GandalfTheWise

I know Christians who pray over their homes and other things usually in the context that those things would be a blessing and used for God's glory.   For a lot of people, a means of transportation is important.  I'd put it either in, or at least close to, the category of praying for daily needs such as "give us this day our daily bread".

There was another thread a bit ago where the Hebrew gospel of Matthew came up.   Here's a link to a post I wrote in that one.  https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/259775-the-hebrew-yshua-vs-the-greek-jesus/?do=findComment&comment=3306272   It has a few links in it.

Two main points:

1. Basically, we do have some existing physical manuscripts of Matthew in Hebrew, but from what I could see, they tend to be from later dates.  Unlike Greek Matthew which can be attested to with high confidence back to the 4th century,  the oldest complete version of Matthew in Hebrew (referred to as the Shem-Tob) is from the 14th century.  It was part of an anti-Christian treatise by a Jewish author who may or may not have accurately reproduced the sources he was copying from and may have chosen sources with a similar outlook to his.  There's a good chance that some passages in these manuscripts do bear witness to an original Hebrew form of some type, but it's not clear how accurately they reflect an original that Matthew wrote. 

2. Any doctrinal diverge from Greek versions may or may not reflect Matthew himself, but rather a fringe group whose ideas were by and by rejected by most Christians.  It's not clear that the original Hebrew source of all passages and phrases in these manuscripts was Matthew himself or if it was taken from Matthew and edited and produced by an individual or group on the fringes of Christianity similar to the Jewish Christians mentioned in Acts and Galatians who believed all Christians must obey the Law of Moses.  

My observation is that a lot of the articles and comments about Matthew in Hebrew come from JWs who hold the existing manuscripts in very high regard and see them as superior to the Greek version.  In some of those articles, you have to look pretty closely to figure out the outlook of the writer.

I'd hesitate to draw doctrinal conclusions from them where they differ from the Greek version of Matthew.  We simply do not know if the views in them that differ from Greek are directly from Matthew who walked with Jesus or were edited later by groups who had different views.

19 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Verse 57 is interesting, I’ve heard others say Jesus was round 32 years old when he was crucified can that be verified in the Bible. Why on earth would they say not yet fifty years old and have seen Abraham. why didn’t they say not yet forty yrs old and skip a whole decade , seems that is implying a older Jesus in his forty’s.

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry.   Luke 3:23 NIV

@rhomphaeam

FYI:   There's a separate section in the forum for video links.  They all need to be manually approved by moderators. This is simply forum policy that all videos must be approved and aggregated together in the appropriate section.  Once there, they can be linked to in a thread like this one.

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/forum/144-videos/

11 hours ago, Mistake83 said:

So I used to believe Jesus Christ love me and died for my sins; but since last June in 2019 I have come to believed I have always been most hated by God.

Been looking for a full time job since than, but by following God command was forced to give up the only one  I liked.  Everything else has sucked especially the one I have now I can honestly see myself injuring my back badly.  Had a chance at a job with Bernick/Pepsi but failed a physical (because of high blood pressure) and it like this gets rubbed in my nose.  They say if you find a job you like you will never work again.  But if it one you hate you will more than work!

Why does God so hate me, that when I ask in Jesus’ name, John 16:23-24 it is always answered NO!

Welcome to the site.  I'm sure you'll find others (like @LadyMountaineer) who can share their experiences.  As a note, this is the welcome part of the forum which not everyone one reads.  There is a prayer request section as well as an advice/ask-questions section which draws more readers who are more gifted in responding to those threads.

6 hours ago, Josheb said:

Gotcha. But the sentence, "Millard Ericsson denies free will," as stated is incorrect. Millard Erickson denied Pelagian free will. Not the same thing.

I should have realized something sooner and unfortunately contributed to decreasing the signal to noise ratio on this thread because I didn't.   As near as I can tell,  there are effectively three (or maybe more) definitions of "free will" being used by people on this site.  Free will in a Pelagian sense which is that humans are capable of coming to God on their own without His help.  Free will in an Arminian sense which is that prevenient grace allows humans to freely accept or reject God's offer of salvation through Christ.  Free will in a Calvinist sense which in essence is limited in scope and does not affect God's election or reprobation of particular individuals.

My sense is theologians split hairs trying to carefully define the various uses various Christian groups make of the basic term free will adding adjectives such as compatible and non-compatible (which is as I understand is basically a reflection of the major Arminian/Calvinist difference of whether or not all choices are compatible with divine decree).   However, as a practical matter, most Christians just use the term free will as their church or denomination uses it (which is usually some variation of either the Arminian or Calvinist definition) because they've been told that is what the term "free will" really means.   That indeed is the de facto state this forum will be in because posters will just show up here using the particular definition of free will that they've been taught.  Most are not aware of the different definitions being used.

This of course begs the question of what the best course of action to deal with this state of affairs is to improve our communication and reduce misunderstandings, but that is for another thread.

I apologize to all on here for not recognizing this sooner and contributing to a level of unhelpful noise on this thread.   I was taking some comments as attacks and misrepresentations of fellow Christians.  My understanding now is that they were not meant as such, but due to lack of obvious (at least to me) statement that a Pelagian definition of free will was being exclusively used rather than the more common Arminian or Calvinist ones used by most posters, I read into the statements something that was not intended.  

39 minutes ago, David1701 said:

That has not been my experience; in fact, such usage would be misleading.  The Arminians with whom I have debated are usually very careful to avoid claiming that fallen man has "free will" and to emphasise the need for God's grace; although they stop short of the biblical need to be born again, in order to see or enter the kingdom of God, by faith in Jesus Christ.

Wowzers...  The arminians I've interacted with over my life are born again Christians and would never deny the need to born again as part of salvation.  I've been a Christian since the mid 70s and have spent decades worth of time in both arminian and calvinist ministries and churches.  I've known hundreds of Christians in various settings and to various degrees of both viewpoints.  I've not heard one deny the need for being born again.

I've known some people in mainline churches that are essentially agnostic, atheist, or deist in outlook and join churches for more social and emotional reasons.  Some hold to the doctrinal statements of their denomination to some degree and in some likely redefined sense they are comfortable with.  In that sense, I could say I've known both arminians and calvinists who would deny the need to be born again.  

49 minutes ago, David1701 said:

This quote by Millard Erickson DENIES free will!  Look at the part I've made bold - that is Arminian "prevenient grace", which I mentioned in my post.  Such grace would not be deemed necessary, if fallen man had free will.  Surely this should be obvious?

It is precisely because of the bondage to sin of fallen man's will that grace is necessary, in order for him to believe the gospel.

 

Wesley did not hold to free will!  No Arminian holds to free will.  They all hold to the need for "prevenient grace", AS I POSTED.

Olson is contradicting himself here.  If fallen man had free will, then Arminian "prevenient grace" would be completely unnecessary.

Oh, good grief!  Wesley, Finney and C.S. Lewis were not Classical Arminians!

Classical Arminians often distance themselves somewhat from Wesleyans, doctrinally speaking.

Finney was semi-Pelagian, not Arminian at all.

C.S. Lewis was not clearly of any persuasion, other than accepting the essentials of the faith.

There are precisely zero Arminians or Wesleyans who believe in so-called "free will", otherwise they would not believe in "prevenient grace".

Yes, they (and Calvinists and almost everyone else) believe in the universal proclamation of salvation and that everyone who believes in Jesus Christ will be saved.

It is Pelagian-ish teaching that fallen man has "free will".  These people teach that man does not need to be regenerated, nor does he need prevenient grace, but he can repent and believe in Jesus Christ using his fictional "free will", thus giving him room to boast and denying that salvation is by grace alone.

Incidentally, Arminianism also denies that salvation is by grace alone, albeit more subtly, since the deciding factor, according to them, is still man's freed (N.B. not naturally free) will, not the grace of God.

My observation is that many Christians use the term "free will" in the sense of "freed will" or a similar sense which requires God's intervention.  One can debate the accuracy and potential ambiguity of that usage.  However, I think it prudent to take care when decrying free will assuming a Pelagian definition that it will be understood as that by all when there will be those reading the statements who commonly use a different usage. One can of course then drop into a mode of arguing that everyone should adopt a common usage and which one is better or correct, but that won't change common usage different groups use.

The typical arminian emphasis in use of the term free will that I've commonly observed is to emphasize the universal offering of salvation to all through Christ (with some who will reject that offer) in what is ultimately a denial of reprobation.

Another set of music I've run across that I like  is Christian music set to various ethnic styles.  As part of learning Spanish, I found a number of native Spanish songs of various genres that I've really liked.  Here's a few of the YT titles of songs I like.

GRUPO FOLKLORICO CRISTIANO ISRAEL ALELUYA

Tino Picuasi - El Shaddai

Jara Bolivia - El amor de Dios - Tinku

Fiel - Funky - Indestructible 2015

Que huyan los fantasmas - Jesus Adrian Romero // Video Oficial   

Redimi2 - Viviré (Video de Letras) ft. Evan Craft

12 hours ago, Marathoner said:

Many thanks for introducing me to Ralph Towner.

It's an interesting story how I first ran across him.  Back in the early 80s, I found a guitar method book by him at a garage sale.  Well before the days of the Internet so I never heard any of his music.  The method book itself focused on holding very complicated chords and practicing various rhythms on arpeggios.  I gave up pretty quickly because I couldn't contort my hands enough to hold most of them.  The ones I could hold sounded great.  I ended up putting that book away.   A good 15 years later, I ran across the lesson book and looked him up on YouTube out of curiosity.

6 hours ago, David1701 said:

Perhaps you don't know, but so-called "free will" is not held by any branch of orthodox Christianity (not Arminians, who teach the need for "prevenient grace", not Calvinists, not Lutherans, etc.).  It is only held by people who are Pelagian-ish in their thinking, whether out of ignorance, or false teaching.  It contradicts many Scriptures and undermines salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. 

One of the primary characteristics of Arminian belief is a belief in free will.   This seems to be a generally accepted state of affairs.

Quoting from page 927 of the 2nd Edition of Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson:

"The views of Arminius are quite clear and can be readily summarized.  God's first absolute decree regarding salvation was not the assignment of certain individuals to eternal life and others to damnation, but the appointment of his Son, Jesus Christ, to be the Savior of the human race.  Second, God decreed that all who repent and believe shall be saved.  In addition, God has granted to all persons sufficient grace to enable them to believe.  They freely believe or disbelieve on their own.  God does not believe for us or compel us to believe.  Finally, God predestines those who he foreknows will believe."

In the next paragraph, "In the eighteenth century, John Wesley popularized Arminianism.  In fact, for many years he edited a magazine call The Arminian.  While holding to the freedom of the will, Wesley went beyond Arminius by emphasizing the idea of prevenient or universal grace.  This universal grace is the basis of any human good in the world.  This prevenient grace also makes it possible for any person to accept the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ."

Roger E. Olson (author of a number of books including Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities and Against Calvinism and  Foy Valentine Professor of Christian Theology of Ethics at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University) wrote a blog piece (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2018/11/calvinism-and-arminianism-compared-by-roger-e-olson/) contrasting arminianism and calvinism.   Here is a quote from the piece.

"What is Arminianism? A) Belief that God limits himself to give human beings free will to go against his perfect will so that God did not design or ordain sin and evil (or their consequences such as innocent suffering); B) Belief that, although sinners cannot achieve salvation on their own, without “prevenient grace” (enabling grace), God makes salvation possible for all through Jesus Christ and offers free salvation to all through the gospel. “A” is called “limited providence,” “B” is called “predestination by foreknowledge.”

*As with Calvinism there are varieties of Arminianism that deviate slightly from above, but above is classical, historical, evangelical Arminianism as taught by Arminius, John Wesley, Charles Finney, C. S. Lewis, and Dallas Willard and all other classical, historical, evangelical Arminians."

Irwin W. Reist's article JOHN WESLEY'S VIEW OF MAN: VERSUS FREE WILL on pages 25-35 in Volume 7 - Spring - 1972 of the Wesleyan Theological Journal makes many observations about Wesley and his writings on a number of topics.  Section V of this article lays out a fairly clear picture of what prevenient grace is.  Here is one quote from Wesley in that article.

"For allowing that all the souls of men are dead in sin by nature this excuses none, seeing there is no man that is in a state of mere nature; there is no man unless he has quenched the Spirit, that is wholly void of the grace of God. No man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly called natural conscience. But this is not natural. It is more properly termed preventing grace. Everyone has sooner or later good desires; although the generality of men stifle them before they can strike deep root. . . So that no man sins because he has not grace, but because he does not use the grace which he hath."

Here is a mixture of Reist's comments and a Wesley quote.  [Formatting is poor here.]

The second element in Wesley's concept of prevenient grace is the graciously enabled will of man. Free will is not natural to man as a remnant of the pre-fall state. "Natural free-will in the present state of mankind I do not understand. ~28 Free- will and liberty are matters of grace bestowed on all men. And although I have not an absolute power over my own mind, because of the corruption of my own nature; yet through the grace of God assisting me, I have a power to choose and do good, as well as evil. 29 I only assert, that there is a measure of free-will supernaturally restored to every man, together with that supernatural light which 'lightens every man that cometh into the world'. 30

Finally, here are some quotes from an article which is highly hostile to Arminians accusing them of teaching a heresy of free-will and a false gospel (with a form of calvinism being assumed to be the true gospel).  https://cprc.co.uk/articles/johnwesley/   

John Wesley, False Apostle of Free Will by Rev. Angus Stewart.

The question is this: What was the gospel that Wesley preached? Was it the true gospel (with some weaknesses, perhaps) or was it “another gospel” “which is not another” (Gal. 1:6-7)? Tomkins’ book alone provides enough information to answer this question. Wesley even quotes Whitefield as saying that the two of them “preached two different gospels” (p. 94).

Wesley’s gospel was the false gospel of salvation by the free will of the sinner. Free will, for all his talk of God’s grace, was the deciding factor in salvation. In loving free will, Wesley hated predestination calling it “blasphemy.” He declared, “It represents the most holy God as worse than the Devil, as both more false, more cruel, and more unjust” (p. 78).

However, the Canons of Dordt state that the “decree of election and reprobation” is “revealed in the Word of God” and “though men of perverse, impure and unstable minds wrest [it] to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls [it] affords unspeakable consolation” (I.6). Where does this leave Wesley? Not with the “holy and pious souls,” but with the “men of perverse, impure and unstable minds” who “wrest” the truth of predestination “to their own destruction.”

In its “Conclusion,” the Synod of Dordt “warns calumniators to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them.” Wesley certainly belongs in this category for he is guilty of the sins that the “Conclusion” proceeds to enumerate:

bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches [including the Church of England in which he lived and died] … distressing the consciences of the weak; and … labouring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful.

Remember that Wesley was not simply a church member but a church office-bearer and that his church’s creed (article 17 of the Thirty-Nine Articles) taught election. Moreover, he was a founder of societies (and eventually a denomination) and he saw himself as a restorer of primitive Christianity! If church teachers shall receive a greater judgment (James 3:1), where will this leave Wesley? A false apostle of free will.

The bottom line is that there are many Christians in the Arminian and Wesleyan traditions that do believe in free will and a universal offer of salvation whereby anyone can be saved through Christ's atoning work.  

3 hours ago, Drafido said:

Is that you Joe?  LOL

I think I'm missing a reference to someone well known, or else I bear a striking resemblance to some remark.   

(Just realized I'm getting off the trend of this thread.  A quick aside here.)

My main instruments are a Roland A90EX, an Epiphone Korean copy of a Strat, a Fender Twin (late 80s), and an Eko  acoustic bass (made in Italy, which I got used back in the late 70s, and now to my surprise a collector's item) along with a 40+ year old small Gretsch bass amp.  I've also got a banjo sitting around.    I've got an old 3 function analog pedal sitting around somewhere.   For the most part, my guitar tone was clean channel, distorted channel, and Twin spring reverb turned on or off.  Despite all the sounds (which are now vintage I s'pose), I only use a handful on the A90 anymore.

My musical style has leaned toward treating a song as a chord progression and theme to be built on within the limits of one's skills and influenced by one's "style" and "taste".   For example, my hands naturally fit about a 6th on a keyboard with an octave being a stretch.  My strength is rapid passages within a short range of notes.  A weakness is spread out chords and flowing arpeggios because my hands simply can't reach that well.   What's the old saying from one of the Clint Eastwood movies?  "A man's got to know his limitations."  I spend my time practicing and creating what I can be good at doing rather than trying to be good at what someone else is good at.

I just simply find I feel the difference between "live" playing which changes and evolves each time a song is played versus having mastered a series of notes in sequence.  I simply cannot make myself rehearse something to get it "right" but I can play with something time after time shaping and changing it.   One of my favorite guitarists is Ralph Towner.  I fit stuff I hear into 3 categories, "I can play that", "Give me some time, and I can play that", and "I'll never be able to play that".  He's in the latter category for me.   On YouTube, there are a handful of performances of his "Jamaica Stopover" from different stages in his career including one recently from in his late 70s.  (Note a few with that label are covers by others.) Each time it is slightly different.  It's like it is a living growing thing that has changed over the years in his hands.   In contrast, I've heard a couple covers that were near perfect note by note from one of Towner's performances.  They were well done and obviously much rehearsed, but they were too perfect and mechanical.  When Towner plays it, it's like he is having fun and just playing around or goofing around with the guitar.  When these other guitarists played it, it felt mechanical.   

1 hour ago, Alive said:

Its not just a job...all volunteers, btw.

Overall, I think you and others are doing a solid job.   We probably don't say it enough, but thank you for the time and effort.  

This site has a stream of Christians with different backgrounds and viewpoints arriving, many on different sides of issues that have split the body of Christ for centuries.  Explicitly welcoming those of different views as equals is not common.  Attempting to not merely grudgingly tolerate but to fully accept and feel comfortable with those from churches and denominations we've been taught are wrong in important ways is not easy, but I think a move of God which He will use the bless the entire Body of Christ.

Lately, the worst I see here publicly is tame compared to what things were like a few years ago.   The heaviest stuff I see now is in political threads.  A few years ago, that was par for the course in many theological and spiritual threads and at times much worse.  There was out and out bullying and gaslighting going on at times.

I truly appreciate what I assume to be much forbearance, endurance, and patience on your part as I can imagine what type of PMs and behind the scenes stuff some might say in frustration and anger and sincere zeal.

3 hours ago, faithfull-prophet4040 said:

If there was a man that was chosen by God, and his family and many many other people were possessed by demons, how would a man go about getting by if even though he wanted to pray and have God make a way for him by providing jobs and providing food there wasn't really a way for that to happen because the jobs that would be provided the people offering the jobs were possessed and the money they offered they expected something great in return from a man chosen by God. Also the mans family whom which was possessed too, who offered food to the man also expected something great in return. how would the man get by? Another question how would the man not be pridefull in a way if he couldn't/wouldnt accept food or jobs that kept getting offered to him, because he knew they were possessed, and knew he was chosen, and refused to accept things from something as low as demons especially being chosen by God "that's the question mainly being asked" how would he not be pridefull when not accepting the things knowing hes higher then them in the most humble way possible but they just keep playing games, and lying, and tricking?

One thing that needs to be said is that this OP creates a poor first impression due to misspelled words, grammatical errors, and run-on sentences.  In addition, I missed the main point the first time I read it and wasted time writing a response due to my misunderstanding of what was being asked.  That's partly on me for not reading carefully word by word.  But it is partly due to the formatting and organization.  I'd guess any literary agent or publisher seeing this would likely read a couple sentences, give up, and never bother with it again because they'd just assume they are seeing laziness or incompetence.  Any discourse a potential writer has with others should be characterized by care and professionalism or there is a very real risk of burning bridges.

To summarize what I'm understanding, the story premise is this.    The protagonist's only interactions with the world for sustenance and survival is from demons because God has chosen not to use other methods.   Further, the only moral course of action available to him is to refuse the means of survival from them.   Part of the conflict in the story will be with the internal struggles the protagonist faces with his attitudes.     My impression is that the possessed in this story's world are irredeemably possessed so that liberation and treating them with hope for change is not possible.  I think a critical assumption is whether or not the protagonist has any hope or faith that the possessed can be liberated and saved.  If the story direction is essentially that God will not do any form of deliverance and the protagonist cannot have hope or faith his family will be saved, this is in essence a hopeless fatalistic world where the protagonist knows his family is damned and that the only hope is resurrection after death.  If the story direction is that the protagonist is hoping and having faith for the deliverance of those around him and his family, it becomes a story of patience, faith, hope, and endurance for the sake of others.

The statement "how would he not be pridefull [sic] when not accepting the things knowing hes [sic] higher then [sic] them in the most humble way possible" is somewhat confusing in that it's not clear who he's better than.    Is this in reference to demons or to the possessed?  It also seems to almost imply his natural inclination is toward pridefulness which is virtually impossible to avoid. Also, it will depend on if the possessed are redeemable or irredeemable?  If irredeemable, they become essentially indistinguishable from the demons.  If redeemable, one of the foremost thoughts in the protagonist's heart and mind would be freeing his family and friends.  As such, he would clearly see them as slaves to the demons needing liberation.  His primary attitude toward them would be compassion and love with refusal to take sustenance being part of his ministry to free them.  Pride would have little place in this.  If he's facing certain death due to his refusal, I suppose one could read through various accounts of martyrs in church history to answer the question of how they avoided pridefulness in choosing in death over life.

2 hours ago, David1701 said:

Jesus was the meekest man on earth.  I would invite you to remind yourself of how he dealt with the Pharisees (see Matt. 23, for example), or Herod ("Tell that fox Herod...").  The Lord often said things that corrected their errors and exposed their attitudes, whilst also enraging them (their fault, not His).

Just imagine if Jesus came to this forum, incognito, and posted the kind of things that he sometimes said.  He'd be warned, then suspended, or sent to "Mars Hill".

He is our example...

I truly hope the intent of this was a form of cautionary jest to make a point and not to seriously imply that the moderators and many people on this site are likely to reject what Jesus might say and kick him out for it.   As written, it does give the unfortunate appearance of assuming the worst about fellow Christians on this site.  My observation is some say such things as a cautionary comment ("Let's be sure if Jesus came on here that we'd be humble enough to listen and change") and some say it because they believe a site like this consists of a tiny holy remnant (of which they are part) in a sea of compromised Christians (many of whom aren't really Christians).

It is one thing for someone to become angry because they are rejecting the truth (for example the council covering their ears as they hustled Stephen out to be stoned).  It is far different to be frustrated with a fellow Christian who is in essence proselytizing for a particular theological school of thought and claiming those who disagree are false teachers or in deep error.  Comments such as "...freewillers, who don't have a clue, yet feel free to spout their ignorance dogmatically"  appear to directly dismiss and disparage many solid Christians who do not hold calvinist theological opinions.  I have the same feelings toward past comments I've read on past threads that called calvinists heretics.  People who say such things and have those attitudes often stir up division and strife because they are attempting to force Christians to join their fight, choose their side, and to reject and look down on other Christians on the "wrong" side.  Negative reactions are not proof of being correct nor proof people are rejecting truth.   Negative reactions can sometimes be a response to damage being done to the body of Christ.

Quoting scripture passages and then elevating the interpretation of those passages from one particular school of theological opinion to the level of objective fact frustrates other Christians because it more or less says that any disagreement is automatically subjective opinion to be rejected out of hand.  It's one thing to correct things that the vast majority of solid Christians would have issue with (for example the JWs rejecting the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ).  It's far different to choose one particular school of theological thought from among many held by different Christian groups (for example, picking one of the varieties of eschatological opinion) and to elevate it to a level of objective fact and to reject what any Christian who disagrees says as being an erroneous subjective opinion.

9 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I still feel my dogs laying against my legs when it's just a pillow or muscle spasm.  I heard one of my Pomeranians and it was just my stomach growling.  I miss them so much.  I see dogs on TV and my attention goes to them.  The pain doesn't go away.

I wonder if my wife and I had been able to bring either of our two children to term if I would have been a good father.  I am good with dogs, always have been, but would I have been good with my children?  Maybe God saved me from failure.  Would I have been too strict or not strict enough as I was raised? 

Not sure what to say to be of some tangible encouragement here...so just posting to let you know I was reading it.

5 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

I couldn't agree with you more about J. Michael Straczynski's work on Babylon 5.  I have the series on DVD including the movies and the spinoffs.  In my opinion, the only series that can compare to it is the current series The Expanse.   I'm looking forward to season 5 next year.

The only shows I've ever picked up on DVD are B5 (+Crusade+movies) and Due South.    I'll have to check out The Expanse some time.

I find I tend to like individual movies or series, and then find myself disappointed when I follow the trail of actors, producers, writers, etc. to another movie.  I also tend to follow composers who create music for various things.

 It's probably having grown up reading Zane Gray and Louis L'Amour westerns, but I have a tendency to like good vs. evil stories where good is good because of integrity, honor, courage, and doing the write thing.  

I find I've liked some of the Stephen King based things such as Stand by Me, Shawshank Redemption, The Stand, and The Dark Tower.  I never realized how much he wrote in many genres.  I also like some of J. Michael Straczynski's work.  I found the old Babylon-5 TV series to be one of the best written series or movies I've ever seen.  He seems to be student of history, philosophy and religion.  His character development which included much growth and change over time as well as facing moral dilemmas was good.  He also made characters that had a lot of depth to them.  It was as if he couldn't write a character that he didn't respect at some level.   He also made keen insights into politics, war, religion, and social problems that weren't lectures about current politics but were timeless insights into human nature and foibles.   I can't count the number of great scenes and observations in that show.  Here's on interchange between a jaded ambassador (Londo) and his naive assistant (Vir) taken from the episode Point of No Return (done from a quick review and memory so it's probably off a bit).

  Londo: "No. No, this report is totally inappropriate. You have to do it again."  Vir: "But Londo, why? I've spent weeks working on this report. I didn't even sleep on the flight back from Minbar so I could go over it again. I've checked every single detail myself. It's absolutely accurate."  Londo:"Yes, Vir, I'm sure it is. And that is the problem. Here, you say: 'The Minbari have carefully preserved their cities over the course of centuries'."  Vir: "That's right, absolutely."  Londo: "No, what you should say instead is: 'Their cities are very old indicating a decaying culture.'"  Vir: "What?"  Londo: "And here: 'The Minbari put great emphasis on art, literature and music.' Say instead: 'They are decadent people, interested only in the pursuit of .. of dubious pleasures.' The dubious part is very important. It doesn't mean anything, but it scares people every time. All right?"    Londo: "Here, 'They are tolerant of differences among other cultures.'"   Vir: "Yes."  Londo: "No, make that: 'They have no well-defined sense of morality.' They'll love that back home."  Vir: "I thought the purpose of filing these reports was to provide accurate intelligence." Londo:  "Vir, intelligence has nothing to do with politics."

Interesting question that I had to really think about.

I've sat through 45 minute sermons that seemed like a few minutes and 15 minute sermons that dragged.  I've sat through 45 minutes sermons that should have lasted 10 minutes.  I've sat through loud active sermons that put me to sleep and through quiet detailed expositions that engaged me.   I've sat through expositions that were little more than meaningless impressive sounding theological jargon or a thin pretty veneer covering blatant proselytizing.   I've sat through series of personal stories that left me cold and others that were fascinating and inspiring testimonies of God's working.  I've sat through some that felt like God talking straight to me and others where I was a disinterested third party sitting there.  I've sat through sermon series on a particular topic that seemed to last forever and others that were great.

I'd lay part of this on me and part of this on the speaker.

What makes an effective fruitful delivery?    The speaker is comfortable being who God made them to be and doesn't try to be their favorite preacher.  The speaker is delivering God's words in His tone and His timing to the listeners.  The speaker shares testimonies of what God has done in their or other's people lives that leave the listener excited about God and inspired that He can do such things in others' lives.  The Holy Spirit communicates personal meaning to a large number of the listeners in various ways (be it the main thrust of the message or a single sentence or a "random" look or gesturing of a hand at a person at a particular moment).  The speaker knows what they are talking about.  The speaker has sincere motives.   And finally, the speaker simply has a wealth of spiritual wisdom, discernment, and insight in which they see things clearly and can say things clearly and focus on what God wants done. 

What makes for ineffective delivery?   Trying to act like someone else.  Speaking way too long or way too short.  Proselytizing and pointing out why they (and their church and denomination) are better than other Christians.   Regurgitating or paraphrasing long sections from various reference books or other materials.  Very distracting habits (such as one pastor I had who kept putting the wireless mic too close to his face which kept picking up smacking of his lips and tongue as he spoke).   Having an ulterior motive (which can be sincere) other than speaking right now and today what God wants.

2 hours ago, keet said:

I believe that we will be resurrected and go to the new earth, and agree that the Bible does not say that we will go to Heaven.  However, if I am at a funeral and someone familiar with the deceased says, 'She's happy in Heaven now', I probably won't argue and say something like "Actually, she's still dead right now and 'sleeping', but some time in the future she'll be resurrected and go to the perfect restored new earth."  I'll just agree because it's close enough.  It's an unfortunate misconception that many Christians have, but it's far from the worst.

I like the gentleness of your approach on this.  

Bottom line is that when we close our eyes for the last time on earth, the next opening of them will be in the presence of the Lord.  Be that instantaneous in the spiritual realm or after we've been physically resurrected, the net result from our perspective is the same.   Whether we came into existence as eternal beings at the moment of conception or whether our eternal life springs from Christ through the Holy Spirit making us alive throughout eternity through Him, the net result is the same.

18 minutes ago, Speks said:

Off-topic, but...

[Edited for space]

The main problem we face is dealing with why and how this happens, especially within the true Church. A secondary consideration is the impact it makes on an impressionable global population that exchanges information so easily and freely (and carelessly). The mature and enriching wisdom of Christ is greatly needed.

A few years ago there were a few vocal Christians on this site who believed the earth was flat.  The primary reason was a literal interpretation of verses that referred to the 4 corners of the earth and similar things.  For them, it is about biblical authority and perfection.  If the bible is wrong about the shape of the earth, none of the bible can be trusted.  This means any scientific "evidence" which contradicts biblical revelation has to be in error and any scientific "evidence" which confirms it had to be correct.  For them, it is a matter of salvation because the authority of scripture itself is at stake.  Anyone who disagrees is rejecting scripture.  I didn't realize this at first and initially attempted to address this from the standpoint of physics.  I also did not realize I should have been treading much more carefully and gently because I was running the risk of completely shaking someone's faith in scripture because if I disproved the earth being flat, what else of what they believed the Bible to say might be wrong.   Here's a thread some time ago where I attempted (as a physicist) to deal with points a flat-earth believing Christian had been raising as proof of a flat earth.  https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/212853-examples-of-applied-physics/   I suspect some people espousing these views online are trolls, but my sense is that there are a Christians who sincerely hold them as a matter of faith in scripture.  

Now I approach this from the difference between having faith in scripture versus having faith in our own fallible interpretation of scripture and the difference between having trust and confidence in God Himself versus trying to eliminate all intellectual doubts about everything we think we are supposed to believe.  This is a complete discussion and thread on it's own.  If there are further questions, it'd probably be better to start a new thread though there are probably some old threads dealing with this.  

[End of sidetrack] 

On 5/12/2020 at 7:54 PM, Michael37 said:

What do you think...discuss why Satan hates holiness or leave it alone?

I think we need to carefully define what we mean by holiness in a practical way.  Many Christians ultimately define holiness by various forms of legalism whereby external behaviors (not eating/drinking certain things, not doing certain activities, going to church enough hours per week, praying/reading Bible enough minutes or hours per day, not sinning in particular ways, putting in enough time doing ministry work, believing "correct" doctrine in labyrinthian detail etc.)   define how separated we are from the world and toward God.   In contrast, there is the resulting fruit of the Spirit as we are transformed as new creations in Christ which is in essence holy behavior by which our hearts and being is separated from the world.   In other words, do we define holiness by how much of a series of rules we keep or as the natural change in our affections and behavior which comes from being changed by God as we spiritually grow and mature?  

I think that the enemy attacks the work of God that goes on in our hearts.  "The thief comes to steal and kill and destroy."  Anything that takes our attention away from God, causes us to step away from other Christians and be alone, and is unhealthy for us spiritually is probably encouraged by the enemy.  My observation is that there are times seemingly holy things (which are external behaviors) can become idols we worship.   I've seen Christians turn proclaiming "correct" doctrine and correcting "false" doctrine into an idol.  I've seen Christians turn counting the number of hours per week they are in church (or doing other activities) into an idol.  I've seen Christians turn a lot of good things into idols that occupy more of their attention than God Himself.  I've done it myself and I think we all have to some degree in a lot of things which are good in themselves.  I think there is a useful discussion to be had on what constitutes real holiness which is what the enemy really hates versus religiosity which distracts from real holiness.

To what was asked in the OP, I'd answer by saying I see little point in discussing *why* Satan hates holiness.  I think we can take it as a given that he does.  I'm not sure that trying to dig into motives is helpful or healthy.  I'm as curious about various things as the next person, but there are some things I keep my hands off of and my eyes away from because little is gained from digging deeper.  I'll try to understand the motives of a human adversary because it makes communication and reconciliation possible.  However, I don't think that applies here.   I see little in the NT writings to suggest that the early church ever worried about this very much but simply took the existence of an irreconcilable spiritual enemy as a fact of life and worried more about *how* he attacked than *why*.

Having said that, I think discussing what holiness really is (external vs. internal as I alluded to above) and how it can be attacked or undermined is a helpful discussion.  I'm not convinced a discussion about why the enemy does things really gains us much.  The Bible speaks little of this and pretty much anything we try to discuss on this topic will probably rapidly start to fall into the realm of conjecture.   Though, I'm open to change my mind if I see some scriptural references or good expositions I've not see before.    I don't see this discussion as wrong or a serious problem, but just potentially a distraction.

5 hours ago, NotAllThere said:

(Which is why we have <insert least favourite genre here>)

   I don't know why, but I just love that line.  

56 minutes ago, Starise said:

I'm sure we could trade story or tow there

Just a few short comments here on this. You are certainly right we should be encouraging the next generations making music. I hope I didn't come off a too tough on them. I just think we need to be careful because Satan has also crept into the Christian music realm. 

Not sure why this is, but music seems to be somewhat taking a generational approach in terms of tunes selection. I am mentoring a young man who played with me on the team as a drummer and later moved to guitars and keys. He doesn't know a lot about music theory yet but he is picking things up fast. He is now leading the team where I once led. I would pull a "new" tune maybe once a month and we would go over it as an offertory the first week. My "new tunes" might be few years old but they are played on Christian radio still. My reasoning was they had been out and some people would know them already. This young man is pulling a new tune every week  and these are hot off the press new tunes. Eventually he's going to run out of tunes lol. I guess my brain can't keep up with that. I think he's starting to swing back the other direction more now and realize that not everyone in the service is 22 years old. I mean, I was playing some tunes written before he was born.

One thing that bothers me is playing a song with no life in it. I watched our stream today and the tempos were slow and there was no "jive" happening. Make that tune do something. Sing it like you mean it. I remember starting off too slow and then the whole band starts off a few clicks slow. Too late then. Sometimes I think the mechanical feeling to some of it is in trying to be too perfect playing it. To me sheet music is a rough guesstimate of the way it actually should sound. It's the lifeless version. Classically trained players lock up if they get a rest wrong. I believe at east 50% of it is feel. I compare it to reading a book, some people read with feeling. Other people simply read the book. Like-a-robot.

You didn't come across as severely negative but constructively reflective.  I had in mind those who are not merely critical but actively hostile and campaigning against things they don't like.

I know what you mean about "life" in a song.  It's the main reason I've been out of music for close to a decade now.  Practicing over and over to sound just like the CD seems pointless to me since you could just play the CD and accomplish the same thing.  The last few churches I've been in have taken that approach and it's just too frustrating and stressful for me to deal with anymore.   I spent about a decade or so as a worship leader and piano player in pentecostal churches so I got use to "flow" for lack of a better term where much of the playing was improvised and unscripted.  I'd often end up playing a lot of unscripted background music during prayer times after services and the worship teams I was in just got used to playing along to various chord progressions for background music. 

I think a lot of this boils down to how the leader of the music program views music.  Is a song a series of notes correctly played?  Or is a song a melody sitting on a chord progression with each musician contributing a part commensurate with their skill level and musical tastes?