None

Were you saying that to me? And if so, right about what?

Unless you have actually heard a minister ask a demons name and the demons reply. I wouldn,t take for granted what the minister said. Getting a real demon who has truly possessed someone to talk to you is actually a few and far in between event. I would be very careful if I were you. lol who cares if they talk to you all theyll do is lie lie lie lie lie lie or tell the truth in a way that is hurtful/deceptive theres a verse about how to recognize an unclean spirit basically any spirit which doesnt acknowledge Christ has come in the flesh is an evil spirit. So if you hear something hurtful/deceptive from a spirit or doesnt line up with Christ its evil. 1st Joh 4:3 My daughter has asked me questions about demons and this is what I told her: they are like bugs. Bugs are so much smaller than us but some people are very much afraid of them. It's an unreasonable fear. They cannot hurt us. All they can do is cast a line of bait in our ear and hope we bite. Remember the little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz? it's like that. Fearing them is handing them power and control. Without fear, all they can do is crouch. Know what works for me, though, I picture them singing this song if I give in to their temptation and it helps me resist it.

Welcome to Worthy, Gift of Grace! Funny, I was telling myself that just today. I'm beginning to believe there are no "safe havens" for Christians in this world, not even a church. God is our Rock, though, and on Him we stand. There is no Fortress like Him.

Not even on another thread? Anyway, SP did here and I agree with her point here: Because when people find out that they are being watched, they begin to behave like good little drivers. I object to the latter just fine because I believe there should be lines drawn. Lines that the whole people, the public, can vote on and come to an agreement on.

You certainly ARE a powerful tool for God. No wonder satan worked so hard to fool you. Today was a typical morning in my house. I woke up at 6:30am and made coffee. My daughter was in the shower. I woke my son up and layed out his clothes for him to dress himself. After he was finished, we started on his homework. By the time he was eating his breakfast, I realized that my daughter was not making any noise from her bedroom and I walked in to find her sleeping again. She was now going to be late for school. She quickly got dressed and I went back into the kitchen to be verbally battered by my unsaved husband. He was yelling at me and cursing and saying horrible things to me. This did not help anything but only made the situation worse. I tried to explain this to him but he refused to leave the kitchen. I continued to get my son ready to walk out the door and hurried my daughter again. My husband continued to spit curses at me, calling me a failure and telling me he was going to laugh at me every time my daughter is late for school and he is documenting every time so he can use it against me. I was crying by the time I was in the car, driving my daughter to school. She was only late by a few minutes but satan took advantage of this and made the whole experience mortifying for all of us. I prayed, on my way home, that God would make him stay away from me somehow, so I could make the rest of my son's morning pleasant for him before school. Little did I know, God had already had a plan, my husband informed me that he had been called into work early. What a relief. I thanked God over coffee and laundry. He is truly Good. Spiritual attacks come in MANY forms. I didn't blame my husband. I didn't blame my daughter. I knew who it was working against me this morning but I also knew who he was REALLY fighting. God is by my side and satan doesn't stand a chance.

Well, parenting is a job. The one He tells me to do and do well, so yes, right now I'm where God wants me to be and doing what He wants me to do. He leads me into many small tasks here and there and I remain pliable for Him.

Soooooooo you don't think God is interested in the welfare of our country? Not sure what "well, not really" is referring to ? Sorry, I should have indicated that I was refering to your "log" joke.

I've never had a problem with a camera either, so long as they made it clear where the camera is and don't keep their privacy invasion a secret. A job has every right to keep an eye on their employees because they are PAYING their employees to put up with it. Don't assume that just because a job wants to regulate their employees activity that that particular job's owners are on the "up and up", themselves. It only means that they don't want their employees costing them unnecessary money. I think cameras on streetlights are a good idea. I think cameras behind a dressingroom mirror is privacy invasion, regardless of how much theft a store is trying to prevent. It's a matter of common sense but also respect for others. Good sentiments, but how does "I think cameras on streetlights are a good idea" fit in with this? This would be a case of "the employees" (i.e. the government or local government) "spying on the employer" (i.e. the people). You mentioned cameras on lights, I gave my opinion. It prevents people from running lights and helps prevent accidents. Look, I hate all this technology advancement too, but what can we do? What do you suggest? So long as someone doesn't come into my home and plant cameras everywhere, I'm not going to throw too much of a fit. Of course, I don't dress in dressing rooms that have cameras and I would certainly protest cameras in bathrooms, I don't care if the guard is a female, most cameras are wireless and can be hacked. I've seen things on the internet that made me very cautious about undressing in a lot of places.

Amen.

Josh quoted, "There are good people who hold to each view, and each view has advantages and problems." That's what it all boils down to(in a broad-blanketed way).

If we are not children of God now, why did John write: Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1John 3:2) Or why did Paul write: And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Gal. 4:6) Both apostles stated that we are sons now, not after we are resurrected. The other poster was arguing that God uses the angels to add genetic material to the human race. This is the argument I was fighting against. The (contestable) argument that it was the fallen angels (demons) that married the daughters of men and had children with them producing the Nephalim is a different argument from what he was presenting. The fallen angels DID add to the genetics of humans which was a detestable abomination in God's eyes. Noah's family was, not only considered righteous, but had no traces of this polluted blood. Call it speculation, it doesn't matter, it makes sense. If Adam's blood were able to create super-humans and he passed this down through Seth, Noah would have this blood also. Unless someone were to say that this part of the Bible is simply not true. Calling Genesis 6:1-4 a misinterpretation or anything other than what it clearly states is calling that part of the Bible a lie. Further explanations can be found in books taken out of the canon. That, in no way means that the Bible is not inerrant, it means that there are other places besides the Bible that God's truths can be found. When people get so touchy about reading the books taken out of the canon it reminds me of the "old wineskins" parable Jesus told. If you haven't noticed, we're still attached to our human bodies, which is technically what the term "children of God" is speaking about. That's why Jesus said "we must be born again". Our bodies are from the line of Adam but our souls have been adopted by God. Hence, the statement: "it doth not appear what we shall be". That doesn' take away from the promise of "what shall be". A woman getting married considers herself married already, yes? In the same way...

2 Samuel 3:29 29)"May his blood fall upon the head of Joab and upon all his father's house! May Joab's house never be without someone who has a running sore or leprosy or who leans on a crutch or who falls by the sword or who lacks food." - King David (i'd hate to belong to that family line)

Antiaging, I'm sorry some people were rude to you, I know you aren't trying to "peddle" anything, only to find answers to the questions you have. No one on this earth has all the answers. No one. We're not going to find all the answers in the 66-book canon, only more questions. I'm very happy to see that there are people who read outside of the Bible. God is still alive today and is speaking through many different mediums, not just one book. Nebula, to answer your question, Luke 20:34-38 34)Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35)But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36)and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection. 37)But in the account of the bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord 'the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' 38)He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive." It is only after we are resurrected that we become children of God, according to Jesus' Words. When we "can no longer die" which cannot happen until after resurrection. And the angels, the ones who fell from their place, were no longer bound to this law that happens after God considers us worthy, so they did as they pleased and married who they pleased. They had already condemned themselves and were living in sin. Their bodies no longer had the eternal life given to those worthy of the resurrection. Just as Adam's sin caused his body to begin to die, so did the fall of the angels to their bodies. Might be why they decided to reproduce with Adam's daughters.

I think that the book of Enoch has a little more truth to it, than pagan philosophy. Many people think so as well.

I disagree with you. I'm leaving it at that.

You know we can go into theological circles with this? Recall how in Romans it is pointed out that Abraham was justified by faith, just as we are. The main difference between the people of faith before and after Christ's death and resurrection were that those before were believing in faith for something yet to come, and we are believing in faith for something that already has occurred. But let me present something else to you: Luke 3:38 - "...which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Here, Adam is call the son of God! What does this tell you? Easy answer: Adam was made from God's hands and not born of a woman. Everyone besides Adam and Eve are sons of Adam and Eve.

Good one. (well, not really)

Only two lines came from Adam, either Cain or Seth. The Cainites do not qualify. That leaves only option. Yes, and Paul in his epistles and in Acts also quotes from Pagan philosphers/authors. Does that mean that their writings are also inspired? Jesus also made references to the Talmud. Does that make the Talmud/Oral Law Scripture? Actually you need to read a little closer. I was referring to those making a case for angels procreating. I was saying that the case for angels procreating lacks foundational truth because Gen. 6:1-4 is the only passage in Scripture they can use to support such an unbiblical doctrine. Yeah, anyone can find ways to support unbiblical doctrine but they have to go outside the Bible, which only demonstrates the weakness of their position. Besides, the book of Enoch in commenting on these angels having sex with women, states that they produced giants towering at 450 feet tall. Is that what you believe? 450 feet is 300 cubits. Noah's ark was 300 cubits long. So you believe these women gave birth to giants that would grow to be as tall as the ark was long? The existence of such a race cannot be confirmed either biblically or scientifically. I didn't say it wasn't true. I said your ideas surrounding what it says, is not true. Again, you have to prove from the text, it demands "sons of God" to mean angels. "Godly" does not equal "sinless." You are trying to imbue your own values to my words. Shiloh, I can't even argue with you. You twist words worse than the snake in the garden of Eden, just to save face. Nebula, It's very easy to find the term "sons of God" in the NT because it refers to AFTER we recieve Christ as our Savior and God adopts us into His family. Those scriptures, in fact, open up the door to the explanation that we are all, otherwise, sons of Adam. Shiloh, you would have us believe that there was a righteous line, Seth's line, and an unrighteous line, the line coming from Cain. As if Adam had only two children. Genesis 5:4 clearly says that he has other sons and daughters after Seth. If the "sons of God", spoken of in 6:1-4, were from the line of Seth, that is saying that the line of Seth had god-like abilities which, when mated with the line from Cain(or any other children from Adam), created giants and superhumans, as it says in verse 4. The whole argument does not work. It only works if the "sons of God" spoken about are fallen angels, condemned to earth. But that messes up your other argument that angels have no sexual orientation so you need to stick with your story that this part of the Bible is either not true or it meant the line from Seth.

Thanks, Greg, he's not really a bad guy only a good tool of the devil. I appreciate your prayers.

I don't have to refer to Ezekiel to prove the term "sons of God" meant angels who were NOT sons of man, you can't give me a verse in the Bible that clearly states that the "sons of God" are the line of Seth. That type of thinking leads people to believe there was a people who excaped the sinful line of Adam after he sinned in the garden of Eden which makes no sense whatsoever! That reasoning is what's "flawed". The book of Jude refered to Enoch's teaching. He quoted directly from the book of Enoch. You yourself stated that you do not believe Genesis 6:1-4, a part of the "canon", to be the truth. That's your "stand" on that. If you want to shut up God's Word into 66 books because the Council of Laodicea decided that there are things that the common people should not read on their own, without guidance, then you close your eyes and go back to sleep. One of the books that council of men(not even apostles) took out was the book of Enoch. In it held MANY "parallels" to the points 1)sons of God are angels 2)angels mated with "daughters of men". Don't try and claim high standards by believing the Bible to be the only Word of God when you turn around and claim that Genesis 6:1-4 is not true. Because it isn't backed by a parallel. Please. Below, you claim you already know what you say I need to prove. You don't have to bring in the scriptures to back that knowledge, I've seen them already. Where? Do you mean after Jesus pays for us with His blood? Because that's the only time I've seen this term fit humans and there are scripture verses to back THAT. Referring to the line of Seth as the sons of God is to say that they had no need for God's sacrifice because they were sinless.

I've never had a problem with a camera either, so long as they made it clear where the camera is and don't keep their privacy invasion a secret. A job has every right to keep an eye on their employees because they are PAYING their employees to put up with it. Don't assume that just because a job wants to regulate their employees activity that that particular job's owners are on the "up and up", themselves. It only means that they don't want their employees costing them unnecessary money. I think cameras on streetlights are a good idea. I think cameras behind a dressingroom mirror is privacy invasion, regardless of how much theft a store is trying to prevent. It's a matter of common sense but also respect for others.

Actually, I used the passage under consideration, itself. No I said that the view that the "sons of God" as angels is lacking in truth. Yes, but the passage is not presented in a metaphorical or parabolic sense. You demand me to use Scripture, but your view is based on extra-biblical text. That is nothing more than a doublestandard. Yes, God does speak today, but to put the book of Enoch as being equivlant to the canon is faulty. The Bible has a back cover. You can believe what you want out of the book of Enoch. I will stick the Word of God. Then you have to believe that the angels mated with human women. Genesis 6:1-4 1)When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2)the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3)Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." 4)The Nephilim were on the earth in those days

Why would God need to see through an angel's eyes? If God's omnipresent, why would he need to see through an angels eyes? Good question. I never said God "needs" to look through ANYTHING, let alone an angel's eyes. none, i am so sorry but i can't stop laughing - there is just something very hilarious about that sentence. before you get offended, i completely understood what you said, which was not that God had to look thru angel eyes but it is a strange thing to say if taken completely out of context, which it apparently was by some. Thank you. I would never say I'm good at explaining anything to anyone. If you understood what I meant, it's because God had to show you what I meant. Consider yourself lucky to have such a great Teacher guiding you.

One of the only other references to the Sons of God in the O.T. is in the book of Job, and in the context used in Job it appears to be angels. Job 1:6-7 6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them. 7 And the LORD said to Satan,

If someone uses His name in a shocked "dear God!" type of way, it doesn't bother me half as much as if someone used God in a joke. One was a premeditated insult and one was an accidental slip of the lip.