Kansasdad

Yea me too, GOOD JOB Neb ole boy/ oh I mean Girl K.D.

pssst, Nebula is a she

No, I believe our role from a biblical perspective is more of a tenant. One can be a good tenant, and thus be a good steward of a property, or one can be a bad tenant, and trash a property. Its the choice of the tenant. Does that mean God's gonna keep our security deposit? No it means that if we are good stewards of the land: Leviticus 26:4-6 I will give you rain in due season, so that the land will bear its crops, and the trees their fruit; your threshing will last till vintage time, and your vintage till the time for sowing, and you will have food to eat in abundance, so that you may dwell securely in your land. I will establish peace in the land, that you may lie down to rest without anxiety. I will rid the country of ravenous beasts, and keep the sword of war from sweeping across your land. If we are poor stewards of the land: Revelation 11:18. "The nations were angry and your wrath has come. The time has come for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great - and for destroying those who destroy the earth." I am not sure where this opposition to preservationism / environmentalism comes from on the part of some Christians other than they associate it with left wing movements. I say this because the scriptural case for being good stewards of the environment is very strong. I find that the resistance is not in agreeing that we need to take care of our environment, rather it is resisting the solutions being put forth that really only line someones pocket. God Bless, K.D.

How do you fight this. I deal with this all the time. In fact I lost my last job because of this very issue. Little people wanted to get rid of certain department managers so they started the gossip, making sure the board of directors heard. Almost every board meeting I was "hit" with how bad certain managers were. I would then launch an investigation and find that it was completely false, report the findings to the Board and get some comment like well where there is smoke there is fire. I refused to allow these people to be destroyed through the gossip. Eventually when they couldn't get to them because I was in the way, yep you guessed it, the gossip turned to me. I had a Board that loved the gossip and lived in that world. The truth didn't matter. As it turns out I am now in a much better situation for me and my family, but the point I am making is no matter how much truth was shed it didn't matter. They wanted to believe the rumors. Frustrating. God Bless, K.D.

Huckabee is the man we need to support. Thompson has been disappointing on his presentation. Like it or not, far too many people vote on their impression of the candidate. So far Thompson has not been leaving a good impression. Hopefully with Brownback dropping out his supporters will now support Huckabee. I am praying for Huckabee God Bless, K.D.

Before you do too much mocking, consider this passage: First, be aware of this: scoffers will come in the last days to scoff, following their own lusts, saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation." They willfully ignore this: long ago the heavens and the earth existed out of water and through water by the word of God. Through these the world of that time perished when it was flooded by water. But by the same word the present heavens and earth are held in store for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 2 Peter 3:3-7 HCSB First, understand that I am not accusing you of being a scoffer. But I don't think it is an accident that in a thread centered on global warming, the topic has changed to what God will do at the end of days. The bible seems to indicate what we believe about the nature of the created order and our response to the end times are closely related. Notice that Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, readily admits that people will make conclusions about God's involvement in the world (based on their empirical observations of reality). Peter ties this to peoples view of nature. He says that we should not be surprised that people have begun to scoff, because they have even misread nature. They have based their conclusions about nature soley on what can be empirically observed. According to Peter, their observations have not taken into account the greater reality that lies behind what we call nature. Nature exists because it was spoken into existence by the very words of God. As an example, Peter uses the time immediately after creation. There was much more water in the earth in those days, and people interpreted this as a matter of fact. They did not realize that God had a greater purpose behind this. He used the very things they had empirically observed as naturally occuring, to bring judgement. They missed it because their world view was based on what they could see. It is the same today. Warming exists. The problem is that people who use the empirical method as their basis of reality ignore the greater reality that is behind nature. God has a greater purpose for the current creation. According to Peter, part of that purpose is a purging. This purging will destroy what we currently interpret as the ultimate reality, in favor of the true reality that is behind it. This is echoed in Hebrews 11: By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not visible. Hebrews 11:3 HCSB The delay in the end that many find as a source for scoffing is actually motivated by God's love and patience. This is what Peter said regarding this: Dear friends, don't let this one thing escape you: with the Lord one day is like 1,000 years, and 1,000 years like one day. The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, it is clear what sort of people you should be in holy conduct and godliness 2 Peter 3:8-11 HCSB So what to make of all this: 1. What we observe empirically is not the final word in terms of what is real. 2. God is behind what we currently observe, and has a purpose that is beyind what we can observe. 3. Our empirical observations must be screened through the reality that is behind what we can observe empirically. 4. The fact that what God predicts hasn't happened already, is not a reason for scoffing, but a window to draw near to God in faith 5. The current creation is being prepared to give way to the reality behind it. We should live our lives for the coming eternal reality, not what we think we see now. As Peter said: Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of the immoral and fall from your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen. 2 Peter 3:17-18 HCSB I like this!

This is what I found most disturbing about the whole issue. There were many parents that were fine with the whole thing and are allowing their child access to the clinic. Now it is not about sex at 14 or 15. Our parents are accepting sex at 11 and 12. It really makes you wonder what is going on in those homes?

Sure, annualized Carbon Emissions from resulting from human activity is roughly 150 times that resulting from Volcanic Activity. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year. This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit. What difference will any reductions we try to do make? Further we know that in the earths history we have seen carbon levels much higher then what we have today. Long before we had our industrial revolution. The Earth has seen spikes in the carbon before and it had nothing to do with humans. Now, are humans contributing to some of the carbon? Yes, but nature out does us every time we turn around. Just look at the energy released by one hurricane. Should we be good stewards of our planet, yes. But lets make sure it is really not about power and money. Ok we put about 5 or 6 billion tonnes and nature puts 150. So we contribute about 3%. Lets say we can cut our emissions down by 30%. Now we will be contributing around 2%. Do you really think cutting 1% of the total carbon emissions will make a great difference? God Bless, K.D. The 150 billion tons of carbon that is naturally emitted is naturally sequestered. Prior to the industrial revolution, natural carbon emissions were in balance with natural carbon sequestration. We have upset that balance and that is why CO2 ppm has increased steadily since the industrial revolution. Actually forest I read through all this stuff and I knew you would bring up the "balance" issue. Dig a little deeper and you will see that the whole balance theory is based on assumption and not data. The saturation of carbon has seen periods of great flux and is in a constant state of change, so one can not claim a balance unless you are referring to a large amount of time to achieve the balance. If that is the argument then 150 years easily fits into just another part of the on going cycle that has occurred many many times. AND it still does not account for the fact that we still can only attribute at max 3% of the total to human activity, and realistically how much of that 3% can we eliminate? And would it make one squat bit of difference. I also know by reading through pages of arguments on this that it is far too complicated to "argue" on this forum so lets not go there. My point is that we can do all the things some are suggesting and it will make no impact on the problem. The agenda behind the dramatic changes, tax increases, and mandated programs is money, period. God Bless, K.D.

Sure, annualized Carbon Emissions from resulting from human activity is roughly 150 times that resulting from Volcanic Activity. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year. This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit. What difference will any reductions we try to do make? Further we know that in the earths history we have seen carbon levels much higher then what we have today. Long before we had our industrial revolution. The Earth has seen spikes in the carbon before and it had nothing to do with humans. Now, are humans contributing to some of the carbon? Yes, but nature out does us every time we turn around. Just look at the energy released by one hurricane. Should we be good stewards of our planet, yes. But lets make sure it is really not about power and money. Ok we put about 5 or 6 billion tonnes and nature puts 150. So we contribute about 3%. Lets say we can cut our emissions down by 30%. Now we will be contributing around 2%. Do you really think cutting 1% of the total carbon emissions will make a great difference? God Bless, K.D.

I am not sure how one comes to the conclusion that nature does more in one act than man has done in all of our entirety. Man has developed 40% of the world's land surface, the only comparable natural event I can think of would be a direct hit by a comet or asteroid, or super volcano. As to China, we certainly cannot expect them to do anything if the world's richest nation, with per-capita carbon emissions several times what theirs is, does nothing. Please answer this. How much carbon emissions does one volcano produce and how much carbon emissions did the US produce this entire decade?

I am sorry if I have offended anybody with my post on the Anti-Christ. Actually, I do belong to a church whose official doctrine includes this particular point: that the Pope in Rome is the Anti-Christ, represented by the "little horn" of Daniel 8. God bless, Chryss Wow that is an interesting little nugget. I am very curious as to what denomination has this official doctrine? God Bless, K.D.

The problem is that nature does more in one event to effect global warming then all man has done in our entirety. Our impact is very minimal. Therefore, changing what we do will also have very little effect. Coupled with the fact that Russia and China are not going to change anything. Whats the point. Can you really stop a volcano. Until you figure that one out, you are beating your head against a brick wall. Just trying to keep it real. Al Gore is about money, and power and nothing more. God Bless, K.D.

But is does. Take a look at the passage again. Most people who quote it only quote the first part: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved They leave out the clarifying statement: but whoever does not believe will be condemned. It is the follow up statment that clarifies the meaning of the first. The logic of the passage itself precludes that both are necessary. That is what creates the logical problem in the first place. So, you really have not addressed the logical problem. If the second phrase was not there, you would indeed be correct. Both could be required, or either could be required. In fact we could draw no conclusions form this passage because it would be ambiguous. But there is a clarifying statement by the author. The reason the author placed it there was to avoid the logical problem that people who use this verse to justify baptismal regeneration commit. In the passage's current form, the verse would need to say this for what you are proposing to be true. mark 16:16 because of its structure is actually more of a proof that baptism is not required: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned. But it doees not say that. It says this: Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16 HCSB Now, in terms of other passages we would need to address them one at a time to make sure the structure, context, and greek support what you are maintaining. Just out of curiosity. Do you know how many meanings the word Baptism has in the NT? You have missed the point. Baptism is a part of believing. You are trying to separate the two and I am saying they can not be seperated. Just like love can not be seperated from belief either. There are also examples of baptism by blood and baptism by desire. All of which are part of belief, or faith, and are the avenues in which God gives us his Grace.

Actually I thought it was about the CoC Here is a question to ponder. If it has nothing to do with our salvation then why does God tells us to do it so many times? It has no benefit to other human beings, It does nothing to us physically. Its only purpose is some fulfillment of Gods command on a spiritual level. Its only purpose is an avenue of Gods Grace. Not an avenue created by man, but an avenue dictated by God. God can administer his Grace however he chooses, who am I to argue with his methods. God Bless, K.D. God tells us to love each other many times. He tells us do many things many times. The number of times a thing is mentioned by God, does not equate to its being required for salvation. Baptism has a tremendous benefit to other people. When we (our church) baptize, we invite all the unsaved friends and family of those being baptized. When they hear the testominies of the people being baptized, they are drawn into the kingdom (We have had the unsaved commit to Christ because of witnessing the testimonies given at baptisms). Baptism is a public testimony. It gives fellow believers a chance to rejoice over the testimony of the one baptized. Our congregation actually cheers after every baptism (we do 100's a year of new converts). It is also the believer's first step of obedience as a believer. The original question was why the COC is considered a cult. It is their view of baptism that has caused many to so consider them. Still interested in an interaction with Mark 16:16 Post 196 spoke to your question directly, Here it is again, The problem is that your logic is only taking into consideration this one verse. The fact is that baptism, salvation, and the forgiveness of sins are addresses in many places in scripture. You need to look at all scripture has to say on the issue. Further, your logic does not preclude the possibility that both are necessary. It just allows for different options of interpretation. both of which could be correct if all we had to go by was that one verse. Fortunately, the Bible address this in several places. When you look at all that scripture has to say on the issue you see a pattern of correspondence. Baptism is definitely part of the plan designed by God. I would further contend that when there are competing possibilities we should look to the early church fathers who were taught by the Apostles and see what they taught. If one of the possibilities lines up with what they taught and the other does not, I would say you have a definitive answer. God Bless, K.D. Also, all of which you described above could be accomplished with a trumpet blast and a shouting declaration from the new convert. But God didn't say believe and shout it to the masses, and be saved. He does repeatedly say to believe, be baptised, and repent. I would also say that part of believing and repenting is to love your neighbor. So if you do not love you will not be saved. Because if you do not love you do not believe. so yes love is a requirement of salvation, because it is a requirement of belief. God Bless, K.D.

Old Testament Law right there. however, that "action" is really demonstration (which is fine) but it does not tie into salvation. It is two sides of the same coin so it deffinately ties into salvation. God Bless, K.D. this is no different then OT believers going to the temple and sacrificing, feasts, tabernacle etc etc etc. they all did these things with the concept of "salvation" through action. "Actions" never saves. if thats the case then we have many great humanitarian atheists that will enter heaven and John 3:16 is a lie. I never said action alone saves, that is your spin on it. And this is very different. In the New Testament God tells you to do it. That should be the end of the conversation. Rebellion is not belief. God Bless, K.D. No argument there. God commands baptism for believers and we should do it. But it is also important that we have a correct understanding of its function in relation to salvation. My understanding of this discussion is that we are talking about its role in salvation, not whether or not believers should do it Actually I thought it was about the CoC Here is a question to ponder. If it has nothing to do with our salvation then why does God tells us to do it so many times? It has no benefit to other human beings, It does nothing to us physically. Its only purpose is some fulfillment of Gods command on a spiritual level. Its only purpose is an avenue of Gods Grace. Not an avenue created by man, but an avenue dictated by God. God can administer his Grace however he chooses, who am I to argue with his methods. God Bless, K.D.

Old Testament Law right there. however, that "action" is really demonstration (which is fine) but it does not tie into salvation. It is two sides of the same coin so it deffinately ties into salvation. God Bless, K.D. this is no different then OT believers going to the temple and sacrificing, feasts, tabernacle etc etc etc. they all did these things with the concept of "salvation" through action. "Actions" never saves. if thats the case then we have many great humanitarian atheists that will enter heaven and John 3:16 is a lie. I never said action alone saves, that is your spin on it. And this is very different. In the New Testament God tells you to do it. That should be the end of the conversation. Rebellion is not belief. God Bless, K.D.

KD, Thanks for responding to the passage itself. I really appreciate it. How do you deal with the issue in logic I presented? I understand your opinion about Mark 16, but could you address the logical issue that people are forced to commit in order to land on the position the this passage required baptism for salvation? In other words I think you have clearly stated your opinion about the passage, but I see very little interaction with the passage itself or the logical issues I raised. The problem is that your logic is only taking into consideration this one verse. The fact is that baptism, salvation, and the forgiveness of sins are addresses in many places in scripture. You need to look at all scripture has to say on the issue. Further, your logic does not preclude the possibility that both are necessary. It just allows for different options of interpretation. both of which could be correct if all we had to go by was that one verse. Fortunately, the Bible address this in several places. When you look at all that scripture has to say on the issue you see a pattern of correspondence. Baptism is definitely part of the plan designed by God. I would further contend that when there are competing possibilities we should look to the early church fathers who were taught by the Apostles and see what they taught. If one of the possibilities lines up with what they taught and the other does not, I would say you have a definitive answer. God Bless, K.D.

Old Testament Law right there. however, that "action" is really demonstration (which is fine) but it does not tie into salvation. It is two sides of the same coin so it deffinately ties into salvation. God Bless, K.D. ps. The command of baptism is brought to us over and over again in the New Testament. This is not just an Old Testament law.

In Mark we are called to believe and then to immediately put that belief into action. Belief without action is worthless, and really not belief at all. If we are in active rebellion against the very belief we profess do we really believe? You are trying to separate two sides of the same coin. The thief professed his belief and took the only action that was available, he basically told the other thief to shut up, and Horizon is correct, we do not know that he was not baptised. That is an assumption with no support. We see several times where we are told to believe, repent, and be baptised. If you have not done so, then you are rebelling against what God has told you to do. If you have made God your lord and master then would you not do what you are told to do. Then when you come up short, which we all do, does not God then tell us to repent. What happens if you refuse to repent and change your ways. It really is quite simple, God tells us to do it, so do it. God Bless, K.D.

Ok I am confused, but I will admit that I skipped some of the pages. Does the CoC recognise the Baptism from a different Church. Fiosh gave the analysis of God establishing one Church and the Cahtolic Understanding of how all Christian churches fall into this through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Yet I believe it was stated that this is not what the CoC teaches. Is it the teaching of the CoC that only those Baptised in the CoC church will be saved, so If some one is Baptised in the Methodist, Luthern, Catholic, Baptist church, that doesn't count? I would especially like to hear from Scarletprayer and Smallclad, I gather you are both attending the CoC church or have in the past. God Bless, K.D.

As I am reading through the post I am reminded of the letters released from mother Teresa. We see that she also had times of great darkness, but we see by her fruit that she endured. She kept doing what God called her to do. I think this is a great testament to endurance. Even one who's life is a testament to faith will faced great doubts and dark times. Tsth also provided a great post on how the Apostles had great times of struggle as well. Paul refers to the thorn he endures. Our endurance is the real testament to our faith. We may claim to have faith, but that does not mean we really have faith. Endurance is a measurement of faith. If our faith is grounded in sandy soil it blooms yet dies. How do we ground our faith in good soil? god Bless, K.D.

My thoughts exactly. Well, except that I'm from Canada. Are you all taking into the account that there are warlords killing millions in African countries with no gun laws? Anyways, I'm going to head back into my barracks and continue my work making bullets 23 hours a day for my evil war lord taskmaster. Ok take my post out of context here I didn't say anything about Gun Laws. I was not making any kind of political statement on gun laws. I was just making the observation when the mass populace does not have guns they are very vulnerable to people with guns, and no amount of gun laws will keep the guns out of the "bad guys" hands. ie: warlords. Currently GB has enough deterrent to keep the war lords out. You have more guns. You have some very big ones in fact. The only problem you have is, who controlls those guns. Right now it is your Government. So who controls your Government, and will they be in control 20,30, 50 years from now?

Look at the countries that don't have a civilian population with guns. War lords terrorise the masses and kill them by the millions. ( I know this is a generalization) but with merritt I think

And they shall call evil good and good evil. There is nothing about PP that comes from God. Satan is so proud of his little orginazation. Kansas Dad

Pillar: A stone collum; or One who occupies a central or responsible position Bulwark: to fortify or protect with a bulwark; secure by or as if by a fortification.