Esther4:14

Just very strange that we are living in a world where enough people have had gender changing operations to make this a subject of discussion...very, very strange.

In my opinion, we are still hearing about sexual abuse in the Catholic church because institutional abuse is often more organized then we realize, and it possible that the Catholic church is taking the heat off of this overall reality. In reality, we all realize that child trafficking is still going to make news because the exposure did not remove the institution. So while the stories represent the individual experience of the victim, the perpetrator may not be acting alone enitrely. Therefore, the investigation and release of information on the subject is protecting a larger system of abuse that the priests are part of, which extends beyond the walls of the church that this community is trying to protect by trying to control what is exposed to the detriment of many victims.

Hmm, I don't know that this decision exhibits common sense, or that being a common sense candidate is the appropriate route when you are running on a Republican platform that the conservatives in this country have adopted as the party to represent their interest in more recent political history. At this point, conservatives need to seriously consider going with and independent candidate because there is no going democrat at this point either. I am also very surprised that you continue the push for Trump in light of comments like this.

See, it is statements like this that make me think Trump does not consider himself a serious candidate. Saying something like this is basically enough to throw in the towel for the majority of the conservative vote. Unless, this is a strategy to get the democratic vote.....? Which is really weird this close to the election. In my opinion, he just threw in the towel.

I agree that the Catholic church supports ecumenism, which I disagree with and think is unessesary. If we have unity in Christ there is no reason to accept ecumenism. So, I oppose ecumenism and the churches support of the concept, and I do agree that the Catholic churches support of ecumenism could very easily bring the suspicion that this is an endeavor to regain the same sovereignty they once enjoyed in Europe. However, I don't think the Catholic church is at the root of the ecumenical movement. Therefore, I don't think that the Catholic church will ever regain the same authority they once had even if it still seems possible because it did exist once. I do believe that the support of ecumenism within any of our denominations, is an effort to protect the members supporting the movement from the real threat that is fast approaching as the fulfillment of the prophecy is the will of God in the same way that the cross was the will of God. "Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." (Matthew 16:24). Ecumenism is therefore only the indication of fear of an enemy, rather than steadfast faith in God that will contribute to the fulfillment of prophecy. However, it does seem a little bit of a stretch for even a denomination professing hints and evidence of ecumenism, to expect all of its followers to do the same in an environment that does still profess Christ. It is not that I don't think the hierarchy wouldn't like that either, but it is a lot to expect the more regular members of the denomination to partner with the Catholic church's aspirations for world domination when the teachings of Christ are still present that have so transformed the world as it is. It would just seem more logical for someone like the Antichrist to come through an institution that already denies that He is the Son of God.

I actually think you have made a great argument here, and I am not much of a fan of the Catholic church to say the least. But even with the many failings I believe are there, they still accept Christ overall and preach a Christian message, which the world seems to think we can live without more and more. The Catholic church was in my daughter's history lesson of Congo today. They somewhat singlehandedly have maintained hospitals and schools in that area, which has struggled under corruption. It is really a rather impressive history the people who have sought to serve Christ through the Catholic church have in that part of the world. So, I don't agree with many of the aspects of the Catholic church, but the presence of Christ that is still present in some of the memebers, does make me skeptical of the conclusion in the opening post as well.

We can conclude that telling lies is a sin. However, I still believe that we can only speculate that her interpretation of the command was a lie and not a method of avoiding the temptation to break the command.

That is something of an interesting situation you are in. In my opinion, I think it sounds fun and very sweet that you are developing a relationship with someone this way. From the information you have given, I don't see why there is any reason to not follow the prompting to be patient for now, until you have a clearer understanding of what His will is for you to do. However, I can also see how a situation like this could cause you to feel vulnerable to the unknown because the situation is somewhat unique and there is not a whole lot to compare it with in order to have confidence of a positive outcome. Nevertheless, you can never go wrong with a clear conscious, and the situation seems fairly innocent. Therefore, I don't think that there is any real reason to fear that you won't be able to handle change to the present circumstances, if they arise. Your innocence can go a long way in protecting you spiritually. Psalm 15 "O Lord, who shall sojourn in your tent? Who shall dwell on your holy hill? 2 He who walks blamelessly and does what is right and speaks truth in his heart; 3 who does not slander with his tongue and does no evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend; 4 in whose eyes a vile person is despised, but who honors those who fear the Lord; who swears to his own hurt and does not change; 5 who does not put out his money at interest and does not take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved.

IOW, since you can't control what people do, you can make a generous suggestion to consider the concept of flaming from a Christian perspective. Thereby, hopefully getting a positive response from a community of like-minded individuals striving to be more Christ-like such as "Amen," or "that is interesting to consider;" or, taken from the illustration that I gave about the coffee shop where the barista comes up to a group of friends and gives her difference of opinion. Picture if we all were in a coffee shop where we were allowed to voice our opinions openly. What would that coffee shop look like after a while? Would we all be flinging coffee cakes and pastries from behind chairs and counters by the time we were ready to go home. Therefore, is this actually a problem in our society that this is the result of our differences, we become each others enemies, and this is something that is demonstrated even on a Christian centered message board. Therefore, in this environment, are we overcoming this and thereby promoting unity within the body of Christ by doing this. If that is a potential of a setting like this, isn't that all the more reason to strive to gain more information about how we can better contribute to this community, which is the motivation for the article. It provides information for how we all do our part to improve our online presence and potentially foster unity within the body of Christ that might not really exist at the present in real life. We truly just might be pretending a lot of the time when we meet together. So, are we able to become more unified in a setting like this? So, I think it says a lot when the only response I have gotten to this subject is a explanation somewhat forcing me to accept things as they are and be grateful because it could be worse, because it could just as easily be better.

Yah, I kind see that as speculation because sin came into the world through disobedience by eating the apple, which they were commanded not to eat, not by lying. It is just as easy to speculate that the way to avoid this sin is by not touching the fruit so that you are not tempted to break the command. Either way is speculation because the punishment did not come upon mankind through Eve's interpretation of the command requiring that she not touch the fruit, and this interpretation was to her benefit before the serpent continued to convince her to disobey the command of God. Therefore, it is difficult to make the judgement that Eve's recounting of the command was disobedience on her part.

How very exciting to hear of a business starting based on Christian principles. What a wonderful thing to hear that you and your friends and pastor are driven to pray together for the success of your business. Personally, I don't think that it is necessary to require corporate prayer gatherings because the business hasn't taken off yet. However, corporate prayer can be an encouragement, and encouragement can promote faith, and faith can move mountains and prosper business (Matthew 17:20). So, in that respect, if the parties are willing to continue in corporate prayer, I would definitely try to take advantage of that sort of encouragement for all parties involved. However, the most important thing to remember is that corporate prayer is not going to camouflage disobedience. Therefore, the most important thing to remember in prospering your business is going to be to continue doing the most basic principles of our faith in obedience to Christ, like loving one another, and repenting regularly in order to become "living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God--this is your true and proper worship," (Romans 12:1). This will create the most solid foundation for your business to prosper. "But Samuel replied: "Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams," (1 Samuel 15:22). :)

I have always wondered about that suggestion myself.

I don't think flaming requires verbal abuse all the time, but that it also describes times when you are having a discussion with someone, you know they don't agree, and yet the thread continues and continues and continues; and there ends up being no way to stop the continual reiteration of a disagreement. At a certain point, as a Christian, I have to just be okay with saying "I already know you disagree, I don't need to keep telling you in this thread that I disagree with what you are saying," and continue the conversation that is now a flame. I believe flaming can be when there is a disagreement, which is fine, that continues on over and over and over again. I can accept that someone disagrees with me. I don't feel like I have to be forced to accept that because someone disagrees with me that I have to accept the continual disregard for the content in the discussion post I present just because this is a forum where people are prone to find they disagree on certain subjects. I think that just becomes people's excuse. It is very easy to still find a way to value what a person you are disagreeing with is saying by trying to find someway to balance the argument in disagreement with something encouraging. The absence of this and the continued disregard for the content that people present, whether we agree or not, I would consider mild flaming as well because it still leaves someone cornered without some degree of content to continue a respectful conversation with. And, disrespect for other posters, can come through our words whether we think it can or not. There are times when I am reading some posts where I just feel like all someone has said is "how are you so stupid," in a very detailed analysis of scripture that ends up being applauded no matter how belittling the tone of the post was. In conclusion, I don't think the definition of flaming suggests that there only be verbal abuse present. I think flaming is a matter of tone and knowing when to say when as well.

I think there is a lot of mild flaming that goes on here that can be a difficult call for the moderators to remove it completely. So people may remain unclear of the definition because it is possibly that we take for granted what the moderators are responsible for and assume that they will take care of it. Therefore, we try to moderate our way of thinking to include that the way someone is addressing a subject is okay because otherwise it would be removed. The instances that I consider mild forms of flaming, I do not think I would delete the post if I were in the moderators shoes the post; however, this still does not mean they don't have a harmful effect on the people who are engaged in discussion. Therefore, I don't consider it the moderators responsibility to address it in every case. I think we need to be more aware as a community of what the definition is so that we are growing in our capacity to show self control as Christians. "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law" (Galatians 5:22-23). I think this is definitely part of a learning curve for participating in an online community. In real life, when I am talking with a friend about something at a coffee shop, the barista who disagrees with what I am saying doesn't jump in with a statement of disagreement. So, there are challenges to being in a setting online that doesn't really exist in real life. So, I think it is kind of shock at first to have your barista come along and have something to say about where you are in your walk of faith, so to speak. In adjusting to this, we may engage in behavior that borders on breaking the rules without actually breaking the rules and think that this behavior is okay because there are no consequences, and it is not as though I think there should be. I don't think that it is something to discipline. I think it is a subject that we need to become more familiar with in order to have a more productive environment and more positive discussions.

Here is a good article on the subject of flaming. I am somewhat new to the world of message boards and I have heard this word thrown around here and there and I know it is even included in the terms of service that says flaming isn't allowed, but that doesn't mean that I really understood what it meant to realize that this is the definition of how someone was posting in response to something I said. I have been hopeful at times that it would be possible to have a discussion where I could respond and try to convey my motivations that have not been met without positive outcomes, and this leaves me just feeling very disappointed, especially when multiple people join the party. So, I wanted to point out the definition of flaming in case there are other people that are left feeling confused by the responses of others like myself. http://techterms.com/definition/flaming "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life," (Proverbs 13:12).

I think this is a fantastic point. We talk about this subject at church sometimes, and try to work towards limiting our church lingo when we are in community settings because it can be distracting and intimidating to people. It was a real shift for me a few years ago, because I wanted to fit in with people at church by using words like this. However, to be a witness to any group of believer, you have to learn their language; and sometimes we can have different styles of relating with words in own communities. It is important to be aware of this and considerate towards the way they communicate so that they will understand what we are trying to share with them. I have two verses that I think go along with this subject. "For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Corinthians 2:2). " So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me. So with yourselves, since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, strive to excel in building up the church, (1 Corinthians 14:9-12).

Every man, whether he is even gay or not, has an opinion towards women. I think it is very likely that misogynist is a good way to describe the Antichrist; however, it is likely that this will be disguised in some way as a support for equal rights for women, which is only a logical conclusion with a present understanding of history at this point in time. It is not likely to regress, so the subject of women is something that whoever the Bible speaks of as the man of sin will have to address; more than likely, in a dishonest way. But, it will be addressed. There has never been a male leader in the history of the world that has not had an opinion towards women. It is just not possible to be an eunuch in this way.

I had actually noticed that you posted this earlier and the first thing that came to mind was the ten Sefirot that is a teaching in Kabbalah. Here is a description from the Jewish Virtual library https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Sefirot.html Basically, the majority of the book of Enoch is a somewhat detailed calendar system, so I think that this is relevant somehow to this principle as well. There is a ministry called One Faith One People Ministries that has some real intense study on the history of the calendar system from ancient writings that are difficult for me to follow http://www.onefaithonepeopleministries.com/. But, that is what I think the passage is relevant to in some respect, some sort of calendar system. In fact, in my most recent reading through of the book of Enoch, I noticed a verse that seems to match Daniel 7:25 " He will speak against the Most High and oppress his holy people and try to change the set times and the laws. The holy people will be delivered into his hands for a time, times and half a time." "And many chiefs of the stars shall transgress the order (prescribed). And these shall alter their orbits and tasks, And not appear at the seasons prescribed to them. And the whole order of the stars shall be concealed from the sinners, And the thoughts of those on the earth shall err concerning them," (Enoch 80:6-7). So, scripture does confirm this is altered somehow. However, I have been waiting till I got to this passage in context to more fully consider it.

Hi TJ, I am sorry that you are struggling with this right now, but I think you did the right thing. Sometimes doing the right thing is hard, but if you felt like you couldn't trust him, and then found out why you were feeling this way, then I think you did the right thing in ending the relationship. That doesn't mean it is always easy to forget and whether it is worth it or not to keep thinking about him, chances are you will until there is some way to resolve the experience. So, it is okay to still think about him even if you don't resume the relationship. Keep seeking Jesus, He will help you understand how this was in your best interest and continue moving forward.

Yes, I do believe this is a characteristic and I have a verse from Isaiah to support this opinion. " Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated" (Isaiah 13:16). This passage is from a prophetic chapter on the day of the Lord and the judgement of Babylon, but I don't generally think of the subject of prophecy when I read this verse. The first thing that comes to mind when I read this verse is the way it identifies these tragedies as outcomes of disobedience, and scripture has many things to say on the subject of disobedience and injustice. But, this verse just always makes me sad because it as though what he is saying is something like, "don't you care." "Look what your disobedience is doing to people." Somehow I always feel like this verse tells me to repent. I don't know, I think I read the Bible from a more emotional level than prophetic one. Either way, this verse does appear to provide some support for your theory.

I had no idea what the word meant, but now that I do, I am interested in seeing a discussion on the subject.

I think everyone is fully aware that the book of Enoch is not considered scripture. If you are not interested in reading the book of Enoch for yourself to have any sort of deeper conversation on the subject. Why is it so difficult for you to do something else and let people who are clearly responsible in their understanding of scripture and how to apply it to outside sources appropriately without considering it to be scripture discuss a subject. I even included a post that I believe answers your question or at least could help to have a deeper conversation than this repetitive back and forth because you are not really interested in participating in the conversation. You are only interested in being some kind of self declared referee over what we should and should not discuss as Christians. In my comment earlier in this thread, I concluded that I found the book of Enoch edifying because of how it caused me to considered the absence of everything that existed prior to the flood. We are innocent in our present generation of every act of lawlessness to some degree because we are unaware of what they were exactly. In other words, we can't repeat the same mistakes that took place before the flood based on an awareness of what they were. This doesn't mean they can't be repeated, on the hand. But, they are not learned behaviors. Therefore, it is possible that this innocence of lawlessness designates lawlessness as a mystery because of the flood. Therefore, when scripture refers to the mystery of lawlessness (2 Thessalonians 2:7), it is referring to things that we are innocent of because the history of this was destroyed with the flood. However, the spirit of lawlessness will be destroyed when the prophecy is complete, and it is this same spirit of lawlessness that existed before the flood and the flood is why it is a mystery to us. So, there is how considering the book of Enoch edified my understanding of the brief account of Noah given in the book of Genesis. And, it would be nice for a change to have a more thorough discussion on these subjects sometimes. The time period pre flood is a fascinating subject and there isn't a whole of documentation to go off of to begin with. There is nothing wrong with a somewhat archaeological dig of this book. Maybe, if you do not want to do this, maybe you could just leave some of us alone for a change that do. Thanks so much.

If that were true there would be no point to studying people like Aristotle either. The point is the Bible is the canon that provides the ability to weigh other writings. So when I read Aristotle, while I respect his intelligence, I also recognize that his pursuit of knowledge is not guided by the Spirit. So, some things I just find irrelevant. However, his book "On the Heavens" is the first place that the atmosphere is referred to as ether, which is still debated, and I have only a beginners understanding of the subject so that is all I will say about it. But, it is an interesting piece of information from antiquity that is still considered in the study of modern physics. But, should I not consider someone like Aristotle at all because he isn't a writer guided by the Spirit according to your argument opposing extrabilical material? I don't see why that would be necessary just like I don't see how it should bother you if I decide to form my own conclusion about the book. What difference does it make to you?