buckthesystem

I like a lot of the Gospel music, I "discovered" it after I got all my brother's gospel CDs, but I had two tapes before that. I have been told that "there is no point in buying tapes as tape players are a thing of the past" and it is really annoying, the "stereos" you get now don't even have a tape player on them. But I find that they're way more practical, so I just use the old one we have that everybody wants to get rid of, that has been hanging round for more than 20 years. My son wanted to install a CD player in my car, but that seems ridiculous, I'm quite happy with the tape player that it has. But I'm rambling, sorry, I can't help it, I ramble. Anyway, the best Gospel song of all time has got to be "Just a closer walk with thee" Followed closely by "Amazing Grace" - the Tommy Daugherty version, or "Peace in the Valley" - I have the Loretta Lynn version on tape, but all versions I have found of this are good. Then another good one is "Before it's time for Amen" again by Tommy Daughterty. Then there's "People get ready". And, again, we mustn't forget "black Gospel" (if that is the right term). There are quite a few good ones here, but what comes to mind is "closer to the light".

Blindseeker, you said: "Everyone that has a Social Security number has a trust established in their name in which we become the debtor and the government becomes the controller. It is against that fictitious strawman / trust that the government borrows against from the privately own Federal Reserve Bank. We are made unto government assets/collateral and that is why you cannot take a newborn out of the hospital until it has be assigned a SS#" Not knowing everything there is to know about the American system I have a couple of questions, namely: I know that the SSN system has been in America for 60 years or so, but what did it replace? Does everybody have to have an SSN? Or only those who expect to get welfare? What is the "advantage" to people in "getting an SSN number? Do you need it to pay tax? And Every single baby that is born can't be born in a hospital. What if you have your baby at home or "out in the sticks" and just don't "register" it? And will the "real id" system replace the SSN system? Also (sorry, I know I did say a couple of questions, but .....) one thing that always "gets peoples' gander up" about any id system is "numbering the people". It seems that that is exactly what the SSN system is all about, so why is there/was there no fuss made about this?

I don't think we will know when the mark of the beast eventually comes. I think the genuine mark will come well after our generation is all gone and those who are left will have been subject to so much brain washing and propaganda about the "global village" that they will gladly take the mark that denotes them as belonging to the one-world state. I have heard say that "the mark" must be about worship, not necessarily money or "identity". Well, doesn't the "id system" (world-wide that is) make you "property of the state" and as you can "not serve two masters" you must worship your master - the state? But the big thing is "not able to buy or sell etc......" The id system covers all that. Maybe it is time to take all this seriously. Instead I hear the "excuse" so many times "it won't affect me so I don't care", "what about your children or grandchildren", "well, that is their problem". Does it not concern anyone that we are making the problem for them?

It would definitely seem that the id card/database (you mustn't ever discount the database as this is the really dangerous part of the "id card", the id card itself is just the seemingly benign "front end" of the system and used to market it because it sounds so innocuous - you know "what is one more card to carry") is a world-wide phenomenon that is being suddenly imposed on populations at all pretty much the same time). I have heard the theory that it is the MOB for years now. I even remember a friend telling me that and trying to explain "face recognition technology" and the possible uses of an "id card" well before the technology was even generally available to be used for surveillence and control. I listened to her views at the time but dismissed them, thinking "the world populations would never stand for this". However now, two decades later, I am thinking that she was absolutely right. What made me realise this was reading about the plans for taking peoples' biometric measurements for an id card - or rather the database. "ID card publicity" talked about taking an "iris scan" - which would affect the forehead (the MOB is supposed to be a mark on the forehead and there is nothing in the Bible to tell us that it would be visible) and "fingerprints" (or rather "fingerscans" as they are referred to now) would certainly be used on the right hand. Also the "id card/database" will be necessary so that we can "buy or sell, own property, rent property, work, and actually exist in society". Ickduboise says: "when the mark is established people will be given a choice as to whether or not they want it. It is not time yet for the mark. You will know if you are still here when the mark is offered" Well, yeah, that is true. The American id card, the UK one and the others all have in common the fact that sure you are given the choice, you don't have to drive, buy, sell, travel anywhere, work, seek medical treatment, live anywhere, visit a solicitor or library or learning institution, or in fact live. In other words you "have Hobson's choice" you either take the MOB or die a slow death from starvation or perhaps from accident or disease that you will not be able to seek medical treatment for. Oh, and of course (I guess not in America as I haven't read of any plans to "fine" people) but in UK they have a plan for the government to progressively steal money from somebody who doesn't want to be "registered" for the MOB/NIR until they are bankrupted. But there is always a choice. People seem to be concerned about an implant, a subdermal computer chip perhaps, or a microchip implanted in a body organ (I have read about that possibility). My theory is that "function creep" will take care of that idea. Implants will be mandatory in about three generations time (and what choice is a new born baby going to have?) And of course there will be little or no resistance to this because people will have been brought up with enough propaganda to make them feel that it is OK, even desirable. The big question in my mind is WHY? Why are governments doing this to their people? It seems from trying to read everything there is to read on the subject that there will be absolutely no "benefits" to anybody who has an id card or is registered on a government database and the "official line", i.e. "combatting terrorism, reducing welfare fraud" is utterly ludicrous and HOW an id card could do any of those things has yet to be explained. So the only "reason" I have come up with is: "Money". It has got to be about money (that of course, and the "delight" it will provide government employees in ordering people around). This site suggests that this might be a motive, read it and see what you think: http://www.nickcohen.net/?p=98

See this thread: http://www.worthyboards.com/index.php?showtopic=36128 Then see this: http://www.unrealid.com/ Now I've just got to get an answer on this: Exactly how (please be specific) will it "keep America safer"? And what people do you anticipate would "be in places they shouldn't be" as this hasn't been a problem before someone came up with this idea? And HOW EXACTLY WILL IT "HELP MINIMISE TERRORISM"????? But, more importantly: Why on earth should you show your id to a bus driver or train guard or at an airport????? Isn't this a little reminiscent of Nazi Europe and "show me your papers please" (and if they are not "in order" you just might be killed because you might be a suspected Jew/terrorist/baddie-of-the-day - delete as appropriate)?????? Lastly, do you really "have nothing to hide"? I know I do - it is called privacy. And "mark of the Beast or not" there is no way I will ever be showing an id card to anyone who demands it, and they will demand it. Now to "I don't think its the MOB especially 'cause its only in America, no other countries are getting the card...." THIS COULDN'T BE ANY MORE INCORRECT! UK is having the most horrible ever imaginable "id card/DATABASE system IMPOSED on them, against the will of the vast majority of the people I might add. John Howard in Australia is bringing in a system of "entitlement to welfare card" (or words to that effect) and even he admits that it is a prelude to a national id system, and a quick search - just go to a search engine and type in "id cards" - will reveal that throughout Europe and Asia governments all over are planning to "upgrade" their existing id cards to make use of biometric technology. Even in NZ we had the "digi-driving licence" dishonestly and with sleight of hand imposed on us in 1998. The biometric it uses is a digital image, though they do not yet "require" fingerprints or anything else and the government has done its level best to ensure that people have to produce it to banks, shops, libraries and employers. But fortunately there is resistance to this and I have always made a point of questioning the legality and demanding answers whenever this has come up and found that there is always "ways round these things". I continue to hope that there will be resistance throughout the world to this. It is really interesting to read about the systems that China and Japan have, they are truly horrifying.

Well, this is a hard question. I won't pretend I know the answer or even understand what it could be, but I heard a great analogy on the radio a little while ago that at least answered the question of "why does God allow bad things to happen?" It went something like this: It is sort of like God is sitting on a mountain top watching two aeroplanes flying towards each other at a 'great rate of knots'. He knows that the outcome will be a collision if one of the planes does not change direction very quickly and he obviously hopes that it will. God stops short of actually "making" a plane change direction, but if the pilot of one or both planes puts his trust in God and "does the right thing", everything will be OK. God knows the "right path" and also knows "our hearts" and how we will react to a situation. He knows what will happen to us (has predertermined that) and so as long as we go "with God's plan" everything will turn out as he wants it to. But we still have free will, we can reject God altogether and totally mess things up. I'm going to be thinking about this all night. But truthfully I think I'll have to put it down to "just another of those things that we haven't yet got the capability of understanding because it for God to know, and if he'd wanted us to understand it now, he would have told us".

Attitudes have changed very much lately. I don't know when it happened, but I just woke up one day and everything was different. I was talking with someone I worked with in a supermarket last year. She was telling me about her hard financial state and how they had to save up for this, that and the other. She said "we are paying off furniture and a car, paying rent, and I was going to put money aside for a wedding, but my partner said no! We are not going to get married". She had, at this stage, been living with this guy for about five years and admitted that she was "a bit disappointed" by his reaction, but she did "understand". I asked her why he didn't want to get married and she told me "he doesn't want to be committed". The thing is that they had three children. So this couple had been living together for five years and paying rent, they had both spent time and money on decorating their house and making a garden, they had bought furniture on "hire purchase" together, he had a car which she had helped him make the payments on (she didn't drive a car, but presumably he drove her and the kids around), they had bought each other "friendship" rings, had three children and yet didn't want to "be committed" and marry. I said to this woman "how much more committed can you get than what you are already"? Her answer was something along the lines of "if somebody better comes along ......." Then I thought about the kids and how awful it must be for them to be brought up in all this uncertainty. My grandparents were married "by banns" (spelling?) I'm not 100% sure what this is, but I think it is something like "married in the eyes of the church, but not necessarily the state". Does someone know? I look at civil marriages as paying money to the state and seeking their permission to marry someone. What is important is if you are or you are not married in the eyes of God. Would it be that the people in the scenario I mentioned above are actually married in the eyes of God? I don't suppose God pays much attention to a government issued marriage licence. We all have the strangest reasons for marrying the person we did. 30 years ago when we were married, my husband was in the Navy and we married mostly so that he could get a "marriage allowance" - or what ever it was called - when he was at sea. I think we were both too immature to think beyond "him going to sea" and it is a good thing that it worked out OK afterwards. I think it is absolutely essential that people know for sure if the other party has total commitment to them before having children though. But this is just another thing where the government has made things for marriage very difficult. People must be put off marriage by the fact that married pensioners get less than two single pensioners and young people are put off not only marriage but "going out" by the "matirmonial property Act". I often hear "satan is out to destroy marriages", but the government is doing it for him.

It must be a natural desire for us all to have our own family. We are born into a family, but in today's society of "people moving away" and "not being as close as we were in the past", that family may not last for ever. People die, people go and live in other cities and even other countries and if a young person waits and remains single, all their brothers and sisters might marry and/or move away from the family town or city, or even country, and the parents die and the young person in question is left "not so young" any more and still waiting for the "right" partner to come along. I remember reading the results of a survey on "what young people think is important to them personally" (bearing in mind of course that statistics are notoriously unreliable) and the results were that "relationships" are the most important thing to young people. Being 30 and having waited 12 years for "the right person" is one thing, but what if they are 40 and have waited 20 years or more? Might that not result in a "bitter middle aged person"? What if God's timing is to wait until the parties are both 45 or even 60 - beyond having any children or adopting any? Not trying to be awkward, just surmising.

The Anglican church my sister used to go to had a "mission statement" (or something like that) saying that they were "all inclusive of race, gender and sexual orientation". This particular church even set up a "branch" exclusively for "gays" because some of them didn't feel comfortable going to a church where they were not convinced that everybody accepted their lifestyle. My sister stopped going when they appointed - amongst a great fanfare - a lesbian minister. She started going to Catholic Mass for a while with some of her friends, but I'm not sure whether or not she continued going there or what she is doing about fellowship now. I gather that quite a few of the "mainstream" churches (I'm not exactly sure what "mainstream" means in that context) decided that they should be "inclusive of all lifestyles, and support gay rights". Leviticus 18.22 states clearly: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: It is abomination". So I really don't know how any church twists that to mean that God would condone the homosexual lifestyle. By my above post I was just trying to point out that I am not "bigoted" and will never condemn the person that a homosexual is. I realise of course, that sodomy is not all that homosexuals engage in and I do know (it was explained to me in graphic detail whether or not I wanted to hear it) exactly "what else they do". However, I still contend that it might be loosely related to "sex" but it is not, in any way, shape or form, "sex" or even "sexual activity" I am just also very wary of saying these things because I explained my viewpoint to a "Christian" and she told me I was "bigoted" and that I had "attacked a large proportion of the population". I believe (I could be wrong about this and I do stand to be corrected) that most states of America have not passed "hate-speech legislation", but I was reading about the Act that Canada passed and one threatened to be passed here, and this refuses to differentiate between "condemning homosexual people themselves and condemning their lifestyle as a sin". I think we have to make our position absolutely clear. A sinner, to be "saved" must repent from the sin. God does love everybody, but he does not necessarily love what they do.

Being a homosexual is not a sin. But participating in homosexual sex IS. 1Cor. 6:9-10, Rom. 1:26-27, 1Tim. 1:9-10, Lev. 18:22,29,30. I agree that participating in homosexual sex is SIN. The bible based for marriage and it is for woman and man. God created Adam first that he formed him. Then Adam should not be alone so he needed helper so God formed Eve. Yes Church welcome gay people because we love others like Jesus said Love others like love yourself too. It dont means that it is allright for people have same sex relationship. We dont support their lifesytle but we love them.. God loves people but HATES SIN! I will find more verses.... I'm very hesitant to say this, as I haven't found very many people who will agree with what I am about to say, and it has "offended" people in the past and brought up all sorts of allegations and words like "insensitive", "homophobic" and "unfeeling", and really "put the cat among the pidgeons" in a lot of discussions, but as this is a truly Christian forum (a rarety in today's world) I'm hoping that I might not get a "shock, horror" reaction, so I'll say it anyway. Words, language in general, is one of my obsessions. I believe that the words we choose to convey something are very important as we can get so "tied up" in "politically correct speak" and "trying not to hurt anyone" that we risk conveying an entirely different message to the one we intended to. My contention is that there can be no such thing as "homosexual sex", male homosexuals practice Sodomy and indulge in other practices which have nothing at all to do with "sex" as do lesbians. The word "sodomy" is considered to be a swear word in today's speech, and it seems to be believed that if we call it "sex" it is somehow all loving and "warm fuzzy". As for the word "homophobic" (actually enshrined in legislation in many places now). This is the most ridiculous word I have come across lately and means literally "a fear of oneself" or (as someone pointed out to me) we have to take the word (or actually prefix) "homo" in its usually accepted form as a short form of the word "homosexual" so therefore it can be taken to mean "a fear of homosexuals". Obviously I am not afraid of homosexuals, and I doubt very much is anyone on this board is, either. But having said all that I personally know three homosexuals and they are very good friends and some of the most wonderful people you'd ever meet. I know that two of them are "practising homosexuals" (how could I not, they both talk about it all the time, but I'm sure they don't mean to) but I just deal with that by making it clear that I "don't want to talk about what you've been doing". They know how I feel about their "lifestyle" and we have an understanding "I don't harp on about what I believe and they don't harp on about what they believe. It is certainly true that most churches today have embraced the "gay lifestyle" and teach that it is OK to do what ever you like and still be Christian. In my mind that is really trying to bend Christianity to mean what we want it to mean. Sure Jesus had a lot of dialogue with and got on well with all sorts of sinners. But he did make it clear that to be a true follower of Christ, you have to give up sin. Yeah, love the sinner by all means, but condemn the sin (I hesitate to use the word "hate", I don't think I "hate" anything, or anyone).

The "rapture theory" has, it seems, been around for a very long time. But I only heard of it quite recently. To be honest, I really struggle with it. I quite believe that we are in "end-times" now as the argument that the technology has never existed before now for the fulfillment of all the prophesies seems far too logical to ignore. But the "rapture", I would like to believe in it. But then, it seems to me to be "just too convenient" for Christians. It gives us an "out" too readily and if we believe that we will be raptured there are a lot of things that we don't have to deal with as we will be "whisked away" and others will be left to deal with the mess that they have created. Just about all my family and old friends are non-Christians and I cannot stand the thought that they might be left to deal with the tribulation in a world where there are no Christians to help and comfort them. I believe that if the "rapture theory" is correct, it will definitely not be in my life-time. I believe that it will take another 50 or more years before it is obvious that the 2nd coming is imminent, and it is only my husband's family who "live to a ripe old age". If the world continues to go "down the path that it going", it will have spiralled "right back to the beginning" in another 50 or 70 years and we will be back to "the cave days". But this will be way past my time, and if it is 100 years - which is "nothing" in the "great scheme of things" - then it will be way past my grandchildrens' time too. Also I find it hard to understand the belief that we will keep our physical bodies. I don't want my smelly old body hanging round forever, do you want yours? I've always associated bodies with "something that we are equipped with to meet the physical needs of the earth" and they would be irrelevant in the "hereafter". What does anyone else think? I don't want to "pour cold water"on anybody's hopes but I am just saying what I feel about it. But a question I have about the "rapture" (and one that I hope somebody can "shed some light on") is: What about the earth? Wouldn't the earth be knocked off its access or something if so much matter was taken away from it suddenly?

Can't resist saying this David, but for the funeral of your uncle you should hire the suit, not buy it. Unless of course you have a series of events coming up that you will have to wear a suit for, and even then people might say "hey, isn't that your funeral suit"? I am also a "blue collar worker" (if that term is appropriate for women) and I no longer have any "dressing up clothes". When I realised that I'd probably never need them again, I gave away my "dress clothes". I have a three quarter length black shirt that I bought to wear in the supermarket where I used to work and that will do for any funerals I may attend. The last funeral was a bit hurried, and I had to travel a long way and sleep in the truck so there wasn't any room for "good clothes" and I found that that didn't matter at all. Some of the people there were "dressed up to the nines" and I was wearing my old jeans and work boots, but I didn't have a problem with that and I figured neither would anybody else if they were to think about it. I feel pretty much the same way going to church. Our pastor went to help out the mission in Thailand two years ago and he came back with some brilliantly coloured locally made shirts which (he says) "his wife makes him" wear to church along with his "cargo" shorts or trousers. Some of the women at our church (particularly the elderly women) really dress up. Some of them, in particular, have a wonderful sense of "what matches what" and look just great. It is really a pleasure to see them sometimes. But me, my daughter say to me "you have the worst taste in the world" and my mother used to tell me "all your taste is in your mouth", so I don't even try and just wear my old working clothes to church. I figure as long as they are clean and not in disrepair they will be OK. Church is not a fashion parade and I am sure that the Lord doesn't care about what we wear.

Why not? A family in my church does that. They are both professionals, both have separate accounts and a joint account, they divide up the bills and each one pulls their share of the load. They run the financial side of their marriage like a buisness. I have heard the teachings of Burkett and the like, and if it was the 50's I'd say their plans work. But for a variety of reasons, tax reasons, legal reasons, sometimes just temperament reasons, the "one size fits all" marriage isn't always the best. Are their specific Bible admonitions about having joint bank accounts I am unaware of? In my research, "submit" as Paul used it means to "prefer the other person." And also that submission goes both ways, but ultimately the husband is held to a higher standard, esp. in the realm of the spirit. In the area of an unequally yoked marriage, the Christian spouse would have to his/her level best to live according to the Biblical mandate, but the unbelieving spouse is under to obligation to do so as Paul's teachings seem to be directed to a Christian/Christian marriage. "A biblical marriage with his/her money" might work for some people, but you'd have to have absolutely equal (down to the last dollar) incomes, working hours, spending habits, senses of responsibility (i.e. "we need to recarpet the bedroom, but we also want to spend money on new clothes, golf clubs, shoes, car repairs etc.") or there would be resentments. My husbands wages are more than two thirds as much again as mine and if we were to split every cost as a business would, I would very soon run out of money. Does the "cost sharing" apply to things like food as well? If it was like that in our house, it would be terrible. My husband would be having meat a lot and I would only be able to afford mince or sausages. And what would one party to the marriage do if they found themselves in financial strife? Borrow from the other partner? Gee, I'd always be in debt to my husband. Yeah, I guess I knew that biblically the word "submit" doesn't really have any awful connotations. It is just that that word conjures up a whole lot of images for me. We'll just have to find another word.

Suzana, I really respect your position, but I did say that this was all my opinion, and therefore entirely the way I see it. So "backing it up with scriptures" is not possible. However, there are (I believe) no scriptures that say "a woman is a lesser creature than a man and that is why she must submit to his 'authority' all the time". I am certainly not a raging, radical feminist, and I don't even see a need for women to use the title "feminist" in everything they do, in the western world anyway. I don't really think there is a problem with Christianity and women, things just are the way they are and that is fine. It is just the word "submit" or the word "submissive" that I am having a problem with. I know this sounds "nit picky" and pedantic, but words are all important to get or not get ideas across. If I have annoyed anyone by my post, my sincere apologies.

"submissive", "submit to authority" - interesting choice of words. I like to think that I don't, and will never, "submit" to anybody - except God that is, of course. Nobody on this earth has my automatic respect as an "authority" and I feel that no one (in this life) can expect anyone else to "be submissive" to them in any way. I see that it is good to "cooperate" with other people and be "reasonable" to them, but that does not make anyone at all at the bottom of a "power base" as the word "submissive" implies. Young children should "mind" their parents and "do what their parents tell them" because they should be able to have trust in the fact that their parents "know best" and are always on the lookout for the welfare of their kids. We are born "what we are" and we have to accept that women were born with their main goal in life to be the bearers and nurturers of children, and to take care of the basic needs of the family members - husbands included of course. Women are not as physically strong as men (well I know I'm not anyway) so they should not have to cut down trees, fix the car, rescue the dog from the river, go hunting etc. We have husbands, sons and brothers for that. However, they should do "what they can" to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the family. My opinion, alone, of course. It is just that I have a "thing" about words, and the word "submit" in my mind conjures up images of "putting up with something that is evil". If anyone thinks I am being pedantic, I will accept someone's wrath. This is why I am labelled "buckthesystem".

I have always admired Thomas the apostle for his insistence on first-hand knowledge and proof. It is good to "just have faith", but I find that I cannot. People have said to me "it is obvious that the creator exists, look at all the evidence". And a good friend of mine who has been a Christian for a lot longer than I have says "it is easy and so wonderful, just believe" and when my son says to me "why should I believe in Jesus as our saviour" I say to him "just look, it is written there", but I can see how that would mean very little to my son. Some people have a "personal experience with God", they see him or hear him. I have seen what he does, but I have never been able to see him or hear him. Things have happened to me that I attribute personally to Jesus, I tell myself (and others) that God provided a house for me, a job, a husband, kids, food - everything I have really. I have seen the transformation he made in my mother - she went from being basically a scatterbrained, self absorbed person to a true believer who put everybody elses' needs above her own in everything. She turned into a person who genuinely loved everybody no matter what they were or what they had done and she would never stop giving to those who "didn't have" or doing things for those who couldn't "do for themselves". Like Thomas I would like to be able to see the resurrected Christ and prove to myself that he was dead and now he is not. Maybe seeing what my mother was was my "proof" such as Thomas had. I like to think I could have faith, but I have got to be honest and admit that "evidence" makes faith a lot easier to have. Sorry to ramble on about my personal take of the situation, but I believe that is the point of discussing something academically - so that we can relate it to our personal lives.

In my opinion it is essential that children grow up with the ability for discernment. They must be able to see for themselves what is real and what is not. And to do this, they must be exposed to all the "classic" stories, all the fairytales and the stories about the Greek gods, more recently Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings, science-fiction stories. It is all part of growing up. By "banning" Harry Potter books from our homes and similar stories of "witchcraft" we might be taking the risk of causing our kids to think "what is this mysterious book that I'm not allowed to read?" And they might deliberately seek it out. By "banning" something, you only risk making it all the more "attractive and mysterious" to people. My kids went through a stage where they became obsessed with "horror movies" and they were in danger of taking them too seriously, but then spoofs like "scary movie" came along and that made them see how ridiculous the other movies really were. If we are going to be wary of anything, we should be cautious about our kids watching "queer eye for the straight guy" or soap operas with the obligatory 30% "gay" characters. Or programmes with an "ultra politically correct" message surreptitiously telling our kids that "we should all not only be tolerant of sin, but accept it as part of life and just another life-style choice". My husband pointed out something to me the other day that I hadn't noticed (and he is not Christian, so that could have had nothing to do with it). My 20 year old son lives downstairs to us and is basically autonomous and my husband walked past his "area", hearing my son's stereo, on his way to the garage and commented to me "no wonder young people have so many problems today, listen to their music, it is really depressing". That is probably far more important than Harry Potter books. And as for "spongebob" and other cartoon characters. Maybe we tend to go a little "overboard" and read things into things that are not necessarily there. I was just reading of somebody's criticism (and they got really "hot under the collar" about it too) of the old childrens' stories. Mentioned were: "Popeye the sailor" - "totally inappropriate" and "racist " and "Noddy" (you know, "Noddy's car", and "bigears") - this person described Enid Blyton's books as "xenophbic, homophobic and racist", and according to her there was so much wrong with "the jungle book" that time wouldn't allow me to post it here, and "Biggles" or "Tin Tin" - again "xenophobic, homophobic and racist". Does anyone remember the childrens' book "little black Sambo"? And I remember a bookshop owner telling me more than 20 years ago that stories of "Robin Hood" should be banned because "it is a story about men living together in the forest", shock, horror! So, somebody, somewhere will always find something wrong with every piece of literature ever put out. The only way round it is to teach our kids to think for themselves about just about anything they read, hear or see. And Eric, I watched "Peter Pan" too. I have to admit it will always be a "classic" even though I didn't think much of the story, but evil? Probably not! I don't think anybody (including kids) would take it that seriously.

Just a couple of things Zach, tried to post in the "humour" section and I got "this username has already been taken". Hmm, I really did register only once, so how? Also, the "introduce yourself" section says "locked", then it says "this is fixed" but it is not. So what gives? I am not criticising this, just trying to sort it out. Buckthesystem (also the user name for "gloryforums").

I finally got around to registering on this. I added the site address to "favourites" quite a few days ago. At the rate things are going around here, I will get around to posting something - or rather more importantly reading something - soon.

I know that we should not be "unevenly yoked", but sometimes it happens that way through no fault of our own. The wife might become converted to Christianity before the husband, or vice versa, or you might marry someone whose denomination you believe will be compatible with your own but it does not turn out that way. I have become a Christian, two years ago now, and I am still expecting that my husband will also come to Christianity in time. I pray about this and don't really know what else I should do about it as I don't want to "come on too strong" and put him off. I believe very much in tithing to the church, but I don't because, although I have my own job and wages, I don't consider that it is my own income but part of the "family income" to be shared (after all for years when our kids were young my husband shared his income with me and the kids). We have a major mortgage to pay off and we are not young and don't have a lot of time to do it in so he doesn't spend a lot of money on himself - hobbies, clothes etc., so I feel that it would be pretty unfair of me to donate 10% of what should be his money too, to a church that he doesn't really believe in. This is a very difficult subject. One that would be easily solved if both parties to a marriage thought the same way, but the reality is that isn't always the case. I do believe in honesty though very much. You should be totally honest with someone you are about to marry, and should discuss anything that might come up later so there's no horrible suprises. Suprises like a mother-in-law who turns out to be so scary that you only visit her four times in 30 years and then find out that she has attributed everything bad that has ever happened to her, to you, in your absence. I think also that you have to discuss having kids with your husband. Not only, "will you have any kids" but "how many will you have". Agreement is not always possible, but compromise usually is. My husband felt very strongly that he only wanted one child, I wanted four. So we compromised and had two. I really regret that, and feel that we should have had three, or I should have "held out" and got four. But then he does point out that having more kids would have been really difficult. He is probably right after all, it would be him who would have to support them. I used to very much support the "feminist movement" and thought it was the most wonderful thing "since sliced bread", but I have realised recently how destructive it has become. Like a lot of things, the "pendulum has swung far too far". A few years ago a woman whose housework I was doing had a visit from her daughter who had a six year old son, the daughter was very upset because she had answered an advertisement for a self-defence course for young kids at the local "womens' centre" and tried to enrole her son. She was told by the woman running it: "There is no room here for boys, it is boys like your son that I am trying to teach these girls to protect themselves from". Then a little bit later I had a friend who decided to "go back to university and get a PhD" after her kids had grown a little and were not so dependent on her. After a while she said to me "when I have finished this I am going to write a book on how many university women leave their husbands, change their names and become lesbians". She was kind of joking about it, but then we talked further and realised that in the last three years we had known five women who had done exactly that. They had "thanked" the "feminist movement" for giving them the courage to do that. The "feminist movement" has also infiltrated the mainstream churches, unfortunately in the end to their detriment. After pressure we had women priests and ministers, that was fine, but then noises started to be made about "accepting" lesbian priests and ministers. Where is the line to be drawn.

BTW Thank you very much Matthitjah for your comments,but I must confess that I am not actually a "brother" at all, but female. Look at my profile, it is just government departments that I have a paranoia about giving information to, not websites.

First off Matthitjah, I must apologise for my badly worded statement about the water and the fishing. I didn't intend to imply that anyone was, or is, mentally deficient in any way and I'm sorry because it came across that way. I just don't believe in seeing a sign put there by a government employee and initiated by a government bureaucrat and automatically obeying it without questioning the reasoning behind it. That sort of puts us in the category of a small child whose mother might say "no, you can't play in the sandpit, simply because I say so". Although as small children we might be able to have trust in our mother's motives (i.e. the cat might have made a mess in the sandpit) we cannot afford ever to have trust in government officials. And it is incredibly arrogant of them to assume that we are going to think "the government knows best" and that they do everything they do - including issuing orders - because they have our best interests at heart. This is almost never the case, and there are very rare occasions when somebody can say to us "you do that because I say so, but I am not going to tell you why" and their motives are genuine. Sure, it is true that "some folks enter civil service with good in mind", I just have yet to meet or hear of any. You are absolutely right when you say "of course they quickly exit" - doesn't that prove the rule? And Of course you're correct in saying "Paul obeyed the civil government but never compromised the word of God". This might have been pretty well possible in his day, but in subsequent centuries it has become almost impossible. How do you think Paul would have handled living in Europe in the 1930s? Would he have turned a blind eye to the "laws" coming out every other day progressively reducing Jews to "non-citizens"? (I.e. "Jews must surrender all firearms", "Jews may no longer hold driving licences", "Jews can no longer have pets", "Jews can no longer own any property" etc. etc.) And it is possible to obey civil gov't with regard to the laws on abortion when clearly that goes against God's word? "If your boss asks you to perform a particular task and it isn't harmful in any way, should you directly obey him or should you begin to question his motives?". Of course I would directly obey my boss, this is because he has to get his own job done and his own job is to delegate others to do tasks and if we don't do things properly the company will not make enough money to pay our wages, so it would be stupid to refuse to carry out what he wants done. Also he has spent many, many years studying and working hard to get to be in the position he is in and I feel I can have sufficient trust in him to believe that his motives are almost 100% pure. However, petty gov't officials, government 'officials' of any kind or politicians ARE MOST DEFINITELY NOT MY BOSS AND NEVER WILL BE and none has ever given me any reason to believe that I should trust them. I realise that Christians should not dedicate their lives to politics and instead devote their time to bringing others to Christ, however I believe that we should not ignore the harm that politics does in society either, in fact I do believe that it is our duty to bring injustices to light. I am apolitical in the sense that I don't vote (mainly because I have realised the danger of being on a "gov't list", i.e. the "electoral role") but I don't consider myself to be a "law abiding citizen" and "putting my head in the noose", I don't go around stealing and killing or breaking any of the 10 commandments - but then that is not "obeying civil gov't, but obeying God. I do, however, "speed" (according to our news media "speeding" is the worst crime anyone can possibly commit, but who among you can honestly say that they never "speed"?). I don't wear my seat belt because I don't like the feeling of being "restrained" or "shackled" or having my movement restricted, my dog is not "registered", my car is "registered" but I resent greatly the fact that I feel I have given in to blackmail to do that, and I don't ever voluntarily fill out government forms or volunteer any information to government employees. I do, however, write "letters to the editor" every other day because I feel that that if what we all should be doing. I believe that civil government is "of the devil" not "of God" and we all should do our best to keep a check on that or civil government might get the idea that their policies have our consent. What use are we to Jesus if, as he said "we are the salt of the earth" but that salt has lost its savour? God gave us a brain, we should use it. So we are Christians, living in this world but being concerned about the next, this does not make us exempt from exposing injustices and fighting satan (satan often works through civil government) at "every turn". God's law must always come first. We cannot ever compromise it or confuse it with what man demands of us, if there is a conflict (which there often is) we must always choose God. I guess your view would depend very much on your definition of "we are to respect those in authority over us". I do not believe, at all, that God has put any civil government employees "in authority" over me. Do you? My view is that when Jesus asked someone to catch a fish where in it's mouth would be a coin to "pay tax" with, he was sort of "humouring" the civil rulers of the time. Sort of saying "let the baby have his bottle", "your ruler craves the obedience/opression of men, so humour him while you are both on the earth, I will sort it out in the hereafter". There is no way that I will believe that any other person on this earth has a "natural right of authority" over any other. Any natural right of authority is reserved for God alone, and we should never confuse that with nasty, sinister, stupid, greedy (etc. etc.) government "officials" or politicians having "authority" over us. The only "authority" they have is that which we choose to give them, and (in my opinion anyway) there is only room for one ruler or authority figure or lawmaker. My opinion, ultra-cynical I do realise, but then it is a cynicism born of being able to (or thinking I can anyway) see how many people have died throughout the ages because they believed and trusted in "civil authority". But like every opinion, you can argue about it (argument is always healthy) and you certainly don't have to agree with it.

Quote: "50cent dog, you mentioned the example: "if a sign says 'no fishing' if we decide to fish anyway we have chosen to sin". Really I'm not trying to pick holes in your comments, just get people thinking. We should look at the reason why it is demanded that there be "no fishing", we might just find that the only "reason" is that some greedy politician wants to impose control and the bureaucracy that was created around the idea that people should obey signs written by bureaucrats wants to become even more bloated with the money they can extort in "fines" for fishermen". Then Mathitjah said: "Then again it may actually be that there is something in the water that is dangerous to you and someone is just looking out for society in general". Well, the answer to this is obvious. Are we all some sort of mentally retarded children who have to be protected from ourselves and who might irresponsibly fish in poisonous waters and need to be told by bureaucrats "don't do that" but protected also from knowing why - if that is indeed the reason we should not fish there? We should question everything and not take anything at face value as there is often a sinister motive behind "it is the law, you have to do it". We owe it to ourselves and everyone else to ask why, all the time. And further, "render therefore to all, their dues: Tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to whom custom is due, fear......., honour .......etc." I looked into the "meaning of the original words of the time" and I believe that "tribute" refers to "voluntary tithes to our ministers who attend to our salvation" NOT taxes paid to greedy government officials. And "custom" refers to other tithes to other ministries when we travel. And as for "fear" and "honour", do we really owe government officials and politicians "fear" and "honour"? We have to be real and look at what civil government is. It is a series of politicians who are head of layers of bureaucratic "officials" down to petty "officials", who carry out the often evil policies of the politicians. Logically would God ordain that? Are we to obey civil government when they tell us we must all take "the mark of the beast"? Right up to, and including, the point where they say we must "dob in our neighbour" because they might be a Jew or a Gypsy or a Christian and therefore are a "danger to society" - in the words of the civil government? The true sin, surely, is putting the law of man before the law of God. Even further, I believe that all Christians have a responsibility - an OBLIGATION if you like - to "buck the system" and QUESTION EVERYTHING (i.e. is the demand by civil government for some moral reason, or not?) No civil government "official" should have automatic obedience and respect. These things must be reserved for God alone.

The fallacy that Christians should always obey the "law of the land" even in the face of obvious immorality and plain wrong is very dangerous indeed. I haven't seen it quoted in this thread but I have often heard Romans 13 wrongly used as an excuse to excuse any kind of government atrocity of abuse. I believe that Romans 13 is generally misunderstood and that the wider context of the New Testament shows the correct meaning. Romans 13 starts off with "Let every soul be subject to the 'higher powers'...." In this (and in fact any) case "higher powers" means God and his ministers and ordinances, not worldly rulers. God does not ordain worldly rulers. Does anyone think that God ordained Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin, Benito Musselini, Pol Pot, or any one of the hundreds of nasty, murderous "world leaders"? We have to be very careful in differentiating between the "law of God" and the "law of man". There are laws against murder and stealing, but these are not laws of man, but laws of God as they are also in the ten commandments. It is incredibly arrogant of man to claim "you must not steal because "I" say so. This really has nothing to do with man/politicians/lawmakers, we do not need them to tell us that it is wrong to kill as God has already told us that. I think we have to start thinking for ourselves and stop obsequiously obeying "law enforcement personnel" and politicians. About 20% of the laws in existance exist for reasons of logic and reason and are totally consistent with God's law, whereas the other 80% exist entirely to line the pockets of greedy politicians and bureaucrats or satisfy their insatiable desire to weild power over the population. 50cent dog, you mentioned the example: "if a sign says 'no fishing' if we decide to fish anyway we have chosen to sin". Really I'm not trying to pick holes in your comments, just get people thinking. We should look at the reason why it is demanded that there be "no fishing", we might just find that the only "reason" is that some greedy politician wants to impose control and the bureaucracy that was created around the idea that people should obey signs written by bureaucrats wants to become even more bloated with the money they can extort in "fines" for fishermen. Christians often get around this by saying that we should obey the laws of man as long as they do not conflict with the laws of God. But often they do anyway. Most governments are evil, their main concern is to perpetuate fat, bloated hoards of bureaucrats who do nothing uselful but are entirely self serving and grow like a virus. I see that paying taxes is one of the things being advocated as "a law to obey". So why should you pay taxes towards the cost of women having abortions or Terry Schiavo being starved to death? Surely if you help pay for it, you must be condoning it. Another passage that is often quoted is "render unto Ceasar what is Caesar's ....." Well, doesn't everything belong to God anyway? One theory is that this was said by Jesus as a sort of a way of saying what he meant (i.e. "it is God's anyway") but avoiding confrontation as well, as at the time it was said, to advocate not paying taxes would have been a death sentence. I don't believe in total anarchy as I believe we need some semblence of order in the world but when Jesus appears in the other seat and says to me "wear your seatbelt and slow your speed down, you are breaking my law" I will do up my seatbelt and slow down, but until then I will continue to "buckthesystem" (this is, of course, when I am on a rural road miles away from any cyclists, pedestrians or children). We "break the law" every day. It is almost impossible for us not to as a lot of the laws OF MAN are created entirely to tempt us to break them and as a result provide money for governments. Why do we accept that it is a sin to kill and yet we must obey a government who orders us to kill (or at least be complicit in a killing by not objecting to it)? And we accept that it a sin to steal, yet we condone government doing it all the time? Sure Jews in Europe during the 1930s might have bought into the lie that they had to obey civil government and they were "sinning" if they did not, and they paid the price for that and had trust in civil government but it was very much to their detriment. We should learn from that. If we break the laws of God we will be held accountable for it before God. Governments break the laws of God all the time and the leaders and lawmakers (and hopefully those who actually carry out the "orders" of governments) will also be held accountable and judged before God. Yet funnily enough those who kill or steal on behalf of government are never held accountable in this life as well. They simply chant "I am just doing my job". Well, is God going to be impressed by that statement and just say "oh well, if it was your job, then it must be OK". Reading about the Nuremberg trials of 1946 brings to mind that the excuse was often "I was just obeying orders" or "I was just doing my job". The judge at the time was not impressed by this and I don't think God will be either. Will God accept "we were just obeying civil government" as our excuse when we are asked why we helped pay for millions of abortions to occur, for Terry Schiavo to be killed, for six million Jews to be massacred, for people to be killed at Ruby Ridge or the atrocities that occurred at Mt Carmel or for millions of other people to die at the hands of civil governments? What are we going to say to God when he asks us why we were silent and watched political correctness take hold of the education system and "strangle the life out of" our children? Are we going to tell him that we had to obey civil government? This is what I mean by "dangerous". Of course this is just my opinion and I certainly don't expect everybody to agree, but it is food for thought.

"....if you found out you had a serious illness and you only had five days left before your death ....." Hmm, pretty difficult. Having a serious illness I think it rather likely that you would be incapacitated to an extent and therefore wouldn't be able to do much in the way of hard physical activity. Personally I would take a leave from work - not bother resigning or people would ask too many questions. I, personally, wouldn't want to go round advertising the fact that I was "on my way out". I would then plan to spend the remaining time at home and not go out unless I absolutely had to. Telephone and email is a good way to "say goodbye" to valuable friends and family who are not within "shouting" distance. I would then spend the time going through all papers, insurances etc., checking that they are "up to date", "paid up" and that there would be no reason why the companies would refuse to pay out to the beneficiaries. I don't have much in the way of property so would leave the aspect of "who gets what" to be sorted out by those left alive. The main object would be to try and make sure that anyone left behind wouldn't be stuck with the burdan of "handling my affairs" and "tying up loose ends". I would spend the rest of the time in prayer and contemplation of where I might be going and how excited I would be to be in the position of knowing basically when. This would be wonderful. We often tell ourselves we are "too busy" to make time for communicating with the Lord and we will do that "later". However, the absolute priority would be to try and bring as many people to the H/S as possible. This would be a great opportunity to be an example of happiness in the Lord - you know, "look at me, I'm dying and look how happy I am at the prospect of living with my father".