would change jobs in a heartbeat. Thats what communism or socialism would cause to happen to society.

Well, when people are seeking their own good rather than the good of others, then yes, it would be difficult to tolerate.

If we could have a society like that of the early church when all had things in common, and all sought the good of the other, which is what agape love is all about, then such a system would work.

12 minutes ago, hmbld said:

So communism as a theory would work, only you could never get a righteous leader?

I think communism fails due to people (the majority of people anyway) lose all motivation when the gain is taken away.  

 

I think if the motivations were to serve God, then everyone would be motivated to have all things in common just as the original christians were, and would be motivated towards the good of their neighbor rather than themselves.

5 minutes ago, hmbld said:

You believe communism would work if the leaders met a criteria?  From what I've seen, some people will work overtime because they love their job, but many others will only work hard enough to get their basics paid for, so to expect someone to work hard for others to take it away does not seem like a workable system.  People might be inclined to give, but few agree with things being taken away from them.  

 

If the leaders are truly following God then they will execute righteous laws and judgment.

The form of government is not really the issue.   The leaders are.

Just now, enoob57 said:

 

Let the Word of God do it for you then
 

Lev 18:28-30

28 That the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you.

29 For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

30 Therefore shall ye keep mine ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.
KJV

OK so let's look at this - those these words were spoken to those who were part of the Old Covenant, part of God's people.  So they were "in" not "out."    That only strengthens my pov, that those in Christ's mouth are genuinely His, part of the New Covenant, part of God's people, part of Christ's body, "in" not "out"  -  so it doesn't prove your pov.

On the contrary, it does quite the opposite.

1 hour ago, ENOCH2010 said:

I have been in this battle a long time, sometimes I get tired, so tired I just want to sit back and rest a little. Am I lukewarm for stepping back from the front lines?

It depends on what you  mean.

We can risk becoming luke warm.

1 hour ago, Spock said:

Definition of Communism:

A way of organizing a society in which the government ownsthe things that are used to make and transport products (suchas land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) and there is no privately owned property.

just based on this definition I believe it is possible a  person can be both Christian and Communist, but how many people in history Have proven to be both?  Why are all the communist countries Godless? 

For communism to work, the leaders must be benevolent and Christian and be true servants looking for the welfare of others always.

The problem is absolute power draws those who desire power and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so such a system would never work because of the personalities involved - and this is what Putin learned.

1 hour ago, enoob57 said:

 

 

so what exactly is a "liberal"   - someone who doesn't agree with your personal interpretation of scripture?

It seems you believe all conservative evangelicals are fundamentalists, but that certainly is not true.

• All of us, as evangelical Protestant Christians, believe in 1) the supreme authority of inspired Scripture for faith and practice, 2) basic Christian orthodoxy as embodied in the consensus of the church fathers and reformers about the deity and humanity of Jesus Christ, the Trinity, etc., 3) a supernatural worldview, 4) salvation by God’s grace through faith alone, 5) personal conversion as normative for authentic Christianity, 6) the cross of Jesus Christ as the only means of salvation and as vicarious atonement, 7) the virgin birth, resurrection and visible return of Jesus Christ.

  The distinctive hallmarks of post-1925 fundamentalism are 1) adding to those essentials of Christianity non-essentials such as premillennial eschatology, 2) “biblical separation” as the duty of every Christian to refuse fellowship with people who call themselves Christians but are considered doctrinally or morally impure, 3) a chronically negative and critical attitude toward culture including non-fundamentalist higher education, 4) emphatic anti-evolution, anti-communist, anti-Catholic and anti-ecumenical attitudes and actions (including elevation of young earth creationism and American exceptionalism as markers of authentic Christianity), 5) emphasis on verbal inspiration and technical inerrancy of the Bible as necessary for real Christianity (including exclusion of all biblical criticism and, often, exclusive use the KJV), and 6) a general tendency to require adherence to traditional lifestyle norms (hair, clothes, entertainment, sex roles, etc.).

  Who were these post-1925 fundamentalists? Not all of these embodied all six of the above hallmarks, but they generally functioned within that ethos: William Bell Riley, Frank Norris, Bob Jones, Carl McIntire, John R. Rice and the early Jerry Falwell. And many, many more. Most of them were non-Reformed, but there was a Reformed camp of fundamentalists who shared that ethos without premillennialism. (I would locate Cornelius Van Til there.)

  How did the postfundamentalist evangelicals differ from them? Beginning in the 1940s and increasingly throughout the 1950s former self-identified fundamentalists began to shy away from that identity and ethos without embracing liberalism or neo-orthodoxy. They 1) sought to establish ecumenical cooperation and fellowship among evangelicals who disagreed about non-essentials such as eschatology and predestination [“generous orthodoxy”], 2) sought to be cautiously open to secular culture and higher education and its products, and 3) sought to overcome legalism that had become characteristic of much fundamentalism.

  In other words, the main difference between the new evangelicals and the fundamentalists was one of ethos—at least from the new evangelical point of view. From the fundamentalist point of view, of course, the difference was more than one of ethos. It was often viewed as one of departure from the gospel.

  The new evangelicalism was to be a broad tent that included everyone from conservative Presbyterians to Pentecostals to Advent Christians to Nazarenes to (recently) the Worldwide Church of God. Fundamentalists were invited to join but declined. Still, formally speaking, fundamentalists are evangelicals and, to liberals, anyway, all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/04/what-distinguishes-evangelical-from-fundamentalist/

Noting that last line,

• Still, formally speaking, fundamentalists are evangelicals and, to liberals, anyway, all evangelicals are fundamentalists.

since I recognize all evangelicals are not fundamentalists, I cannot be liberal by definition.

Just now, MorningGlory said:

Putin is as communist as I am Southern Baptist.  Lest none be deceived.

Well I guess we will see huh?

1 minute ago, Ezra said:

Then you need some eyesalve.

It might not be me

4 hours ago, enoob57 said:

No fundamental Christian would accept your view of Biblical inspiration... thus you are a liberal by your belief!

No.  not being a fundamentalist chrsitian does not make one automatically liberal.

There are many conservative non-fundamentalist christians in the world dear enoob.  Many, many more than there are fundamentalists.

Some boxes are simply artificially too small.

It's random - but when it happens it's very weird and it's not just happening to me.  This is the type of thing I have seen elsewhere before a site crashes and there's data loss.

This is just not working! -  In the post above, it won't let me past in in a copy/pate and if it does, it simply quotes bopeep again . . . !

This is what I am trying to quote to finish my post above:

• " But in process of, so to say, maybe, growing, maturing it became more and more obvious for me, more obvious truth that it nothing more than a beautiful and harmful fairy tale. Harmful because implementation of it or attempt to put it in practice in our country caused a large damage [to our country]. "

This is the fuller historical context of his words, which was already provided by other one.

11 minutes ago, bopeep1909 said:

I think there is. You have to think between the lines.

That's how the article is designed-   to get you to see "things" that aren't really there.

He's clarified such words in the past and they don't mean what the article appears to make them mean here.

3 minutes ago, Ezra said:

Since we have the written Word of God, seeking for signs and wonders indicates unbelief.  It was true when Christ walked the earth, and it is true today.  When the Antichrist appears he will show signs and lying wonders to deceive the world. 

It might.

It might also indicate weak belief.

We should be careful not to pain with too broad a brush.

We should all cry  "Lord, I believe!  Help thou mine unbelief !"  Mark 9:24

6 minutes ago, Vendtre said:

Seems he might be a communist after all...

http://www.newsweek.com/russias-putin-says-he-always-liked-communist-socialist-ideas-419289

There isn't enough there for context.