MissTury

Cute and funny, and it makes a point. As a technicality, there is no doubt that arctic ice would be missing there, since that is Antarctica in the image!

At least on that note, I am a bit different. When I vote, I do not think in terms of what is best for me, I vote asking myself the question, what is best for all of those affected! Sometimes that mean voting against my personal self interests!

Whether or not that is the case, we are all sinners. Sinners like you and I, are tempted to sin. Sin is what sinners do! Sinners are called to repent. Some do some don't. Sexual attraction is powerful and common. We (and God) expect people to exercise self control, even when that goes against our instincts, desires, and selfish interests. It is therefore not an unreasonable expectation that those who are homosexual (as well as everyone else) to follow God's rules. Homosexuals are not different in that way. Just like me, I am also a sinner, and can choose to follow my temptation to sin, or resist it. Who has not either acted in violence or hate, or stolen, or lied? These are all sins. It does not matter what our specific temptations are, or whether or not they are influenced by genetics or birth defects. We still need to resist sin and abstain from it. We can either do that, or we can rebel against God.

Wow, I am late to this party, but I am still looking for the elephant!!!

Yes, what is with people, who thinks of these things?

That was easy, it only required about 4 minutes to finish!

No, the Bible does not save us, but it tells us what it means to be saved, and what we do when we are saved, what the characteristics are of those who are saved, and, what things they believe and should come to believe. I suggest reading the gospel of John, thoughtfully, and learning about salvation there, at least for starters.

I would just add, that rejection is one thing, and persecution is something very different. Persecution is of course a kind of rejection, but not all rejection seems like persecution. The cost is higher for one than for the other, but devout Christians should be [in my opinion] willing to endure both. Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, who have told me that having the door closed in there face is persecution, I think persecution tends to be physically dangerous, at least it sure looks that way to me in the new Testament. Looking up a word for it in Helps Word Studies, I read - HELPS Word-studies Cognate: 1375 diōgmós (from 1377 /diṓkō, "follow, pursue") – properly, pursuit (chase); persecution – literally, "the hunt to bring someone down like an animal," trying to suppress (punish) their convictions. See 1377 (diōkō). 1375 /diōgmós ("religious persecution") literally refers to those seeking to punish God's messengers with a vengeance – like a hunter trying to conquer (obliterate) someone as their "catch." [1375 (diōgmós) is used in ancient and biblical Greek for persecution (hostility) shown by confused, spiritual "leaders." For example, it applies to the Roman Emperor, Decius (ad 250-251). He killed thousands of Christians who refused to offer sacrifices in his name.]

Far be it from me to police this thread, but Omegaman 3.0 just mentioned that media censorship happens, and used climate change as an example. Since then, every post in this thread as been off topic?

Then I said "I have a simple question. How are we to know that you have fairly represented the claims and not misrepresented them? Shouldn't the same standard apply to you that you want from others? Maybe your assertions are inaccurate or taken out of context. Were these claims made in these forums?" Never mind, I found it for myself. Omegaman 3.0 said: So notice what Omegaman said: Joyce has said She has said She has said She has said She had a version Notice any similarities in the tenses of his comments? There are all past tense, and do not allege that she currently hold these views, or that she has never said anything which indicates that she things otherwise now. If that is the case [and it is] then Fidei Defensor has not done what he [or she] claims they have done. Then have not demonstrated the accusations to be false or refuted anything about them. What he or she has shown is that Joyce Myer might be singing a different song now. Even that is not evidence that she has repented of past bad or sloppy theology, it only proves that she has not been consistent over the years. Now if there is evidence somewhere of Joyce saying things like such as "you know when I said that, I was wrong and I apologize for misleading you" or "when I said that, what I really meant was". That would be good evidence of her current theology being better, but it would not remove those errors in her past history. Omegaman's accusations were about her saying things in the past that shows she had not been a good teacher, and that as such she should not be held in high regard as an example of why women should teach. Now in as much as that is the case, I think an apology to Omegaman is probably in order, for misrepresenting what he said, which so far may well be right on the money. Perhaps a more thoughtful and accurate analysis is in order, one with less much emotional investment in the topic. Interesting thread though, by the way!

I have a simple question. How are we to know that you have fairly represented the claims and not misrepresented them? Shouldn't the same standard apply to you that you want from others? Maybe your assertions are inaccurate or taken out of context. Were these claims made in these forums?

Slander, is a false spoken statement that damages another's' reputation. If a false statement is written, then that is called libel. You accuse someone of slander who what, wrote something? That is a curious thing. So first off, you wrote something false that damages a reputation when you accused a writer of Slander. You are presuming what he wrote is false, so guilty because you have pre-judged him just assuming he was wrong, maybe you should wait to see where the evidence points. This does not sound like an impartial investigation, it sounds as if you are out to get even with someone for daring to state that there is something wrong with a teacher you like - or am I missing something here? If it turns out, that there is evidence that Joyce Meyer made these statements, or other ones which may come up, are you ready to apologize for what you are doing? Really, you should already apologize even if she is not a false teacher, because you are making your accusations before you have looked at the evidence. I believe what you are doing, is called sin. If the evidence is not up to your standards, like citations of written materials, and voice recordings of Ms Meyer, you are now going to claim that they are doctored? Seriously wow! If video is produced, will you then claim they were crafted using CGI technology? Then, you go and assign motive [jealousy] to those who accuse her. Can you really know there hearts? Maybe examine your own heart and see what really is motivating you. Still, here are some plausible sources of information, that readers may look at, because if she is a false teacher, that should be exposed. You have already set the bar very high for what you consider to be proof, others may have different standards, and find them credible, and not assume bad motives. By proposing bad motives, you are again [without knowledge] damaging reputations. That may not be false information, but it is certainly not something you know to be true. youtube: Is Joyce Meyer a False Teacher The beat by Allen Parr Joyce Meyer || False Teacher Police Leader Joyce Meyer: False Teacher? - 12 Concerns (w/ Voddie Baucham, Justin Peters, Todd Friel) ReformedWiki Did Joyce Meyer REPENT Of Her False Teaching?! Fight For Truth Joyce Meyer is a False Preacher Exposing her False Gospel Teachings Berean Perspective Apologetics websites: https://www.equip.org/uncategorized/joyce-meyer/ (Christian Research Institute) deliverd by grace exposing Joyce Meyer https://static1.squarespace.com/static/586c240e725e250e1dc73403/t/5aba6dd988251bc5b38f49ad/1522167257765/Exposing+Joyce+Meyer.pdf https://carm.org/preachers-and-teachers/joyce-meyer/ https://broadoakpiety.org/2019/01/17/exposing-false-teachers-no-1-joyce-meyer/ https://www.equip.org/article/the-teachings-of-joyce-meyer/ https://the-end-time.org/2021/02/09/bullet-points-on-why-joyce-meyer-is-a-false-teacher/

Well, send me a three page essay, singles spaced, about why you think you might want to date me. If I like it, I'll send you an application to date me, then I will consider it. Preview: Question one: Is Jesus Christ the most important person in your life? Question two: Is Jesus Christ the Lord of your life? Question three: Is Jesus Christ the only God, and creator of the heavens and the earth?

I don't, but I wonder why the government is even in the marriage business in the first place!

Maybe not many, only the real ones!

I think your comment makes this post worthy of the conspiracy area! However I am encouraged that the January 6th hearings are a thing, as it shows us that the Democrats have nothing to run on other than more manufactured hype like their exposed Russia hoax!

Was reading your thread on Pharaoh's hard heart, and the forum software recommended this thread as Similar Content. I am happy that I checked this out, what a great OP, you have a gift!

Are you saying that Peter was a Calvinist? Interesting passage, touches on lots of things!

Interesting thought, and I cannot answer it. I also cannot help but wonder if the verse about the coming of the son of man being like the lightning that shines from the east to the west means anything, or if that loud command at his coming, lasts for hours, of just briefly. However, I am one who believes that the harpazo is virtually simultaneous with his return at the second coming. 1 Thess 4:16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. (resurrection?) 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together (harpazo?) with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

He thinks: "Oh my, there goes that sinner Miss Tury, messing up again, but I love her anyway, and am looking forward to her being with me perfected soon!"

How about a long version that is more descriptive, like "the catching up of believers"?

The Septuagint has Goliath, at 6'6", more or less, and as I recall, a dead sea scroll had him at 4 cubits and Josephus had him at 4 cubits and a span. Not sure what any of that means (just how big were these cubits?), but his armor and implements of war, make him sound sizable. I think surely, he was a large man, if nothing else, but perhaps no more so that Andre the Giant was, if that. In my opinion, the pictures of skeletons and foot prints in rock, could all easlily, perhaps even likely, be fakes. However, ayin jade's article had nothing to to with any of than, only with Philistines in general. The only thing about Goliaththere, is in the title, because most people could care less about the Philistines, but Goliath, now he is more interesting.

He did refute what you said when he pointed out that you alleged that certain Pope said something in the 17th century, when no such pope by that name even existed at the time. You asked him to refute what you said, or cease harassment. Since he did refute your post, I think he and others should continue to correct you. You didn't even acknowledge your error, you just repeated it! The question is when you are refuted, will you even notice? Humble people learn from their mistakes, proud people ignore them. Which are you Mr. Kiwi?

So then, you did not post that reply because you chose to, you just did some automated writing that God predestined and then just now, pulled your strings? I am not sure I am understanding you correctly, or, did I fairly represent your position?

Article March 6, 2017 The Shack- The Missing Art of Evangelical Discernment - Al Mohler The publishing world sees very few books reach blockbuster status, but William Paul Young’s The Shack has now exceeded even that. The book, originally self-published by Young and two friends, has now sold more than 10 million copies and has been translated into over thirty languages. It is now one of the best-selling paperback books of all time, and its readers are enthusiastic. According to Young, the book was originally written for his own children. In essence, it can be described as a narrative theodicy — an attempt to answer the question of evil and the character of God by means of a story. In this story, the main character is grieving the brutal kidnapping and murder of his seven-year-old daughter when he receives what turns out to be a summons from God to meet him in the very shack where the man’s daughter had been murdered. In the shack, “Mack” meets the divine Trinity as “Papa,” an African-American woman; Jesus, a Jewish carpenter; and “Sarayu,” an Asian woman who is revealed to be the Holy Spirit. The book is mainly a series of dialogues between Mack, Papa, Jesus, and Sarayu. Those conversations reveal God to be very different than the God of the Bible. “Papa” is absolutely non-judgmental, and seems most determined to affirm that all humanity is already redeemed. The theology of The Shack is not incidental to the story. Indeed, at most points the narrative seems mainly to serve as a structure for the dialogues. And the dialogues reveal a theology that is unconventional at best, and undoubtedly heretical in certain respects. While the literary device of an unconventional “trinity” of divine persons is itself sub-biblical and dangerous, the theological explanations are worse. “Papa” tells Mack of the time when the three persons of the Trinity “spoke ourself into human existence as the Son of God.” Nowhere in the Bible is the Father or the Spirit described as taking on human existence. The Christology of the book is likewise confused. “Papa” tells Mack that, though Jesus is fully God, “he has never drawn upon his nature as God to do anything. He has only lived out of his relationship with me, living in the very same manner that I desire to be in relationship with every human being.” When Jesus healed the blind, “He did so only as a dependent, limited human being trusting in my life and power to be at work within him and through him. Jesus, as a human being, had no power within himself to heal anyone.” While there is ample theological confusion to unpack there, suffice it to say that the Christian church has struggled for centuries to come to a faithful understanding of the Trinity in order to avoid just this kind of confusion — understanding that the Christian faith is itself at stake. Jesus tells Mack that he is “the best way any human can relate to Papa or Sarayu.” Not the only way, but merely the best way. In another chapter, “Papa” corrects Mack’s theology by asserting, “I don’t need to punish people for sin. Sin is its own punishment, devouring you from the inside. It’s not my purpose to punish it; it’s my joy to cure it.” Without doubt, God’s joy is in the atonement accomplished by the Son. Nevertheless, the Bible consistently reveals God to be the holy and righteous Judge, who will indeed punish sinners. The idea that sin is merely “its own punishment” fits the Eastern concept of karma, but not the Christian Gospel. The relationship of the Father to the Son, revealed in a text like John 17, is rejected in favor of an absolute equality of authority among the persons of the Trinity. “Papa” explains that “we have no concept of final authority among us, only unity.” In one of the most bizarre paragraphs of the book, Jesus tells Mack: “Papa is as much submitted to me as I am to him, or Sarayu to me, or Papa to her. Submission is not about authority and it is not obedience; it is all about relationships of love and respect. In fact, we are submitted to you in the same way.” The theorized submission of the Trinity to a human being — or to all human beings — is a theological innovation of the most extreme and dangerous sort. The essence of idolatry is self-worship, and this notion of the Trinity submitted (in any sense) to humanity is inescapably idolatrous. The most controversial aspects of The Shack‘s message have revolved around questions of universalism, universal redemption, and ultimate reconciliation. Jesus tells Mack: “Those who love me come from every system that exists. They were Buddhists or Mormons, Baptists or Muslims, Democrats, Republicans and many who don’t vote or are not part of any Sunday morning or religious institutions.” Jesus adds, “I have no desire to make them Christian, but I do want to join them in their transformation into sons and daughters of my Papa, into my brothers and sisters, my Beloved.” Mack then asks the obvious question — do all roads lead to Christ? Jesus responds, “Most roads don’t lead anywhere. What it does mean is that I will travel any road to find you.” Given the context, it is impossible not to draw essentially universalistic or inclusivistic conclusions about Young’s meaning. “Papa” chides Mack that he is now reconciled to the whole world. Mack retorts, “The whole world? You mean those who believe in you, right?” “Papa” responds, “The whole world, Mack.” Put together, all this implies something very close to the doctrine of reconciliation proposed by Karl Barth. And, even as Young’s collaborator Wayne Jacobson has lamented the “self-appointed doctrine police” who have charged the book with teaching ultimate reconciliation, he acknowledges that the first editions of the manuscript were unduly influenced by Young’s “partiality at the time” to ultimate reconciliation — the belief that the cross and resurrection of Christ accomplished then and there a unilateral reconciliation of all sinners (and even all creation) to God. James B. DeYoung of Western Theological Seminary, a New Testament scholar who has known William Young for years, documents Young’s embrace of a form of “Christian universalism.” The Shack, he concludes, “rests on the foundation of universal reconciliation.” Even as Wayne Jacobson and others complain of those who identify heresy within The Shack, the fact is that the Christian church has explicitly identified these teachings as just that — heresy. The obvious question is this: How is it that so many evangelical Christians seem to be drawn not only to this story, but to the theology presented in the narrative — a theology at so many points in conflict with evangelical convictions? Evangelical observers have not been alone in asking this question. Writing in The Chronicle of Higher Education, Professor Timothy Beal of Case Western University argues that the popularity of The Shack suggests that evangelicals might be shifting their theology. He cites the “nonbiblical metaphorical models of God” in the book, as well as its “nonhierarchical” model of the Trinity and, most importantly, “its theology of universal salvation.” Beal asserts that none of this theology is part of “mainstream evangelical theology,” then explains: “In fact, all three are rooted in liberal and radical academic theological discourse from the 1970s and 80s — work that has profoundly influenced contemporary feminist and liberation theology but, until now, had very little impact on the theological imaginations of nonacademics, especially within the religious mainstream.” He then asks: “What are these progressive theological ideas doing in this evangelical pulp-fiction phenomenon?” He answers: “Unbeknownst to most of us, they have been present on the liberal margins of evangelical thought for decades.” Now, he explains, The Shack has introduced and popularized these liberal concepts even among mainstream evangelicals. Timothy Beal cannot be dismissed as a conservative “heresy-hunter.” He is thrilled that these “progressive theological ideas” are now “trickling into popular culture by way of The Shack.” Similarly, writing at Books & Culture, Katherine Jeffrey concludes that The Shack “offers a postmodern, post-biblical theodicy.” While her main concern is the book’s place “in a Christian literary landscape,” she cannot avoid dealing with its theological message. In evaluating the book, it must be kept in mind that The Shack is a work of fiction. But it is also a sustained theological argument, and this simply cannot be denied. Any number of notable novels and works of literature have contained aberrant theology, and even heresy. The crucial question is whether the aberrant doctrines are features of the story or the message of the work. When it comes to The Shack, the really troubling fact is that so many readers are drawn to the theological message of the book, and fail to see how it conflicts with the Bible at so many crucial points. All this reveals a disastrous failure of evangelical discernment. It is hard not to conclude that theological discernment is now a lost art among American evangelicals — and this loss can only lead to theological catastrophe. The answer is not to ban The Shack or yank it out of the hands of readers. We need not fear books — we must be ready to answer them. We desperately need a theological recovery that can only come from practicing biblical discernment. This will require us to identify the doctrinal dangers of The Shack, to be sure. But our real task is to reacquaint evangelicals with the Bible’s teachings on these very questions and to foster a doctrinal rearmament of Christian believers. The Shack is a wake-up call for evangelical Christianity. An assessment like that offered by Timothy Beal is telling. The popularity of this book among evangelicals can only be explained by a lack of basic theological knowledge among us — a failure even to understand the Gospel of Christ. The tragedy that evangelicals have lost the art of biblical discernment must be traced to a disastrous loss of biblical knowledge. Discernment cannot survive without doctrine. This article was based on the novel and was originally published in 2010. Timothy Beal, “Theology for Everyone,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (January 15, 2010), pages B16-17. [subscription required]