Jaydog1976

3 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

I don't have an issue if someone thinks that dinosaurs were on the ark. My issue is when it gets said something like for example: "well your going to a dead church because they are not teaching that dinosaurs were on the ark!" That is my issue here. 

Thanks for clarifying your statement. I agree with you. The original poster was as one person called it, cherry picking. 

Quite honestly does it really matter whether we think dinosaurs were on the ark or not? It actually does because it means we are either taking God at His word or God doesn't mean what He has said.

Genesis 7:1-5 indicates that yes even dinosaurs were on the ark. It's says 2 if every kind, including unclean animals. The question that has to,be asked is, is a dinosaur a kind? Another question has to be asked is God to be taken at His word or not? If we say yes then we have to take these verses at gave value and say that dinosaurs were on the ark, if we say no then God is lying to US and how can I be sure that what else God says in His word is wrong? 

Just a couple of thoughts. The focus should be on,what God's word says not what we think. And quite honestly none of us were there to be an eyewitness of the account so I am going to trust God and take Him at His word.

I guess it depends on what the definition of happiness is and what makes you happy. Are we looking for earthly things to make us happy? This type of happiness is short lived and not good. However if I am spending time with the Lord and my happiness has a foundation in Him and in HIm only then that is a good happiness. 

I actually find it quite sad that this is a major debate among Christians. I attended a college that was KJV only (not extreme) and one day I was having lunch with some people. We started talking about Bible versions and I just merely mentioned that the KJV is a translation. It is a good translation but it is only a translation. One of them stood up, looked me dead in the eye, and shouted at me saying that I was going to hell because I did not believe that the 1611 KJV version of the Bible was the one and only pure translation there ever was and will be. Needless to say this person shunned me for the rest of my college days from that point on (which was 3 years). I was kind of baffled at the response. It was as though this person believed that the translators were inspired and the translation itself was inspired. Scripture itself is inspired not translations. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God[a]may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." There is nothing here in scripture that says a translation is inspired. I know that this isn't the intent (or at least I do not think it is) of the OP. I did however see some responses that come close to what is called dual inspiration which is what I have described. 

I have been in the middle of this debate for years and was in the midst of the debate for 4 years while at college. Here is my conclusion. The KJV is a translation and nothing more. Is it God's word? Yes it is. The NIV is a translation and nothing more. Is it God's Word? Yes it is. I can prove who God is and who Jesus is through both translations. The gospel preached in the KJV is the same gospel preached in the NIV. However I do admit that the NIV (in some translations) have taken liberties and that I do not agree with. Some liberties I tend to just look over, others I do not. One does have to be careful. 

I have always wondered, and no one has really answered this question to my satisfaction, before the KJV what bible was used? What was God's word before the KJV? Did the early apostles have the KJV? I know these questions are pretty crazy but sadly they have to be asked. We have to remember that the translators of the KJV were not under the inspiration of God as the the Bible describes inspiration. They did a good job translating the greek text and that is good. The NIV, NASB, and others were translated just as well and those translators did the best they could to translate God's Word accurately. 

That is my take on the subject since this subject can cause massive division among believers and can cause people to put a faith in a translation instead of putting their faith in what the translation actually says. 

16 minutes ago, fixerupper said:

You keep going off insinuating that I'm saying Jesus isn't God!  I keep saying Jesus is God, only that the Father is greater!  The passage you've quoted in no way implies that Jesus and the Father are co-equal.

fixerupper I am not insinuating anything. The verses I quoted actually do imply that Jesus and God the Father are one in the same. It's ok that you don't see it. Lot's of people don't see it either because they choose not to. The JW's and mormons do the same thing. I am going to place these final thoughts out there. First if Jesus is not fully God then what part of God does He not have? Can you show me from scripture what attributes of God Jesus does not possess? I would say that you will have a hard time finding anything. Second if Jesus was not fully God as you claim then how can I trust in what He did on the cross. Was there a part where he maybe sinned at some point because of the fact that He isn't God. I mean if God cannot sin did Jesus set this part of his Godhood aside? If so did He sin and thus make his death meaningless? See fixerupper when you remove the fact that Jesus is fully and 100% God our salvation could be a sham and Jesus Christ would be nothing more than a good man that did good things.

Fixerupper I have this feeling that instead of really looking at the scriptures as they are written and applied you have a quick defense set up to deny something that you really can't deny. Those verses, and there are so many more, show that Jesus is fully God and that God himself indicates this. Since I have read some of your other responses and how they are more attacking than debating I will end my discussion here. 

7 minutes ago, fixerupper said:

No.  I'm using that verse to say what Jesus said.  That God is greater!  And I am comparing scripture with scripture.  I never said jesus WASN'T God, I'm saying jesus isn't fully God as is taught in Trinitarianism.

Psalm 102:25 is talking about God the Father, not Jesus Christ.  Hebrews 1:10-12 isn't saying Jesus is fully God, only that he took part in the creation process just like the angels did.

Try again!

fixerupper you have decided for yourself what Jesus to believe in. You are reading the scriptures to fit your own viewpoint. I don't have to try anything. Either Jesus isn't God or he is. There isn't an in between state. So can I ask you this, Who created the heavens and the earth in Genesis 1:1?

Oh and to remind you really quick that Hebrews chapter 1 talks only about Jesus Christ and no one else. God says this about Jesus Christ and I will put the verse here for the benefit of those wanting to know what it says,  

Hebrews 1:10-12

10 He also says,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
    and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
    like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
    and your years will never end.”

Why would God call Jesus Christ, Lord, if Jesus Christ isn't God? And you cannot argue that the word He at the beginning of the verse does not refer to God himself since he refers to verse 5. Can you answer that question as well? 

39 minutes ago, fixerupper said:

When Jesus said the father is greater IN jOHN 14:28, trinitarians always deny his words.  Deity has all to do with authority!  Deity is 'divine nature'. Trinitarians tell is that the divine nature of Jesus is that he is equal with the Father.  Here you are telling me that the Faher is Greater than Jesus in authority but NOT deity???

Deity is another word that came from Catholic doctrine.  Deity is the divinity of Christ.  When a person says they believe in the deity of Christ, they are saying that Jesus is the eternal and unchangeable God, the second person of the holy Trinity.  So for you to say the Father is greater in authority, which he certainly is, but NOT greater in terms of deity is a contradiction.

Deity...

The collection of attributes which make up the nature of a god; divinity; godhead; as, the deity of the Supreme Being is seen in his works.

In trinitarianism you can't separate deity from trinity.  

Fixerupper you are only using one verse to try and prove that Jesus is not God. This is not a valid argument because you are not comparing scripture with scriptures. I did write a response just a few minutes ago that you might want to take a gander at. I would love to have you explain to me how psalm 102:25-27 and Hebrews 1:10-12 show the Jesus is either God or he is just a man? God created the heavens and the earth yet it is said the same thing about Jesus Christ? If you say that Jesus Christi isn't God then how can a man create the universe? Do you know of any human that has created anything out of nothing? And if you say that Jesus is God then your whole argument that you are somehow trying to make is completely in jeopardy and you would have to admit that your opinion is wrong. 

Scripture, as others have said, clearly shows that Jesus was and is God. Here are two passages of scripture and to deny the fact that these two references are about God and about Jesus Christ is to reject what scripture teaches plain and simple. Take Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." for example. This is OT so we know that this is referring to God. Jesus hasn't been hinted to as of yet (not until Genesis 3:15). So the assumption made is that God himself created the heavens and the earth. Well now go over to Colossians 1:16, but lets start with vs 15, "The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him." This verse in Colossians is speaking about Jesus Christ as plain as day. So the question is if God created the heavens and the earth and Jesus Christ also created the heavens and the earth would Jesus have to be God? To say that Jesus is only man would mean that Jesus couldn't have created anything as Colossians 1:16 states. Man never created anything out of nothing. Only God can do that. Thus Jesus either has to be God as the Bible claims or Jesus was only man that was created by God since God created man. 

How about another verse comparison this one is my favorite since again it proves that Jesus was God. What I love about scripture is that it doesn't contradict itself and you have to use scripture and compare with scripture to learn the truths about what it says. What I find (especially when dealing with JW's, Mormons and the like) is that people like to take one verse and create a whole doctrine from it. You cannot do this. Even the Bereans in Acts 17:11 understood this and it says that they "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." What I like about this passage is they examined the scriptures. It doesn't mean they just skimmed over it or opened their bibles and read the first thing their pointing finger landed on. It was a diligent seeking the scriptures out to see what Paul was saying was true. We must do the same. So here is my next comparison. Take a look at Psalm 102:25-27 "In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. Like clothing you will change them     and they will be discarded. But you remain the same, and your years will never end." The psalmist here is talking about God himself. Now lets look at Hebrews 1:10-12, "In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end.” Hebrews chapter 1 begins an immediate focus on Jesus Christ and this is what is spoken about Jesus. So again the question has to be asked, "If Psalm 102 is speaking about God Himself and Hebrews uses the same passage to refer to Jesus Christ then is Jesus Christ God or is he just a man?" If you say that Jesus is God then you have to agree that scripture is again true to it's word. If you say that Jesus was just a man then the problem is how can a man lay the foundations of the earth? What man do you and I know can even come close to creating the heavens? None that I am aware of. 

This brings me to the most important point we have to accept that Jesus was God because no man is perfect enough to take our sins away. It had to take a perfect, sinless sacrifice. The only one that we know that is perfect and sinless is God. Thus if we accept that Jesus is God this makes sense because Jesus was perfect and sinless. Why? Because he is God. If you say that Jesus is only man then you are saying that any man if they are good enough can save people from their sins. It boils down to this, to say that Jesus was only man, is to say that he had had the capability of sinning and therefore how do I know that he didn't? If he sinned even at one moment, or could sin, then my salvation may or may not be valid. But knowing that Jesus is God and that he could not sin, sin sinning is against His nature, then the sacrifice was perfect and I am confident that my salvation is sure. 

So I will say this to say that Jesus is not God is to say that Jesus was a created being and that the sacrifice made may or may not be efficient for our salvation. This is false teaching (the JW's, Mormons, etc following along this train of thought) and should be not be part of the church. This is my final thought, we either use scripture as a whole and compare scripture to scripture or we don't and come away with false teachings and doctrines that lead people astray. My belief is that scripture teaches that Jesus is God plain and simple and to deny this fact could mean that the salvation you are trusting in may or may not be valid. 

So I read the article and I am trying to understand how tv, movies and video games became the brunt of the conversation? The article didn't even deal with those items. It merely said that we need to show through example how to live not just say it. 

When it comes to parenting it starts with God's Word and teaching them what God has to say about sin. As a dad it is my responsiblity, and I will be held responsible, as to how my kids talk and act and if I as a parent have taught them that God is the ultimate authority and that we need to please Him as we live our lives. Yes my family watches tv, plays video games and we do go to movies but I can assure you that my kids do not swear, act up, or act as though those movies are teaching them a lesson. In reality, these movies have actually been used as spring board into teaching what God's Word says about something that was done or said in a movie.

Here is the failure, parents have gotten away from God's Word and are allowing their kids to do whatever they want. This is sad because then tv, movies, and videos games (also include music) will teach their kids thoughts and ideas that are contrary to God's word. But those parents will be held accountable for what they have done just as the rest of us  parents will be held accountable. But I for one will never let media tell or teach my kids what is right or wrong. My kids know full well what is right and wrong and they know this not because I said it was right or wrong but because God says it and dad believes in a God that loves us yet is holy a hates sin. 

10 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

 

Why is it important?   Mostly because of the order of the appearance.  You see, what those from a pre-trib position teach is that Jesus will return first, but what scripture reveals is that the anti-christ will appear first.  What happens as a result of changing the order around?  Well, the anti-christ and his false prophet will come performing great signs and wonders, and this will deceive many people.  If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say to an unbeliever, "Well, when all the Christians disappear, you will know the bible is true."  So what happens to them when the Christians don't disappear?

Speculation and that is fine I respect your viewpoint. I don't see that debating this issue does any good. It's beating a dead horse really. All three views have been discussed and defended. I stand by my original statement on this. 

10 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

It wasn't so vitally important to me for most of my life, I was taught and believed the pre-trib theology from the time I was a child, through my teens, through my time at Liberty University where I studied eschatology specifically, and well into my adult life.  It was in a discussion on this forum that an individual presented me with scripture that I had no answer for, and as a result of the confusion it brought me I asked the Lord for clarification on the matter.  Over time the Holy Spirit has led me to an entirely different conclusion than what I once believed.

And this is totally fine and I never questioned your veracity or your change of thought concerning your viewpoint. You are entitled to that viewpoint as the rest of us are entitled to ours. Your viewpoint may be right but it also may be wrong. But you act as though that you alone have the correct interpretation when everyone else is wrong. This particular discussion has been hashed out numerous times and quite frankly old hat so to speak. All three viewpoints claim that their interpretation is correct. This is a discussion that is better answered, "We don't quite know how this will go down. But we trust that God knows and we have faith that he says a rapture will happen." I don't believe that the whole point of the rapture should be a focus. As a matter of fact it is mentioned very briefly and never fully dwelt on. I wonder why? Yet many believers, including yourself, feel that they have to completely understand end time events and how it all will play out. I prefer to trust the God knows all things and He knows when and how everything will fall into place. We just need to trust Him that what He says will happen will happen in His time and in His way. Everything else that comes from man's mind is just speculation. 

10 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

Christians today are very skeptical when someone dares to mention that the Holy Spirit leads them to something, and I understand that as well, we are told time and again to beware of false prophets and teachers.  It stands to reason that we should be skeptical, but we are also told how to determine the truth of any matter, and that is by scripture and the Holy Spirit.  So if someone makes a claim and it opposes scripture, it is easy to dismiss such claims.

Again never discredited your knowledge or how the Holy Spirit leads you. That I never questioned. Nor will I. However I have studied scripture and I don't hold to your view. I am not wrong or incorrect. I admit my view is speculation at best but it makes sense to me. Your view makes sense to you. My point was not to discredit your beliefs but to question as to why you are placing such a huge emphasis on this when this topic is hashed out time and time and time again an no one really changes their views from one to another. I would say that most people you talk with would say that they are not totally sure because scripture is not really clear on this topic. 

10 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

I believe what scripture says, and I will stand on that as long as I live.  I believe in the gifts of the Spirit as well, though so many today argue against them and their application today.   Now I can't convince anyone of anything, but I am convinced from my personal experience that what I present is the truth, and that anyone who takes it to the Holy Spirit within them will come to the same conclusion.  I discuss this matter not because I enjoy confrontation, but because I am certain this is what the Lord wants me to do.  As for why He wants me to I can only speculate, but perhaps it has to do with the lateness of the hour and His desire that people be prepared.

I am glad that you used the word speculate which indicates that you understand that it is only a speculation and not a solid, matter of fact fact that your view isn't 100% foolproof. I appreciate that honesty. 

10 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

Well, as I said this is something I am convicted to do, and I am serving the Lord according to what He wants of me.  If the Lord convicts you to do something, do you do it?

Amen to that. I totally agree that if God calls us to do something we should do it. 

10 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

I agree no one knows the day or the hour, and that we all serve a purpose.  I do not know what your calling or purpose is, but it is most likely not the same as mine, as each part of the body serves a specific purpose.  I know I am not the only one the Lord has given this purpose to though, nor do I claim to know all there is to know about the end of days.  I know a specific piece of it because I asked to know it, but there are still many questions I have that I do not know the answer to.

Just make sure that you are 100% sure of your understanding of scripture in this matter. The way I always look at this view on this matter is this, would you be willing to do for such a belief and int the scheme of eternity does it really matter if you and I have different viewpoints on the rapture. I would rather know what your relationship with Christ is versus what your interpretation of when the rapture will happen. 

10 minutes ago, wingnut- said:

Regardless of what anyone else thinks, I am not that clever and did not come up with this on my own.  There is a reason I can present my position with scripture, and it encapsulates all of scripture, from Genesis to Revelation.  I can't tell you how many times I wish I had never asked God to know about this, it is not easy to be accused by your brethren, to have accusations levied against you, or even have some go so far as to say you are condemned.  Maybe that is why this is how He wants me to serve Him, because I don't really care what people think of me personally.  I honestly can't say, but I would certainly hope that my brothers and sisters would understand doing His will.

God bless 

Awesome! I hope that my post did not show condemnation or accusation because that was not what I was trying to do. I was asking some questions that I felt need to be answered. You have answered my question and I respect your opinion even if I think it is a flawed one. But that is ok. As I said above I am more concerned about your spiritual walk as a believer than what you believe on the rapture. I won't stay involved in this thread anymore since I believe that I can be used elsewhere. 

God Bless.

1 minute ago, wingnut- said:

 

Hey angels, 

Yes, I am very familiar with those threads, particularly with the pre-trib position as I once held that position myself and argued that position.  I believed pre-trib for the majority of my life, until one day I was presented with something that could not be reconciled to that position.  I asked the Lord for guidance on the matter and that ultimately led to my current beliefs, so I have no doubts about the timing of the gathering anymore.

God bless

Wingnut can I ask you why figuring out when the rapture is going to occur is so vitally important to you? All three views Pre, Mid an Post all have very valid points and that is why we have 3 distinct opinions on when it will happen. Are we to so focus on these issues instead of going out and serving the Lord waiting for His return? While I respect your viewpoint it isn't the correct one for sure. Neither is Pre or Mid. Bottom line we don't quite know when the rapture will happen. We do know that it will. 

So let's look at it this way if Pre-trib (which I know you don't hold to and that is ok neither do I) happens then great we will be pleasantly surprised. If it is Mid-trib(which I hold a little more closely to and I still respect your opinion) God will give us the grace to go through whatever we have to go through. If it is Post-trib (which your view is closest to) then again God will give us what we need to go through whatever we as believers will have to go through. 

Bottom line is this no one, not even you wing-nut knows when the rapture will occur but yet we can all agree that it will happen because scriptures says it will. To me knowing when that will happen is not an issue since I know it will happen and that I will be a part of it. From reading this thread I do not really see much of a discussion more than I see some arguing about points that godlier men than you and I disagree on. I would prefer to go out and be serving God and pray that when that rapture happens I am in the middle of living for Him. Wouldn't you agree?

12 hours ago, missmuffet said:

I don't attend a Church because I have not found a Church I am comfortable with. I would not go back to my former Churches. Once I left that was it. One of my biggest gripes about Church was that many seemed more interesting in the social aspect of it rather than what a Church is really intended to be. To worship God.

So are you still actively looking for a church or did you give up entirely? I know the church I go to worships the Lord and the Word of God is preached every Sunday. There is a social aspect of church as well that is part of church. Think of it this way, the corporate body of believers that meet as a congregation, group or whatever you want to call it from that same group is where you get fellowship, encouragement, prayer, needs met, help for projects, and the list goes on and on. Thing about it this way as well, when the church is persecuted what happens? The corporate body that meets on Sunday now becomes a sanctuary and every person in that congregation now strives to pray for each other even more so. 

Hebrews 10:25 I think is very clear in making sure that we don't neglect assembling with other believers and really kind of sums up my point pretty nicely. It says, " Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." The corporate body of believers are made up of people who are sinners. They are not always right. Even I don't agree with everything that my church does. But I make sure that I am there because it preaches God's Word. 

I don't know your situation or whatever but I encourage you to make sure that you seek out a body of believers that you can spend time with and fellowship with. It is that same body of believers that will support you in the low days and support you in the good days. 

I read through this whole conversation and I believe that in the end it was handled very well. I had the same question as Yowm and would have asked it if he hadn't. We all have to remember that were are communicating with text. This means we can't just assume that we understand something. Asking for clarification is not wrong as one poster on this forum has argued against. There are different nationalities, backgrounds, etc that are on this forum. There are language barriers present as well. 

Word usage is very important when using text as a form of communication. But I am glad that it all worked out and the OP was willing to change the way she said things to make it more understandable. This is a great example of believer working things out verses getting angry and causing commotions in the forums. I rather enjoyed the final response and was encouraged by it. Thanks all for being civil. 

Divorce them. And I don't mean this in a joking way. Let me explain. There are too many stories like this out there already. Do something that goes against mainstream Christian plays and films. We want a happy endings but at the expense of it being redundant and cliche. Here is why I think a divorce would be in order. First it is a reality that hits many Christian homes. This should not be something as believers we shy away from. It is reality. Second you could build your story around this situation where you have a divorced Christian couple that somehow in the midst of their lives come into contact with some godly people. Divorce is a selfish think in most cases. So you have pride, selfishness, anger, hostility, and you name it. So you could play off this and teach lessons from each point of view. Then you could have some type of lets say Got Mail type of thing happen due to prayer of those that are concerned and the couple end up coming back together. 

But this is just what I came up with. Probably not what you were looking for but it is just an idea. 

I know I do Tai Chi which focuses a lot on meditation and that type of thing. You know what I do when they say empty your mind and all that? I use that time to pray, meditate on what I read in God's Word and just focus on him for that time. But that is just what I do. I know what God's Word says and all the meditation mumbo jumbo is not something I have ascribe to even though I am practicing the art of tai chi. I remember my instructor tell me once that he had a student that could travel from place to place while meditating. I just rolled me eyes, sighed and continued on with my training. 

On 4/15/2017 at 10:41 PM, missmuffet said:

I would like to try a real Chicago style pizza

I love this type of pizza. I just can't them because they just weight too much on my stomach. Plus I am trying to lose weight. But boy this pizza looks really, really good. 

I remember living in Mississippi and there was a mom and pop pizza shop about 2 miles from where we lived. They served a Chicago style pizza that was awesome!. Once sliced seemed to weight about 2 lbs or so. The whole pizza weight about 15lbs or so. That thing was so loaded with cheese and the toppings were great. The calorie counts on one slice was through the roof. 

Pizza is just great. I prefer Papa Johns over all the other joints. We have a local place that is pretty good. They are too expensive to get pizza from most times.

Being in the airline business I can tell you that most of the comments here are based upon civilians perceptions of how airlines work. 99% of civilians have no idea of what really goes on behind the scenes of why passengers get bumped. The term "bumped" means that a passenger can't get onto a flight. Most times passengers are "bumped" due to weather, mechanical issues and the flight being full. But lets talk about overbooking first.

Overbooking is not a error or a poor decision on the part of the airlines. As a matter of fact is a financial strategy, whether you agree with me or not it is the fact, that the airlines use to keep their flights full. Overbooking allows for the fill in of no-shows, passenger cancellations, etc. The reason they do this is that it is very poor economics to fly an airplane less than full. Jet fuel is very expensive (I think it is around $6 per gallon on average). For example a 767-200 requires roughly 48,000lbs(aviation is based on weight) of fuel for a 2 1/2 hours flight. The fuel load takes into account the weight of the aircraft, the payload as well as fuel for required items like alternates in case the aircraft has to divert to another station due to weather or mechanical issues. It also takes into account extra fuel required to go around weather. This fuel load, with the current average price of JET-A fuel comes out to roughly $43000 dollars. Now take into account the cost it takes to keep the aircraft mechanically sound as well. Then on top of that the pilots, flight attendants and those that operate the flight have to get paid. This starts to really add up. When everything is said and done you are up in the $100,000+ range to operate the aircraft. So the airlines overbook so that they have the money to cover the cost of operating plus make money doing so. It is a business plain and simple. Whether we like how it works or not this is just how it is. But at least you all know a little more why airlines overbook and do what they do.

Ok now onto a look into how airline operations work. Pilots have to get to work and in order for flights to operate you have to have pilots. We all know this already. We most do not know is that airlines operate based upon what is called reliability. This reliability means that 98% of the airlines flights are on time both for on-time departures and arrivals. Airlines, believe it or not, lose money when their reliability drops. Pilots changes are made on a daily basis due to sick calls, pilots exceeding their allotted flying hours a month, yearly recurrent training and sims and numerous other reasons. Based upon what I read and how I understand how airlines work this may have been a last minute crew change for the flight that was going to depart the arrival station that flight that the incident happened was arriving at. Again not an ideal situation but it is just how it is. 

Let me now focus on bumping passengers. You may not know this but there is an operation that works behind the scenes that plans the flight. The work up fuel loads, determine how many passengers can get on, plan flights around weather, etc. They are called Aircraft Dispatchers. Look the job description up sometime and you will see what they do. This is what I do as a living so I am up on the front lines with the operations of the airlines. I make these decisions on a daily basis. Trust me it isn't glamorous and I can assure you that I am not keen on bumping passengers but the operation in some cases rule and in other cases my decision is final. As a dispatcher I have a love/hate relationship with the airline. Anyway in my planning I have required the airline to bump passengers from flights due to requiring more fuel for weather, alternates, etc. Aircraft cannot take off if they are too heavy and it is easier to bump passengers than remove bags. Sounds horrible but it is what it is. Now onto the bumping of passengers for crew members. The airline reserves the right to bump people for operational reasons. Read the very small print when you buy a ticket. When you buy that ticket you agree to this and all the other airline rules and operating procedures as well. Airlines technically do not have to offer anything for volunteers but they do it because they know that it is better on the reputation if they do. Some people take it others do not. When no one takes the bait then they have to random seating and will randomly choose seats. They will walk up to that passenger that is in that seat and will request that you get off the aircraft. It is there right and their rules. Sounds rough but it is how it works regardless if we like it or not. The airline tried to do what it could to make removal as comfortable as possible but that didn't work. Then they had to do it the hard way. And I can assure you the airlines do not like to work that way.

Finally lets deal with the particular passenger. When the airline asks that you get of the plane it is a good idea to do so. Not doing so creates an environment where the pilot has to make a decision based upon safety. The passenger become belligerent and refused the request of the flight attendant and crew. Thus TSA was called. From what I read two of the TSA agents were trying to be calm and collected. The third TSA agent was in the wrong by using force like he did. Now saying that the passenger was also clearly in the wrong as well. I can also tell you that the actions of the passenger caused the decisions that were made. Not pretty but like I have said before this is how it works. 

It is hard to text how airlines work and I hope it gives everyone a better understanding of what goes on behind the scenes and why things work the way they do. We can agree to disagree with airline operational policies all day but it doesn't change the fact that all the airlines work the same way. Even the regionals work this way as well. Anyway I hope what I wrote makes some sense. Feel free to ask questions and I can answer them the best I can through text. 

Side note: It is actually fascinating watching the inner workings of an airline and how everyone working in it makes the airline tick.

On 3/25/2017 at 4:01 PM, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

The thing is though one thing we have to remember is that there are likely no real Hebrew/Greek experts here on this board (And I certainly never claimed to be one)

We have to take it on faith that GOD would inspire the KJ translators to use the best manuscripts.

This sounds like dual inspiration to me which is clearly wrong. God did not inspire the translators. The original text were inspired but translating is not inspired. All translating is is expressing the sense of (words or text) in another language. This is what the translators of the KJV and other versions have done. 

So can I read the KJV and say it's God's Word? Yes. Can I read the NIV and say it is God's Word? Yes. 

I attended a school that was KJV only (not to the extreme as the belief of dual inspiration) and have heard all the arguments and points. I have been in the debates and discussions and sadly they can become quite heated. This is the way I see it, If you feel that the KJV is a better version and choose to use it then go for it, yet if someone uses another version that is not a KJV then let them use it. The sad reality is that I have seen KJVO's rip good christian people apart just because they don't hold to the same version. 

A little story to illustrate my point: I was at school and was eating lunch with a couple of people. One of those that I was eating lunch with was a KJVO. Somehow the discussion turned course and Bible versions were starting to be discussed. She said she was staunch KJV and that all other versions of the Bible were satanic. When I tried to explain to her what translations were all about and that the KJV was merely a translation she got up from the table (in the middle of lunch mind you) condemned me to hell and from that point on did not want anything to do with me at all. Very sad. 

Not saying this is the case but this does happen and it happens more than people realize. 

9 hours ago, christiang said:

How many times must I quote the same scriptures?

No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. (1 John 3:6 [NASB])

We know that every one being engendered of God does not sin; but the one engendered of  God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not touch him. (I John 5:18 [ABP])

for everyone born of God overcomes the world. This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith. (1 John 5:4 [NIV])

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. (1 John 3:9 [KJV])

So stubborn and cannot come to understanding.

Thankfully we as believers live under Grace not law (Romans 6:14). Grace doesn't give me a license to sin (Romans 6). It does however allow me to come before the throne when I do sin an confess it. (I John 1:9). 

I do have a question for in regards to their belief that once we are believers that the sin nature is completely eradicated. What about Paul in Romans 7 where he discusses the dilemma of the sinful nature:

So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me.  What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?  Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Would you say that Paul was not a Christian because he struggled with his sin nature? 

Regardless of how many times you quote the same scripture it doesn't mean that your argument is correct. Sadly it is really off the mark concerning grace and concerning our sin natures after salvation. 

7 minutes ago, eileenhat said:

I quoted the Bible verse that is written about children and their presumed innocence.  It is therefore not an exact age.

The parameters are what age they can decide for themselves whom to follow, independent of their parents and not the age when they feel guilty of doing something wrong ('wrong' being predetermined by cultural norms).

What is 'right' in one culture is 'wrong' in another.

 

Could you maybe give an example of what you mean when you say "What is 'right' in one culture is 'wrong' in another."? 

15 hours ago, eileenhat said:

Just saying right from wrong is subjective, while knowing evil exists in the form of Satan and turning toward him rather than God, is of a higher level order of self determination.

Other cultures determine what is right or wrong, for their children, is all I am stating here.  It is not universally agreed upon, what if 'right'.  Hence 'right vs wrong' is subjective and not a substitute for knowing evil versus good (as in what God requires of us).  this is about man's sinful nature.  His separation from God.  His self determination is to choose either God or Satan to follow.

Forgive me if I am wrong but doesn't God set the boundaries of what is right and what is wrong? We know what is right or wrong based on His word and his word alone. Right and wrong becomes subjective when man makes it subjective like it is today. In today's world the philosophy is what is right in my own eyes is what right instead of what God says.  A perfect example would be the LTGB movement and their beliefs. Then you have churches siding with this belief system. They have made sin subjective instead of objective when God clearly says this lifestyle is wicked. So I have to disagree that right and wrong is subjective. 

Maybe I am not completely understanding what you mean by subjective. Maybe a little more light could be shed into what you are saying. 

From my observations from other posts the OP has done the OP is not really trying to discuss anything. All the posts I have seen them post are just scripture passages and that is about it. I don't think they are trying to post a discussion. Just my observations. 

50 minutes ago, Your closest friendnt said:

Just to make it simple and clear

( because we are in the habit of reading the posts not only too fast, but with a righteous anger, and filtered everything with what we have in our  minds, neither me or you, or anyone else can do that and be right all the time , unless we are not only some God, but Jesus Christ who has all the knowledge and wisdom of God the Father of all). 

I just want to make sure everyone knows that my responses were not in anger in anyway, shape or form. I do not claim to know everything in God's Word and I do not claim I have the answers to everything. I have tried to make sure that everything that I have said is supported with God's Word. I am not here to try and win an argument or debate or anything. All I can do is follow what God's Word says and I truly believe that what God says in Romans 1 is true. I also appreciate OneLight bringing out Romans 2:12-16 which I also believe to be true I just didn't think about that verse.

I don't claim to be right all the time. As a matter of fact I am willing to be corrected when I am wrong. That is how we grow.

I really hope in my responses you didn't get that impression.

Quote

I stand corrected like anyone else, avoiding that I might exalt my self above the truth. 

The ultimate task is to indroduce people to the Savior Jesus Christ, by making known to them the need for a Savior, and inform them about the New Heavenly inheritance for mankind. 

The Devil has a task and is ahead of you (us). 

To teach the people you or (us) teach to believe in God, that they are OK now , they have faith in God, and they just need to get some good works, and a good consience. 

That's what they need to be Saved, and the Devil will tell them read Romans 1: and perhaps 2:,

With all that being said I am trying to understand why the Devil would want anyone reading Romans 1. I would think he would want people to stay away from that chapter because it teaches that man needs a savior and that man is sinful. I do agree that as believers we are to go out and preach the gospel Mark 16:15, and Matthews 28:16-20. We are commanded to. But I can assure you that the Devil does not want us to trust in Christ or the Lord. I was wondering if you might be able to support your point through some scripture. This way I might be able to see your point of view more clearly.

Quote

This is the message of the Antichrist to make Believers in God to denied faith in Jesus Christ. 

The message of the AntiChrist is to deceive those that are lost as well as those that claim to be saved. Jesus says in Matthew 24:24 that "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." While this verse may not allude to the final antichrist described in Revelation I do believe that those that are truly saved will not be deceived based upon this verse. I am not well versed in end times theology but this statement Jesus makes seems to be pretty significant. However I think this particular point goes off topic from the original posters question. So I digress.

Quote

And as a brotherly suggestion, to say "this is your opinion, and Judge something someone has said by doing a lot of rechearch, of the context and the Scriptures is an offense against the brother, and others whom you may influence not to look into that direction). 

I totally agree with you that when I state an opinion I clarify that it is my opinion. However when God's Word has an opinion that trumps my opinion and I will just state when God's opinion is. That is why I have been very good about provided references for what I have said. I am not trying to prove any point or try to win an argument. I just believe that God's Word is right on the topic of Hell being a very real place and those that do not know Christ, with the exception of what OneLight pointed out in Romans 2:12-16, will spend an eternity apart from God in Hell. 

1 minute ago, OneLight said:

We should always be growing in Him!  I am always finding something new from others as they have considered things I have not.  I am sure there are things you have read and considered that I have not! 

For sure!

26 minutes ago, OneLight said:

Many don't because it is hard to understand, going against what they have held true for many years.   As you say, God provided evidence of who He is through nature.  Those who never heard of God as we have (think Amazon as an example) can, and some do, have Him in their hearts, living out what they see as His ways in their lives the best they can without scripture or a human teacher. All they have is His Spirit to guide them, but without His words to bring back to memory.  A tough thing to consider since we have so many references at our fingertips ... they do not.

You know as much as I think I know God's Word the more I come to the realization that I know it as well as I should. It amazes me even after all these years of being a Christian and reading His word there is always something to learn. Even if you have read the same passage over and over. Again thanks OneLight for the verse and I will remember this the next time.