Christ_Sheep

Yes, if one is saved they can revert to their old ways. Like many said, however, if a person had really made that life long commitment to follow Christ, why would they turn away? We cannot lose our salvation, but we can practice in sin so much that the lord leaves us in a reprobate state, which he said in his word he would do. It's a real depiction of what happened in Sodom and Gomorrah. Thing is, many are quick to put a person whom backslides in hell. For instance, when someone messes up, or is doing something we personally would never think of, it's easy to harp on that person's shortcoming and, in classic fashion, compare it to our own, and how grevious theirs must be in comparison. But all sin hurts god, no matter how small man likes to label his or hers. What I will say is this in the book of Hebrews Chapter 6, verses 4-6 it says this: "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repenteance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again, and subjecting him to public disgrace." That verse applies to the VERY select few of genuine Christians, but not all Christians. I say not all Christians, for the simple fact, most Christians have not been enlightened on that type of a level that the bible speaks of. Oh, no, in no way am I saying that god is not willing, it's just that many haven't asked, have not been patient enough to get to that level and, many, just have not gotten to that quiet place with the lord; that place to reach the holies of holies. Many Pastors claim to have gotten to that degree, but more have not. Those who do turn away and have reached that peak, they, themselves, put Christ to shame. But, for the average Christian, unless the lord allowed them into a reboate lifestyle, they cannot truly turn away. Just because we sin does not make break that relationship we have with Christ, just the fellowship and there's a difference. He is still our lord and savior, though it is important to repent so the sin consciousness and condemnation won't overtake them.

It's all about love- Brian Mcknight (Beautiful Christmas song) Any Christmas song by Yolanda Adams and The Winans are good too, for examples... The Real Meaning of Christmas Artist: The Winans Born This Day Artist: Yolanda Adams Hope that helps.

How do you know that all animals were vegetarian? Well, for a simple reason. The first shedding of blood was done by god to atone for the sins of Adam. If animals were all peaceful, and that was the very first killing or shedding of blood of any kind, how else could they eat? Remember, if the state Adam and Eve were living in was totally sublime, and there was no death, if it's not meat they're eating, then what is it? The bible only speaks to death in the context of man though. It seems to me that scripture really does not speak to the biology of animals at all. I am assuming you are referring to this: Isaiah 11:6-7 "Then the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; The calf and the young lion shall browse together, with a little child to guide them. The cow and the bear shall be neighbors, together their young shall rest; the lion shall eat hay like the ox." Thats a metaphorical passage though. In context its obvious its not literal at all, but is rather symbolic of what the ancient hebrews thought of as a universal peace and justice during messianic times. For example, obviously lions are not literally going to eat hay, felines are completely carnivorous, they can't even digest plant matter. From a biological perspective, and thus I would think (nothing in the Bible indicates either way to me), from the creator's perspective (God), a balance of predator and prey is always indicative of a harmonious ecosystem and I don't know of anything in scripture or in the fossil / genetic record that indicates otherwise, either before or after the fall of man. I am not meaning to be argumentative though, this is all in the contest of "it seems to me". Oh, no, don't worry at all man. I know you are just voicing your point. It's good to have a good old discussion, it's what this board is for anyway. What you said makes total logical sense. I guess my view would be, if god said there would be no more death ( I would imagine) he would be blanket statement mentioning, no death of any kind. To me, if it's end times and I am walking around in eternity and seeing death and decay, even if it's a balance as you put it between predator and prey, in a totally perfect environment, why would anything need to be killed for anyone or anything to eat? In fact, since we will have nothing but pleasant memories in eternity, maybe I am being a bit naturalistic, but I couldn't see myself having a pleasant thought of watching an animal kill another animal, least of all for food. I would think eating something without a living soul would make more sense in a totally perfect environment. For instance, I wouldn't care if I saw a giraffe eating apples from an apple tree, because I know the apple wasn't once a living creature that had a family. However, we do know the phrase that children will play with snakes is not merely metaphorical, why? Because, in a perfect environment there would be no need to fear anything. Manipulation, Intimidation and fear will be done away with. So a Cobra would be perfectly fine to pick up, I wouldn't worry about it biting me. Because the reason it bit me would be because of fear, and a need to defend itself. To me, those feelings of insecurity won't exists as it concerns humans and as it applies to animals, too. Though, like you, not being preachy or argumentative just trying to stress my point. About felines not digesting plants. Well, we can only judge what they can or cannot ingest and digest within the frame and mold we see them in now. We run test and conduct studies on animals, way after the fall of the earth. Obviously, in a fallen world where things are twisted and perversed, it would appear to be that way. Because everything we see now is not in mint condition, like it was in the beginning before sin. In the beginning, it seems to me that felines should eat plants perfectly fine, because they were perfected back then. They couldn't become sick. Because sickness is apart of the curse, nothing gets sick in a place of harmony and love. As for Emily Anne, I will say that demons are not the beast that the bible speaks of. Because demons do not fear humans, least not initially, they fear faith. Demons we can't even see, they're spirits. Humans, of course, are finite beings, and we pose no threat physically to spiritual beings. Animals, however, I believe is the "beast on the earth" the bible refers to. Animals have a natural fear of humans after the fall, that is very much true. Try getting close to a deer and see if it sticks around or not. Usually, horses and other animals that walk on the ground are considered beast. But, whom knows, maybe sparrows are too, (smiles).

How do you know that all animals were vegetarian? Well, for a simple reason. The first shedding of blood was done by god to cover physically, and spiritually for the sin of Adam. If animals were all peaceful, and that was the very first killing or shedding of blood of any kind, how else could they eat? Remember, if the state Adam and Eve were living in was totally sublime, and there was no death, if it's not meat they're eating, then what is it? Fruit or vegetable or grass (perhaps thats a vegetable). To eat anything other than that, of course, would admit something had to be slaughtered. Also, in the bible it does say that the lion and the sheep or ox (I believe, it was sheep or ox, forget which animal) will lay down together and eat straw. There will be no more death, so killing fish is out, killing chicken is out and, anything else that would resort in death. Because that is the way things were supposed to be. And we can tell, before the fall also, that animals were not just drinking milk, or water to sustain themselves. Because, why would a lion and ox eat straw or grass together? I am totally convinced, all animals and humans were vegetarians in the beginning. Also, the bible may not cover it explicitly, but sometimes you have to use discernment when grasping the bible in the parts that aren't as indicative. There were no "weeds" at the beginning of time, simply because god made everything, "good". So grass was perfectly alive, and probably green. Animals have souls, so they too, suffered the fall just like man did. Everything in creation became totally distorted. Again, you may not find that in "Genesis", but if you look at the earth around you and think for a moment that, if, in fact, god created everything beautiful in the beginning, why would anything have a need to die? Plants can die, obviously.

Well, I believe the answer to that question, like some have already said is a resounding, yes. That is, their behavior and instinctual patterns changed heavily after the fall. Notice, that before the fall, man and animals were all vegetarian, which would mean that the slaying of animals would not be neccessary. Man lived in a peaceful state, surrounded by plenty of animals and that let's me know, that their natures were very tame. There were no cases recounted by the bible of a lion mauling Adam nor Eve, for that matter. After the fall, every living soul's nature got bent in direct contention to god's plan. Animals became violent. They began attacking one another for food. They were vegetarians at one point, now all many do is kill one another. Animals have souls, so the way they operated, instantly, changed. Thankfully, we will go back to the way things were, when Christ returns to earth. No more killing. But peace and harmony with all living spirits and souls.

I have never seen this movie, seeing how it didn't get as much hype and hoopla as, The Passion of the Christ leads me to believe, it, in fact, did not do very well at the box-office, how was it artistically? Accurate, unique at all? I may buy this on my own someday, we'll see I'd love to see a film about the life of Abraham, I think it could really be told well, and that many people would appreciate that story.

Faith, you listed the biblical meaning of the word, which, in any case is true, and then we have the dictionary definition of the word which correlates more with being a synonym of "belief", which is wrong ... at least if you believe wholeheartedly what god plainly describes as faith. Chiefly, why many prayers do not get answered is for a few simple reasons, but I will only describe here the major one that I feel seems to be at heart here. Lack of faith. Many Christians just have not had a revelation on the true meaning of faith. The world and it's system will tell us that it is simply, "believing" that what you say or hope for will come to pass. That is factually incorrect. Faith is different. Belief and hope are one and the same. Belief and hope is the foundation of what faith rests on. I can't have faith without hope and I cannot have hope without faith, well I can, but I can't if I want whatever situation I find myself in to change. See my belief and hope is my (goal that I want to accomplish) and my faith is the action be it by spoken words repetitively, or actually physically doing something which manifest my hope to me. Thing is, many people pray to god over and over about the very same issue. We are called to pray to god ONCE about a specific issue, because he said in his word in Mark 11, "When you pray if you doubt not in your heart that whatever you pray for if it's in god's will, you shall receive it." See, it's saying when you pray. When you pray. At that exact moment, you must believe that god has answered your prayer. The world will say, seeing is believing , however in the spiritual realm (since god is a spirit and the kingdom of god and everything else bends to spiritual laws and, god, himself) it doesn't work that way. If I see something, I don't believe I have it, I KNOW I have it. It is like walking into a political debate and hearing both sides from the Democrat and Republican parties, I won't say I believe I see a debate going on, because that can denote the possibillity that I can be wrong, however, I would say I KNOW a debate is going on, because it's before my very eyes. If we are praying over and over about a specific topic, that really says quite a bit about where we're faith wise, it shows a lack of faith. I am not pointing fingers, simply because we've all been at fault for not having the kind of faith god requires about certain issues in our lives, but I am saying ... if I really believed god answered my praers at the MOMENT I initially prayed for it, why bug him again with incessant prayers to remind him, it doesn't do any good whatsoever. What I should do, however is be patient. The enemy knows we live in a time sensitive world where we require/need things in a time span and at a certain period, so it is so easy for us to become weary and agitated. God also said, "The testing of your patience blooms faith." He's not testing anyone, but the circumstances in this world, brought on mainly by Satan is the one that tests us. Since god knows all that we will ever do, why would he need to test us? You test only to figure out what a person will do, or as far as school is concerned, how much they know. What we should do is be patient. Give thanks and worship for what god has accomplished, and for as long as it takes to receive your manifestation say daily, "Jesus, I thank you I believe I have received." See, according to god everything is in the past tense. So we are to call things as though they are not, as though they were. Christ died on the cross, and said he died so that we may be healed. Healed, pay attention to that, it is in the past tense, not present or future. As far as god is concerned, we already ARE healed. Now, I am not denying the existence of symptoms or problems but we are to ignore those symptoms and problems, and not be moved by natural circumstances. We are to speak the answer to the problem, not the problem. If we do both, it confuses our faith and we get nowhere. If god says we are not to be moved by our senses, but by the spirit, we ought to obey that. Now, I know someone said they did not believe in naming and claiming , but why? God is god of specifications, when he created the world, how did he do it? He did it two ways, by his faith and by careful spoken words. Christ was and is very meticulous in the way that he operates. He had a name, species, type and category for everything that is in existence; he didn't just haphazardly create things with no purpose or just because "he had a few minutes", it was fit to his specifications. If you can believe that we were created in his image, and that we were created a little lower than the angels, after our fallen state (since angels are messangers, and are, in fact, spiritually lower than humans inititally) why is it hard to believe the concept of naming and claiming? If you have faith, you are to act or speak on what you believe aren't you? Because that is what faith is. It is the affirmation of belief. So, for example, when I tithe or give an offering in church, since I know Jesus is a lord of specification, I write on the envelope every week what I am believing for. Yes, god knows what we need before we ask him, but we have to ask him in faith, just because he knows isn't going to get him involved. He's dillienated that part to humans to ask for what we will, and if it is according to his will, it'll be done. Some people get fogged out and become so religious and traditionalist, that they give, yes, but they don't have a purpose for their giving. Unfortunately, without belief (hope) you cannot have any faith, and therefore, many prayers or petitions are never manifested in a believers life. According to god it's already done, but we must use our faith to take our manifestations.You must name it. And speak it, until it comes to pass. Naming and claiming correlates to what we should all be doing in our prayer closets every day. Once again, this is not meant to be taking in an offensive way, but the reason many people don't get things answered is because they operate in the belief (hope) realm, quietly knowing something can happen, instead of using their action (faith) to see the manifestation of their hope pan out. Sadly, many preachers don't teach thoroughly enough about what faith truly is. I can know that if I put my key in the car, it'll start (hope/belief) ... and tell everyone around me that, and yes I'd be correct, but if I don't actually put my key in the ignition (faith),I will never go anywhere. So, that's pretty much my take on things.

The answer to your question is, 10% of expected and unexpected income. What I would do is, if I know I get paid weekly or biweekly, before I spend ANY money, (it's 10% of your net pay), I'd separate that money from the rest of the money I spend on myself. Also, it is good to give offerings with your tithing. If you are a believer of sowing and reaping like I am, you would understand the principle of planting financial seeds to reap (money) if that is what you desire. It's not using god for all he has, but it's a system. The offering is what god blesses, as giving a tithe to god is what opens up the channel for god to bless us. So the tithe comes first, then the offering. That is why it is so important to be a consistent tither. The lord said in his word, "Bring the tithe to the storehouse, so that I may open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing, so there won't be room enough to receive it." He's referencing the fact that the tithe and offerings (both given in faith and with a good heart and attitude, mind you), are what sets god in motion to bless his children. That was a longer answer than I expected, but it's 10% of your earnings depending on your pay period. If you make a yearly salary, then it's 10% of that net pay. If you get paid weekly, then it's that. Hope that helps.

Well, I've seen the video clip online, did not, however muse through the book. The guy who gave his testimony, was not saved when he went to hell, I am 99% sure on that. I think his wife may have mentioned that before she let her husband have the floor. So, really, that would explain why he was given the trip to hell to wake him up on the reality of this place. That, he, himself, had the option to go there upon physical death. Then again, had he been saved god could have just wanted him to experience hell for no other reason than to hammer home the point that this place really exist. It's one thing about reading about hell, hearing testimonies and, of course quite another, experiencing it for yourself ... perhaps in the event that he was a Christian entering this place the lord wanted to use him as a tool to witness to others about this horrible reality. Telling the story would have more credence and authority behind it with him actually visiting there. I definitely believed the story. Seems like it's the general consensus on a painted portrayal and picture of hell. You guys should go you youtube and type in "Tyrone Goes to Hell." It's another testimony that is riveting and really backs many testimonies up.

I'd ask him, why couldn't I be born automatically with faith to move the steepest of mountains, instead of having to cultivate my own faith to that level? (Would've made things in my life a lot simpler) heh.

I do. I fasts on Mondays and Thursdays. My thoughts? I think if applied properly, (meditating on the scriptures, in prayer, or watching and listening to Christian music and testimony), it can be very helpful. It really uplifts the spirit in places we might not even know. I, personally, during my waiting period on the manifestation of my job/career since college graduation, have really tried put it to good use these last few months. I do find myself becoming less irritated about things, that before, I would have been annoyed greatly at. So it really opens you up spiritually, and affects your mood (in a positive way.)

I agree with just about everyone else on this thread, however, I will slightly disagree with the fact that the building is church instead I will say, we, the people, we are the church. The construction or the building is just an enclosure. It's just a building. God is coming back for HIS church, (us) not the physical place in which we decide to mass or corporately worship. With regards to your question, don't let anyone tell you how often or which day of the week you should go on. Don't even listen to my suggestion, let the holy spirit get your attention on that matter. While Sunday is traditionally the day most Christ followers go to church, the other days of the week need love too (smiles). It's all where Christ leads you. You can have church in your very home, inviting over others. You don't have to "go" to church, at least not in the sense its understood. Simply, church starts with us, it doesn't matter where we worship or which day we go on, so long as we are not in error with the holy scriptures.

You definitely mistook what I wrote, (theres hardly anything in my post or what you've said that I am in disagreement with). I was saying, the mentally handicapped and babies both go to heaven automatically when they die. Not that they couldn't be saved, I am agreeing with what you said. Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough in my opening post. Well, I make an exception for babies because they're not mature in thought or in their decision making. Yes, they were born into a sinful nature and world, but they, themselves, could not possibly fathom what sin is or was nor could they have a sin consciousness about it. The same goes for someone with a mental disability, if I am thirty, but, my concept of the world around me is scrambled ... or hasn't evolved to the point of a person whom can freely think and make decisions on their own with a sin consciousness Then how can I be held acountable for my sins? It's sort of like the the criminal justice system, those types of people don't go to prison for their act, though it may be a mental institution, because they legitimately didn't know they were doing wrong. I think everyone would be in agreement that ALL babies or infants are in heaven. Of all the testimonies I've seen from people who god allowed to have a brush with hell (before they were saved) none of them ever recalled seeing babies searing down below. I've also read articles that support my opinion as well. I honestly feel the same applies to the mentally handicapped. If Jesus said he is the way, the truth and the life ... I would estimate it doesn't matter what religion you are, you would have to profess that with your mouth and honor that with your actions (should you be a person capable of such), to be accepted into heaven. He said no man cometh to the father, but by him. Allah, Confuscious, Mohammed, all dead guy's aren't going to cut it. You are right about Paul, I will say. However, Paul didn't need to search around for other faiths. Jesus spoke directly to him. In most instances, in this day and age people will not be able to discern the voice of the lord quite as well as he did, especially if they're from another religious group where they weren't taught to discern the voices of their "god" quite as effectively as Christians are. Or if they didn't have a great Revealation of whom the true lord really was. The lord revealed himself to Paul, so he didn't need to search around. Most times, people DO have to search around because god doesn't always appear to us now, as he did to people back then, before they had a chance to search the holy bible or hear it preached to them. Practically, no, no, our entire lives we are supposed to listen distinctly for the voice of god to lead us in our daily functions, whatever they may be. We are both saying the same thing, Christ is the ONLY answer.

Since god said that all will be without excuse, I will say this ... yes they will be held accountable. If someone did not hear about the gospel, why would they be let into heaven? (Wit the exception of babies and those whom are classified having a mental retardation). God will then judge those people who "claim" to never of heard of Jesus on the law which is written on their hearts. It shifts from, "you didn't accept me" to "You have a moral code, you didn't follow it". All have sinned and all people have a conscience. Living in a world where there are so many "beliefs" it would not be an over assumption to say that a person, or a group of people really wanting to live right, that they could explore the prospect and possibilities of other faiths out there. The Holy Spirit draws all men to the father, a person ignorant of the gospel of Jesus still has no excuse, simply, because, that person could have checked out other beliefs, heard or saw what they said, and then made a decision on what they wanted to believe. If everyone could tap into, "lets stay in a region where we think the Gospel won't ever be preached", then there would be a lot more people destined for heaven than there are. I am not trying to be fecicious, but, I am just saying that a fully adult person with an average mental capacity living in an environment where the Gospel had not reached them, (though I find that almost an impossibility, due to televangelism), cannot heartily say that Christ could be not found ... and then on those grounds expect to have his/her bags packed for heaven.

My personal opinion is that mega churches are a VERY good thing, why? Because I think it can be a very useful and, it can be a neccessary sign to unbelievers, that yes there is prosperity in the church. I would be extremely ignorant to say that every pastor of every huge congregation is living what they're preaching or that they're living with ingretiy. But you cannot let your views be swayed by a few bad apples . Law of averages says everything isn't going to always work out just as you imagined it would, or even as it should. However, I as a (WOF) follower, and that is just me I am not trying to influence or persuade anyone to believe exactly what I believe (but me mentioning that is important to the discussion). I feel that many people view the church from a very archaic and traditionilst perspective meaning that in order to be somehow closer to god, a person must appear to be humble and lack financial prosperity. I feel at times there is this nagging buzz that says if a church is well known and on television, then, by default, there's got to be something crooked and not right about the church. I also feel that a mega church can wake some fellow Christian's up to the notion that, hey, we can have something that stands the test of time, is large and stretched our faith a little bit ... to see it come to fruition. Not saying anyone whom prefers smaller churches has a limited mindset, least not anyone on this board, but many people do. When god said to walk by faith and not by sight that is exactly what he meant. When he said the just shall live by faith ... that is what he meant. And faith is more than just saying, "I believe in Christ" it is acting on what you profess you believe. The action is much more important than the thought or the "belief". Not that what the lord has in his hand is more important than, Christ himself, but when he tells me in the scriptures that he came so that we may have life and it more abundantly, financial prosperity and being a person whom is well known, but also holy, I would think is apart of that package. The world and all it's influences have taken up too much of god's air time, I would love to see many more churches grow exponentially, such as Joel Osteen's church in the Compaq Center. I think it is time that we show others and ourselves that we don't have to "get ours in the sweet bye and bye", but that we can enjoy life now, with it's many perks because god promised us just that. I am of the mindset that there in many cases are too many quarrels among Christians about whom is more holy or who knows more about what Jesus actually meant in his scriptures that we are wasting time, it's time to mature, unite and set aside petty differences. It's time to let the world know, and if a mega church is the hook (before letting them read the scriptures themselves) then so be it. There are many whom use the scriptures to tailor their own beliefs. Having a mega church is not wrong, IMO. Is it a calling on every aspiring preacher or minister? Of course not, because in some ways it is a business. Book keeping and accounting for every dollar and cent that floods into the church via donation, tithe or offering is a job that requires a very business oriented mindset, not to mention dependability and honor. Personally, I'd prefer to be involved with a smaller church just because you can get to know everyone on a closer basis and, so on those grounds, I do feel feel smaller churches have their places. At smaller churches like Lady C said, you do get a more, "family" oriented vibe seeping out; than you would if the church you went to housed 3,000 parishioner's.

Aren't there particular sins in the Bible that where God/Jesus specifically state that sinners will burn in Hell? Can you show scriptural support for your beliefs? No, there are not ... simply because that would mean he scales sin. I don't have any passages in front of me, but that would totally back pedal on his point when he said "sin is sin" and that concerns no matter what it is. Humans with our finite and naturally judgmental minds, we are the ones whom put a price so to speak on how much one sin is worth in comparison to another. Blasphemey, however you won't see heaven for ... but why is that? It's not because of the "sin" so much as it is denying the power of god, in essence, not accepting him into your heart. The Pharisees and Scribes were both religious cults whom were big on that. They were not damned to punishment for leading people astray and being hyporcites, (though both are wrong) they were damned to eternal separation many of them, Nicodemus gets a free pass since he genuinely believed, because they did not accept Jesus as savior and the salvation he offered. Yet they claimed, that they were scholars and followed the law and god of Moses. They knew the law like the back of their hands, but they never got illumination or revelation knowledge about whom the Christ really was, or salvation for that matter. Back to your point though, the sins you probably refer to are idolatry, homosexuality and blasphemy. All of which, if you closely examine their nature are rejection of god. All sin is a rejection of god or his way doing things. The first two are an abomination of god, because they're distinctly not natural ... doesn't mean they are any worse than other sins because they aren't, but they're a misrepresentation of both god, and his plans for the relationship between the two genders. Romans: Chapter 3, Verses 21-25 (Check those out when you have time) Romans: Chapter 2, verses 9-11 James: Chapter 2, verse 10 There you go. You stated earlier that the sin of "blasphemy" of the Holy Spirit was in your opinion, the only sin of death. Yet you also say that God does not "scale" sin? Please explain what seems like a contradiction on your part? I was saying sin is not weighed in terms of greatest or least greatest. God, himself, said all sin is the same to him. There may be different categories of sin. For instance, most people would put taking the lord's name in vain and fornicaton in totally different categories because they're sins that are not correlated with one another. Homosexuality on the other hand, would fit more in the category of sexual immorality than taking the lord's name in vain would, why? because they're both sexual sins. Even so in god's eyes sin is still equally reprehensible. I'm moreorless talking about the 10 Commandments here. Blasphmey, is still sin in gods' eyes ... we think it's worse because you won't see heaven because of it, but it is not ... not in that sense. Its still a reprehensible sin in god's eyes. Blasphemy is denying the power of god or saying his powers are a work of the devil, that is its usual meaning. Because you won't see heaven because of it doesn't make it "worse" than the others, god has just put it in another category. For instance we have different types of sports, football, basketball, tennis, soccer and so on. An injury can occur in any of 'em, there's no way to say which sport is more injury prone or "worse". It's all our natural percetion of what is worse. Which is incorrect in god's eyes concerning sin.

Then are you saying you don't believe the scripture in Matthew 5:22? But I say, if you are angry with someone you are subject to judgment! If you call someone an idiot you are in danger of being brought before the high council. And if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell. No, you've taken what I said out of context. The main point I was making was that people misstake hell for the Lake of Fire, which was the true nature of my post, anything else was a byproduct of it. I believe what Matthew 5: 22 says ... but you must discern it a little deeper. If a person had accepted and truly repented and accepted Christ's free gift, then they would not be susceptible to any judgment would they? Those only apply to people whom have not accepted the lord as their savior, since true Chrstians wouldn't be doing those things on a habitual basis. Secondly, how many times have I done wrong in life? plenty of times, believe me. I did wrong yesterday, does that mean I am a son of hell? No it doesn't, because I am filled with the holy spirit and try and follow the model Christ set on a daily basis. The underlining reason why many people will be separated from god is because they truly didnt accept his free gift, not because they commited 50 sins way back in the day. Also, there will be many people claiming to be Christians who drove out demons in Christ's name, that Jesus turns away, why? Because they never had a true conversion. Its not because they lied one time in life. It's because they didn't truly accept Christ into their hearts. Like I said we ALL sin everyday and god being ominiscient is completely aware of that ... does that mean I am going to miss his Second Coming? No it doesn't. Because I have accepted and live according to his standards in both heart and deed.

Man made disasters? Like Hurricane Katrina? Like the tsunamis? Like the countless earthquakes? As far as I know these are natural disasters, and are in no way connected to human actions upon this earth. Of course since God is the Creator, he had these disasters in his plan ... plans to cause mass destruction and death for no apparent reason. If you are brainwashed, then you can conceivably spin such disasters as "signs" or "mysteries" of God, just another reason he is so perfect. But then, what could possibly convince you he isn't perfect? Everything that happens, good or bad, you attribute to the mysterious nature of God, and somehow tout as more convincing evidence that he has a mysterious and perfect plan. You've obviously changed the meaning of the word perfect ... to include things that are mysterious and have no apparent purpose other than seemingly being random causes of nature. This level of thinking is very similar to how Christians interpret prayer. God answers EVERY prayer right? But his answers are Yes, No, or Wait. Strikingly, those same results are achieved by prayer to any other God, or to any inanimate object, because Yes, No, and Wait covers every possible outcome. Let's forget for a moment that natural disasters must be the preconceived plan of God, and attributable only to his will. Let's play with the idea for just a moment that these natural disasters are just that ... just naturally occurring. If God has the power to step in, to prevent such disasters from causing the destruction and toll on life, why doesn't he? If you have the power to save a child from a burning building, at no physical cost to yourself, and you know it's the right thing to do ... and you were in a simple position to carry out such an act, wouldn't it be considered wrong not to? If you were in a position with foreknowledge of some horrendous event, and given the capacity to change the outcome to avoid the tragic results, and you willingly deny the victims such grace, you have not done something perfect, you've done something utterly disgusting and revolting, you've allowed human suffering and death. Now let's return to the fact that everything happening is part of God's plan, this means he actually did "write" in his "book" for these things to happen ... he decided to set these disasters in motion. So, going back to the example of saving a child from a burning building, or any other position in which you *could* save people. Let's say that besides being in such a position of control, you also started the fire! That's right .. you were the one who planned for the building to go up in flames, to put that innocent child in such a frightful and deadly position, now beyond just being your duty to save this child ... you are Evil. And that is why God cannot only be defined as imperfect, but he can also be described as an evil being. That is the usual approach many atheist I've known personally take, which is world suffering to prove that there is no god. However, it is an unfair assesstment and I will tell you why. As I've stated before, in a thread much like this because god's creations (ones with free will mind you) wallow in muck and cause disaster, is not his own personal fault. The world began perfect, Adam couldn't keep the one command he was given therefore, sin entered into the world through one man. We inherited a fallen nature ... and because of a fallen nature, the world is privy to all manner of disasters whether naturally or man caused. Using hypotheticals for a second, say you have a parent with a child either in his early years or teenage years, that decides to go out and vandalize the sides of a building Is that act the father's fault? Whether or not he decides to interject on that child's behalf is of no consequence because of two reasons: If he does ... it's because he's stopping his child from doing something morally wrong. If he doesn't stop his child from doing something wrong, he's letting him do it out of discipline and love. He knows that misdemeanor (I think that form of vandalism would be classified as such), is something his child has done and he must suffer the consequences for them, whatever the law requires. Whatever option that parents chooses to take, he is justified in doing so since he, himself, didn't cause the act. And it works the same way with god as it concerns us. Sometimes for a person to truly understand the scope of their behavior, they must experience what it means to pay for their behavior. That causes in most, growth and understanding. Because bad things occur is that a representation of god, himself? No, because we live in a fallen world and god does not. I guarantee you there are no power hours going on in heaven right now, only praises and utter holiness. The position that god is evil because of world suffering lies too much undue confidence that humans and, humans alone, are not responsible for their own actions. We rely way too much on our emotions and how we "feel" about situations to determine how god feels about certain situations, and to define his nature. We are called not to be ruled and subjected to our emotions, because they're forever changing. One day we feel one way and the next day we feel another way. It is impossible to glass ceiling Christ this way because god is an infallable spirit, and we gain a revelation on why he allowed or didn't allow certain acts to happen through our spirit, not our intellect, logical reasoning or our brain. If you want to shake your first at anything, it should be at somebody who is long gone, Adam... since he brought the yoke of original sin into this world. God does not cause anything to happen, it would be against his nature which is love. Love doesn't bring a fiery building down on the head of innocent child. Love didn't bring viruses and diseases into the world, those only came in after Adam ate prematurely of the Tree of Good and Evil. I definitely feel all humans would have been allowed to eat from the tree, but only after we had grown and matured to the point spiritually that god wanted us to be. That way our wills and senses would've been keen enough to discern, and stay away from sin once approached with a chance to sin. On your logic, you are truly forgetting all the times "god" did save that girl from a burning building ... it would be rather ignorant of anyone to assume that anytime disaster hit, that someone died or was unjustly convicted as a result of it. We have finite minds and we will never understand the total picture, even if we did many still would not believe it all. If god were as evil as you put it, you would be the only person in existence god said he didn't die for.

It isn't that divorce isn't an option for Christians, but that the lord hates divorce. It isn't something that he particularly encourages; but he understands that there are situations where there is clearly no other option. If someone is emotionally abusing you (adultery) I'd say that is a form of emotional abuse, then you SHOULD divorce that person. God in that instance, will support the divorce. Though it may seem a little shameful to tell other people, hey, I am a Christian but I got divorced just like half of married couples in the U.S. do, he'd much rather that, than one of his children putting up with a painful experience like that. That 49 or 50% divorce rate in this country would be a little lower if people took the dating scene with god's word on it, than with a grain of salt. There is an oldschool and sure fire reason why you date, to get to know a person, to find out their likes and dislikes, to conjure their belief in the lord ... and to see if you can live together. So many, however date bcause of attraction. But that love boat quickly sails. So many people put on their poker faces when they meet because they're trying so hard to get a person to like the "character" they're portraying ... and for all intents and purposes it really is a 24 hour job. You can't rest, it's like going and staying on set, never getting a break. You have to be that personality all day, everyday. I know its easier said than done to get people to like the "real you" as humbling, and, painful as it may be for the short term, it is so much more satisfying to be able to suck in your gut and breathe. To say this is who I am and this is who you are HAS to feel so much better, without worrying about false pretenses. About divorce also, I haven't really read through this thread much so there is a chance I may disagree with somebody's post. Law of averages says so anyway, but you NEVER marry anyone so they can "complete" you or for a person to fill in the gaps. View it this way, god never gave Adam a wife until first he have him provision, and a purpose. Do you think Adam was lonely? No, he wasn't. He was so busy doing his assignment he didn't even have time to notice he was "lacking" anything. God places people in our lives when we least expect it. Most will tell you that they found their spouses when they weren't actively searching, because their lives were already so fullfilled, while they understand they were single, it didn't bother them. Since marriage doesn't carry over into heaven, I think it's best we think more seriously about divorce and marriage as it is understood more heavily now.

I am not baiting you. If you look closely at my last post I was basically telling you that you have an indefensible position and If I were you I would have never mentioned it. Trying to bait you into what? I have no desire to fight with you. I really do not care if you get drunk every night. It is of no personal concern to me. The point I did not like was you attached a medical justification to intoxication. Paul gave a medical justification for a LITTLE wine for the stomach. He DID NOT give any justification for consumption to intoxication for any reason. In fact the scriptures plainly prohibit it. I merely pointed that out. Maybe what I said struck a sore nerve with you or something. If you did not have some conviction about the behavior, what I said would have been of NO consequence to you. You posted your behavior and then attached a medical excuse to it, that is what I pointed out. Boy I didn't know this topic would turn out this way when I posted it. What I will say is this, Lady C, is scripturally in the wrong for drinking alcohol to the point that she gets "lit" as some people call it ... there is more than enough evidence that supports that. Perhaps in mentioning her behavior, she did not think anyone else on the board would challenge her about it, and if that is the case, she was sorely wrong. However, hr. jr. as a fellow believer in Christ, you SHOULD care about the lifestyle of another person, especially another believer. Since we are our brother's keeper and that extends to those whom we have not personally, or face-to-face met. I know you said you do not personally care, but telling someone they're in the wrong for anything that god forbids, shows me that you do care to some degree or you possess an unquenchable thirst to prove you are correct. I don't think the latter is true. As I believe you are well meaning with good intentions. So I do not feel that is very wise to just say, "I dont care if you get drunk every night". We have enough people in the world trying to bring "us" Christians down, no need for inner quarrels over such a sensitive topic among fellow believers. I got what I wanted, all sorts of answers from everyone on their views on this topic.

And thay may be true on it's name ... but take into consideration this, Jesus passed around wine to His disciples. Since this was six to seven months after the grape harvest and since there was no way to preserve grape juice, so it had to be fermented wine, otherwise, what are you sipping on? There was no fridge to keep grape juice in ... meaning it could not be preserved or contained. On the other hand, wine is not usually served cold. It is fermented grape juice. These are two totally different instances, one with Jesus at the wedding and the other with Jesus at the Last Supper, but they both have a trend here. They both occurred during the New Testament. The New Testament ALWAYS referred to fermented wine. Lot drank fermented wine. Abraham drank fermented wine, which is Old Testament, but the same rules applied. Jesus and the disciples did. The key is that they didn't get drunk on the wine, least not the disciples after they turned to the lord, or, the lord himself. I really respect what you have to say, but really it isn't about whether or not the intake of alcohol harms me in any way before I am drunk. Because too much water can harm, and have a negative effect on me, too. That comparison may be simplistic, but it is safe to say that many people, bordering on most of the people spoken of the bible, did in fact, drink wine ... fermented wine that is. Grape juice just, in my view, doesn't seem like the delicacy of the day back then. And neither is it now to most drinkers. I hate to use this reference, but as everyone knows at a party or at any social gathering, if it is alcohol being served, the most appreciated drink (for the sake of argument) is brought out first ... and not saved until last. That's a rule because, once people have their fill, it is wise to have them gradually detoxify with smaller doses or amounts or cut a person off all the way, if they've become too far gone. Guest at a wedding, any wedding, the bulk of them are not sitting there drinking grape juice or any substance that can pose as grape juice. Since wine can only be in two forms, either it was grape juice or it had a little kick to it. And judging by the text, it seems more on the latter end. Keep in mind I am not advocating drinking tons of wine or liquor, but what I am saying is, soda is acidic and, of course, if I have too much of it ... it can be harmful to me. Wine or other alcohol is the same way. Soda can trigger headaches, raise blood pressure, which are both adverse effects, but most people would not say, "don't drink even one drop of that". Why? Because they understand that though it isn't the best of drinks to have, in moderation it isn't a sin.

Ok, what I think we need to remember is that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ on this thread. There is a fine line between dicussing matters, that I will admit, are very important for all Christians to know ... and trying to prove whom knows more about the scriptures. I say that just because of Axxman's response, I simply started this thread because I wanted to know personally was it morally wrong to drink, and, specifically, in a social atmosphere. Because that is where most drinking goes on, most people don't drink by themselves or alone. But I will say this, being nonpartisan, I looked at John 2, and this is what I see. The lord was at the wedding, wine ran out (a wedding is a celebration, what do many do at celebrations? They drink), and he had 6 jars filled to the brim with water and the good lord turned the water into wine, (his very first miracle after being endowed with the Holy Spirit). Verse 10 says this in my book, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guest have had too much to drink". There is no getting around that "choice" wine means wine with alcohol ... at a celebration whether it was back then or even now, hardly anyone drinks non-fermented wine. There is alcohol inside of the wine. For instance, when a person goes to a liquor store and they buy a pack of beer or a bottle of Rum, what is inferred when a person says they bought the cheap stuff ? They're talking of the price, yes, but they also are referencing the content of the alcohol inside of the beer or liquor. Usually, it is of lower quality price and alcohol content wise. Jesus would not have garnered so much praise on the wine, had not the wine been filled with some form of alcohol. The guest, I don't think would've been too impressed with a stocking of mere grape juice. And when he says "had too much to drink", I am sure he was not referring to the fact that their tiny stomach's, or intestines couldn't contain anymore liquid. The bridegroom was referring to the fact they were probably tipsy. Tipsy and drunk are different things, though tipsyness is a prelude to drunkeness. Now, I am not advocating that the lord got people drunk, but from reading the text myself, I can draw upon the conclusions that yes the wine had alcohol in it, and yes I am saying that the lord in the bible never told anyone not to drink. I think what he is saying is this, (and I am following my own advice now), to be very careful in what you consume as in the quality of the drink, and also the drink itself. If you are concerned with not getting drunk, probably not a good idea to sip on dad's famous moonshine or anything of the like. And I believe the lord is saying use sound judgment, don't drink past your limit. Most people know how much they can handle. I will also say this, if alcoholism has been a stronghold in your family, it is probably not wise to drink regularly or at all since drinking could open the door to a stronger attack on you. That's my side on things, the lord prohibits drunkeness, anywhere, and for any particular reason he feels it is not a good idea because of what can sprout because of it. When you are drunk, that little person inside of you is encouraged and fired up to do any and everything, normally, in most respects, you wouldn't do. Because now you can "blame" it on, I got drunk and that "wasn't really me". Not taking sides. I greatly respect everyone whom has responded to my topic so far. And I see where everyone is coming from, but I think just keeping this thread civil, because I did feel it meandering a little is key.

I doubt there was much of a difference in the potency of wine then as there is today. They also had beer back then, and forms of hard liquor. Look at when Jesus turned water into wine. John 2:1-10 "Jesus and his disciples were also invited to the wedding. When the wine ran short, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine." (And) Jesus said to her, "Woman, how does your concern affect me? My hour has not yet come." His mother said to the servers, "Do whatever he tells you." Now there were six stone water jars there for Jewish ceremonial washings, each holding twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus told them, "Fill the jars with water." So they filled them to the brim. Then he told them, "Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter." 6 So they took it. And when the headwaiter tasted the water that had become wine, without knowing where it came from (although the servers who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom and said to him, "Everyone serves good wine first, and then when people have drunk freely, an inferior one; but you have kept the good wine until now." Ok, so lets look at this passage. 1. Jesus and his disciples are invited to a wedding. 2. The wedding ran out of wine. 3. Jesus turned approximately 150 gallons of water into wine. 4. The wine he made was good wine (strong). That is pretty much the biblical times equivalent of a kegger right there. 150 gallons of wine is a lot of wine. Say you have 300 guests, thats about a magnum of wine each. More than enough to get everyone at the party flat out lit. More importantly though, even before Jesus turned the water into wine, everyone at the party obviously had already drank a lot of wine because they were running out. So what is the logical conclusion here. 1. There is nothing wrong with drinking. 2. There is nothing wrong with drinking a good amount of alcohol at a social event and having a good time. There is are a lot of scriptural references in the Bible on drinking, but there is a general trend with all of them. They all admonish drunkenness, especially drunkenness that results immorality. Now what does the Bible mean by drunkenness? The same thing we mean today when we refer to it. It means laying up drunk all the time, acting stupid because of it, losing your morals and good judgement because of it. If your just laying up drunk all the time, thats sinful. If you get so drunk your losing all sense of morality, thats sinful. However, obviously drinking and having a good time at a social event because of it is not sinful. Ok, this reply probably brought to light this topic with a greater clarity than most. I, honestly, have never seen it in quite that light before. We all probably are as familiar with Jesus at the wedding as we are with, going to Walmart, and I will just say; this right here made a lot of sense. Jesus was definitely at a social event, weddings receptions usually have a good deal of drinking going on. However, it's still not a pass to get sloppy drunk and wasted. Keeping with the theme, many of the guest were feeling pretty good before Jesus popped open the "best wine" which means something ... it definitely wasn't grape juice. If we can all agree on one thing, then it should be that. However, the bible is still against drunkeness, losing your inhibitions, losing your sound mind and judgment, and just acting a fool just because we "get that way". I would never drink in front of someone whom was just learning about the gospel and wanting a holy example of how to live their life. I have decided that I will not drink strongly anymore. If it's anything it is in close moderation and it will be what many men consider "girl drinks". That way I am not an enmity with god or at odds with him. Clearly, I don't want to misstep on this very serious topic, and do something I'd regret later (had plenty of that happen already), and it isn't good. I started drinking initially four years ago because of a feeling of hurt and rejection, but I honestly do like the taste of some of the stuff ... but I now refuse to get drunk anymore. I am thinking of sticking to champagne, wine and wine coolers. Havent touched anything in months, and for those out there wondering, that is why I decided and kept on drinking. I wasn't the guy at the party across town whom was known for throwing wild parties, but I tried it once and liked how some of it tasted. With the sober mind that I have now, I will be much more careful to continue to serve my lord and not violate his rules. Though I am not perfect, but I have holy intentions.

Aren't there particular sins in the Bible that where God/Jesus specifically state that sinners will burn in Hell? Can you show scriptural support for your beliefs? No, there are not ... simply because that would mean he scales sin. I don't have any passages in front of me, but that would totally back pedal on his point when he said "sin is sin" and that concerns no matter what it is. Humans with our finite and naturally judgmental minds, we are the ones whom put a price so to speak on how much one sin is worth in comparison to another. Blasphemey, however you won't see heaven for ... but why is that? It's not because of the "sin" so much as it is denying the power of god, in essence, not accepting him into your heart. The Pharisees and Scribes were both religious cults whom were big on that. They were not damned to punishment for leading people astray and being hyporcites, (though both are wrong) they were damned to eternal separation many of them, Nicodemus gets a free pass since he genuinely believed, because they did not accept Jesus as savior and the salvation he offered. Yet they claimed, that they were scholars and followed the law and god of Moses. They knew the law like the back of their hands, but they never got illumination or revelation knowledge about whom the Christ really was, or salvation for that matter. Back to your point though, the sins you probably refer to are idolatry, homosexuality and blasphemy. All of which, if you closely examine their nature are rejection of god. All sin is a rejection of god or his way doing things. The first two are an abomination of god, because they're distinctly not natural ... doesn't mean they are any worse than other sins because they aren't, but they're a misrepresentation of both god, and his plans for the relationship between the two genders. Romans: Chapter 3, Verses 21-25 (Check those out when you have time) Romans: Chapter 2, verses 9-11 James: Chapter 2, verse 10 There you go.

Really liked this reply ... but if you look a little closer to my post, I figured you probably honed in on the part where I mentioned that atheist are devoid of a moral code, however, I wrote in also "or that they dont believe in the existence of a god" which implied, that some do have morals, and some just dont believe in god. I do think questioning them on why they hold the views and morals they do would be very vital. I think one answer one may get is, "Well, everyone knows right and wrong ... society decides what is right for all people." Which would be bogus, just because nobody has or ever had that type of creativity to decide universal law, or what is good for one person and not good for another. That knowledge is definitely inspired by something or somebody. But I like what you had to say alot. You have to fight logic with logic sometimes, if you plan to get to the heart or meat of a matter. Challenge people on their beliefs and why they believe what they believe, that goes for those whom call themselves Christians, too. You'll find some interesting things.