givennewname

i hear passing gas is bad for the ozone too, so i propose the scientist invloved stop spouting hot gases from their mouth.

Rubbish. None of the prophets were talking about the end of the world; they were warning Israel of the consequences of breaking the covenant with God in keeping with their function as covenant enforcement mediators. Rufus my dear brother, You sound like the very libearl theologians who coined the word deutero-Isaiah to explain how Isaiah could have predicted the babylonian captivity and end time events which came to pass 500 years after Isaiah died. To them prophesies and miracles don't happen because God does not exist.

that is my question exactly. Paul mentions that is is so difficult to seperate us from God's love and fellowship when in realiaty almost anything can seperate us from God. Certainly riches can keep some one from God as seen in the passage where Jesus ask the rich man to leave everything behind and follow him, the guy didn't because he loved his money. there is another passage in the gospels that mention whoever that ploughs a field and looks back will never inherit the kingdom so aparently there are many attractions that can keep a man from God's love. These are just a few of the long lists of things that can keep a man from God, so why is it that Pauls says nothing can keep us from the love of God?

Rom 8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Rom 8:36 Even as it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; We were accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Rom 8:37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, Rom 8:39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Can anybody tell me what those verses mean? Who can separate us from the love of Christ? Certainly there are enough backslidden Christians who have counted the cost of following Christ and abandoned the faith.. Paul knew a few of them in Demus who loved the world more and abandoned him and Christ... So i don't really know what Paul is talking about here. He seems to be contradicting himself. 2Ti 4:10 for Demas forsook me, having loved this present world, and went to Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.

I think the Tower of Babel represents the arrpgance of man to showcase his prowess and to achievement and independence from God. For many years the leaders in Malaysia had built the Petronas twin towers in Malaysia and they were so boastful of the country's riches from oil revenues. The riches crumbled and so did the leaders. God would not tolerate such arrogance and such worship of material things. I guess the same happened to the Twin Towers in New York.

Rev 4:7 And the first creature was like a lion, and the second creature like a calf, and the third creature had a face as of a man, and the fourth creature was like a flying eagle. The Ameriacan standard version translate it as creatures. Usually beasts signify evil as the 2 beasts in Revelation and 4 beasts in Daniel. Anyway it is for the person who pose the question to clarify what he meant.

a bit confusing Larry do u mean the 4 beast of daniel or 4 beasts of revelation. the Book of revelation has only 4 horse man of the apocalyse not 4 beasts

Joh 10:10 The thief cometh not, but that he may steal, and kill, and destroy: I came that they may have life, and may have it abundantly. Can anyone who has been given abundant life please tell me what is meant exactly?? All i have found since i became a christan is abundant troubles!

So the 4 horsemen are the 4 beasts? 4 horses & 4 horseman are the the things that Jesus spoke about the end of times which would preceed his coming in Matthew 24, namely false christ, war and rumour of wars, famine and death of a 1/4 of the world's polulation either spiritually or physically. I don't find any refernece to 4 beasts in either reference in Matthew nor Revelation.

Rev 6:1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seven seals, and I heard one of the four living creatures saying as with a voice of thunder, Come. Rev 6:2 And I saw, and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon had a bow; and there was given unto him a crown: and he came forth conquering, and to conquer. Rev 6:3 And when he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, Come. Rev 6:4 And another horse came forth, a red horse: and to him that sat thereon it was given to take peace from the earth, and that they should slay one another: and there was given unto him a great sword. Rev 6:5 And when he opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature saying, Come. And I saw, and behold, a black horse; and he that sat thereon had a balance in his hand. Rev 6:6 And I heard as it were a voice in the midst of the four living creatures saying, A measure of wheat for a shilling, and three measures of barley for a shilling; and the oil and the wine hurt thou not. Rev 6:7 And when he opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, Come. Rev 6:8 And I saw, and behold, a pale horse: and he that sat upon him, his name was Death; and Hades followed with him. And there was given unto them authority over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with famine, and with death, and by the wild beasts of the earth. Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man lead you astray. Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ; and shall lead many astray. Mat 24:6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars; see that ye be not troubled: for these things must needs come to pass; but the end is not yet. Mat 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be famines and earthquakes in divers places. Mat 24:8 But all these things are the beginning of travail. Mat 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up unto tribulation, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all the nations for my name's sake. Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray. Mat 24:12 And because iniquity shall be multiplied, the love of the many shall wax cold. Mat 24:13 But he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved. If we compare scripture with scripture, In Matthew 24:5, Jesus mention that the first sign of end times would be false Christ. First horse is white.. It looks white but the rider is not Jesus, it is the advent and proliferation of false Christ. Matt 24:6, second sign is war and rumour of wars: second horse is red and Rev 6:4 says it has the power to take peace from the earth. Therefore red horse is war and rumours of war. Matt 24:7 Jesus mentions famine. Rev 6:5 says it is a black horse and the rider has balances in his hand: the rest of the verse is self explanatory: Third horse is famine. Last horse is pale, death is seen everywhere. Persecution and love of many will grow cold. Death of faith and physical death from persecution. Compare scripture with scripture and the answer is obvious!

For those who argue against a pretribulation rapture, please consider the following, In Rev 19 we see the marriage feast of the lamb: Rev 19:7 Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad, and let us give the glory unto him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. It is mentioned that the marriage feast of the Lamb happens when his wife( the church) is in heaven and this occurs in chapter 19. then a few verses later in verse 11 we see the description of the second coming of the Lord: Rev 19:11 And I saw the heaven opened; and behold, a white horse, and he that sat thereon called Faithful and True; and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. Rev 19:12 And his eyes are a flame of fire, and upon his head are many diadems; and he hath a name written which no one knoweth but he himself. Rev 19:13 And he is arrayed in a garment sprinkled with blood: and his name is called The Word of God. The Jewish wedding celebration last anything from 7 days to seven months.. if we believe that the above verses are written in chronological order, it represnts strong support for a pre-tribulational rapture.

No, she had her own fallen nature. Your is the same logic that lead to the Roman Church's conclusion that Mary was born without original sin. Mary had a human father, so how could that be? Eve did have her own fallen nature after she sinned, I agree with you, but every woman born of man has Asdam's fallen n ature because of their human fathers. Do explain how my LOGIC leads to Mary being born without original sin? When Catholicism came up with this, it had NO logic. Religion never does except that which is PURE. Christ had no human father. The human father passes on the sin nature. The conclusion came as the result of the presumption that Eve was not infused with the fallen nature, combined with the promise that Christ would be born of the seed of the woman. I don't necessarily agree with you that every woman born after Adam received Adam's fallen nature. But I do agree with yout that the fallen nature does seem to come from the male side. That's a somewhat controversial view that doesn't need to be supported by the Bible. In other words, it doesn't matter if that view is true Biblically or not. The fact is, all of humanity is in some way infused with the fallen nature. Yes all humanity man or woman inherited Adam's sin nature. In fact Paul says the woman is all the more accountable because it was her who listened to the serpent and sined first.. 1Ti 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 1Ti 2:14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 1Ti 2:15 but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.

Thank you all for yr answers.. The problem with all the answers is that it does raise more questions than it answered, which is why would a holy God overlook sin in some circumstances and why he punishes sin severely and immediately. Are some sins more serious than others? Paul say sin is sin and if one breaks one sin, he breaks them all. Why should should a holy God overlook and tolerate something he has condemned like sin of polygamy???

They had a system to provide for widows called the Levirite marriage where the brother of the deceased man married and cared for the widow.

I will start off by saying that i am not advocating that polygamy be allowed. What i am asking is why is God so tolerant of ploygamy in the Old testament and most of the patriachs had many wivies and yet God was strangely silent on the matter. Even Moses, the law giver had more than one wife.

If hypothetecally yr husband is running a meth lab out of yr basement, do u think disobeying him or not agreeing with him and nagging him will make him stop? or do u think God is more likely to alter him? I think (and this is mt personal view as a man) your husband may say no- and to a man it may mean no for the moment and maybe for the distant future. it is like prayers.. if the prayer of a rightoeus man/woman availeth much, i am sure God can change his mind. Have you prayed about it?

This is not what I'm saying. Obviously, I can't have a baby by myself, so it's not as though I can defy him on this matter if I think he's wrong. I think there can be an "upside" to almost any decision, even if he had wanted no children at all. I could still point out all sorts of "something good" outcomes. I could travel to Calcutta and work with the desparately poor if I had no chidren of my own to raise. Perhaps there is a meta-question that goes to the heart of the problem. See, I believe that choices matter. Our lives are mostly a composite of choices we have made and the influence of choices those central to our lives have made. I'll grant you we get a few wild cards that have nothing to do with our choice or another's choice, but on the whole, choices influence the vast majority of our lives. This does not square with the notion that God is in complete control. See, I think if all people actually believed that God is in charge of creating all life, there would be no such thing as birth control. Every woman would have as many children as naturally came about in the marriage. We would all be the Duggars. Since this is not the case, apparently our choices matter. Because of birth control, we can override what might naturally happen. We can have one child, or two or three or whatever happens within the new biological reality we created by controlling our own fertility. I will grant you some people have a baby against the probability, but I don't believe this is God saying, "I don't care what you think, I'm giving you a baby anyway." Because if that were true, then all the billions of babies who are not born because of birth control represent what? Babies that God was not that pressed about bringing to fruition? So, I said all that to make this one point: I believe that whether or not my husband ever goes along with having another child is not about whether or not God deems it so. It's just about *his choice*. Period. There can certainly be an "upside" to us not having any more kids. I don't have to risk losing another baby. I don't have to risk my own life - the conditions that killed my third baby could kill me also. I can focus my attention on the three I'm raising. I can do more things, I don't have to get a bigger vehicle, everyone has their own room, and on and on and on. Perhaps God knows that if we attempted to have another child, terrible things would happen and so he's keeping my husband stubborn on purpose. Maybe. But maybe my husband is just making this choice against what would be best. Maybe God is sorry we're not allowing Him to bring another wonderful child into the world. My point is, I don't think God goes around messing with it or else there'd be no such thing as efficacy rates in birth control. I see one problem here sister. if you excuse my words, I think you are a theoretical believer but a practical deaist. You believe God created the world, but have instituted laws of nature that runs the world and that he is no longer directly in charge.. maybe a story of the Prophet Jonah, whom you may be familiar with might be of some help.. God ask Jonah to preach to the city of Nineveh, who at that time was the strongest empire around and a threat to Isreal. Jonah did not think it was a good idea sice the nineveh occupants were a threat to Isreal so he ran in the opposite direction to nineveh. God sorted this man out by getting a whale to swallow him and after 3 days in hades, the prophet went to Nineveh and preachech his message like what God had told him to do in the begining and the city repented. Did Neneveh become a threat to Isreal, Yes, the 10 tribes were exiled there. Was God wrong-no, he did his purpose.

This sounds contradictory to me. If we are accountable for our own actions, we can't also say that HE answers for it if he's going against God. But it "works" much more often than it fails. I don't see a birth control failure as God saying, "See? I'm determined to bring another baby about here, so if I have to override you, I will." How can that be? That is like saying that all the birth control "successes" out there were God saying, "Eh - that's okay. I wasn't going to make a baby anyway." Michelle Duggar has spoken several times that she weans at 4 months to regain her fertility faster. Her last pregnancy could be life threatening to her and they will probably do a hyst after this one is born to prevent a rupture. Have to wait till late Dec or so to find that out though. When I nurse it takes 9 months to a year for mine to come back. Some people are earlier some are later. I know some who haven't gotten it back till the baby weaned. But to intentionally wean so you can add more and more kids wasn't exactly in Gods plan. You don't cut off the kids prime nutriion source so that you can have more. Yes birth control works more often than not, but have you looked into how it works? Not just what the doctor tells you either. Doctors seem to have this horrible issue of lying. Words like zygote and fetus are their biggest lies. Hey, that is not fair... I am a gynecologist and i do not lie to patients. I present them with accurate facts and the patient herself makes an informed decision based on the facts. Not all contreception prevent implantation. There are so called natural family planning based on timimg of the cycle, basal body temperature and cervical mucus or a combination of three which could predict ovulation. Condoms don't prevent implantation and the Oral contreceptive pill is meant to prevent ovulation, so there are many choices for contreception that may not offend yr beliefs. A woman can return to fertility as early as 6 weeks after delivery and lactation does delay ovulation but breast feeding must be used exclusively to make this work. As long as one keeps up the breast feeding, fertility is not restored. I think birth control and family planning is not exclusively used to prevent pregnancies, although a big part of my practice , it is meant for that very purpose. Family planning means having children with optimum time periods between each child in order that mum is in the best of health to have a baby and to manage the baby so that each baby has the maximum care that it deserves. As to preventing pregnancies, i see so man teenage unplanned pregnancies i give thanks when a teenager does come to me for a prescripton and not end up with an unwanted pregnancy. That is my 2 cents worth ladies..

to answer your question in a different way... the implication could be (and is by at least one member) that this disproves the Trinity and supports Oneness. Father is not = son is not = to the Spirit. Or else Jesus when Praying to the Father in the Garden of gesthsemene is praying or talking to himself and also when Jesus is on earth, who is in heaven??

The Bible never asked that a christian be taken advantage of. Even the Mosaic laws are not punitive in nature.. it is about restitution.. restoring the situation as close back to the original situation.. If you tear a shirt, but him a new one. If you rape a virgin, her father gets a bridal dowry and the person marries the girl. It is about restitution..

Thanks for your post. FWIW, I do believe that the wife is called to submit to the leadership of the husband. But where I part company, or am just plain confused, is when the husband is not going in a direction that is good. I do not believe that, by submitting to my husband, that means he automatically will do the correct thing, or lead the right way. My husband is a good and kind man, but there is such a thing as men "leading" a woman totally the wrong way. God does not (necessarily) prevent such a situation from occurring. There are any number of reasons why I want more children and not all of them point to God. However, the same thing could be said for him not wanting more children. See? This is where I go around and around in a dizzying loop. I do think, if there is any answer for me, it's only what you said. Pray. That's all. Man, it would be pretty idiotic if he was saying he doesn't want any more kids, but he was leaving it open to happening. If we were using no birth control, why would I even be on here saying this? I would either be pregnant or I would be not conceiving for natural reasons. Why would you only submit to yr husband only on condition if you think he is right? do you not think God could make a wrong decision made by yr husband into something good? God is still in control even if you have a silly husband.... that is what i tell my wife

I don't see why asking the other party to pay is any less christian or any less of a witness.. It is making the other party more responsible for their driving and let them think twice about being so freckless because the next time, they may not hit a truck but an innocent child or they may take a life with their reckless driving! They hit, they pay....

Je sus was answering the Saducees- those who believe only the first 5 books of Moses are valid. they do not believe the rest of the writings of the prophets and neither do they believe in ressurection because Moses does not specifically mention resurrection in the first 5 books of the Torah. so they pose this hypothetical question to Jesus, if a woman marries 7 brothers in sucession and all of them dies and finally the woman dies, who is her legal husband when they are all resuurected, that is if ressurection exist. Jesus has to find the answer in the first 5 books. Jesus answered them by quoting Moses in exodus: Not the word "I am" the God of Abraham. God uses the present tense, which means that Abraham still exist and not existed in the past. God is still the God o Abraham because Abraham is not dead but still alive. I am is still the name of God- God of the living and not God of the dead.

Dear Brother PA, I think the scripture Matt 5:32 is quoted wrongly. This is from the American Standard version: Mat 5:32 but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery. King James version: Mat 5:32 But1161 I1473 say3004 unto you,5213 That3754 whosoever3739, 302 shall put away630 his848 wife,1135 saving for3924 the cause3056 of fornication,4202 causeth4160 her846 to commit adultery:3429 and2532 whosoever3739, 1437 shall marry1060 her that is divorced630 committeth adultery.3429 Both versions say that excepy for the reason of fornication and not adultery; ie the bride was not a virgin entering into the marriage, all other grounds for divorce is not valid. The reason is rthat the marriage contract is not valid, which is the ground that Joseph could have divorced Mary legally because she is found to be with child. G4202 πορνεία porneia Thayer Definition: 1) illicit sexual intercourse 1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. 1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18 1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12 1Co 7:11 (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband); and that the husband leave not his wife. 1Co 7:12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her. 1Co 7:13 And the woman that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell with her, let her not leave her husband. 1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 1Co 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace Based on 1Cor 7:15 if the unbeliever partner abandons the believer, then a divorce is allowed.

Just a little history . . . Alexander the Great, the he goat of Daniel 8:5, entered the region between 334 -333 B.C. which 2300 years latter would place at 1966 -1967. 1967 was an important year inasmuch as the seven day war allowed Israel to regain control of the temple mount . . . . Da 8:5 And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west on the face of the whole earth, and touched not the ground: and the goat had a notable horn between his eyes. 13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? 14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. The verses refer to antiochus epiphenes and not Alexander the Great. He did not enter nor defile the Temple. Please support your assertion with scriptural or historical facts. Plus, it would be interesting to see Larry refute you . . . http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp...32&letter=J High priest at the time of the Second Temple. According to Neh. xii. 11, his father's name was Jonathan, but according to verse 22 of the same chapter, it was Johanan. If both of these names are correct, and if Johanan was the son of Jonathan, or vice versa, Jaddua belonged to the sixth generation after Jeshua, the first high priest who returned from the Exile; but if "Jonathan" and "Johanan" refer to one person, then Jaddua was of the fifth generation. A certain Jaddus, son of Joannes, whose brother Manasseh married Sanballat's daughter, officiated at the time of Alexander the Great (Josephus, "Ant." xi. 7,